•Justice Ngaah has directed him to file the substantive motion within seven days and serve it to the respondents.
•The case shall be mentioned on March 8 for further directions.
Image: FILE
The high court on Wednesday suspended the summons issued by the DCI to city lawyer Danstan Omari to appear at their offices for questioning over former Interior CS Fred Matiangi’s house raid.
Justice Jairus Ngaah certified the matter as urgent and issued a stay of the summons issued by the DCI and further granted him leave to file a substantive application.
Justice Ngaah has directed him to file the substantive motion within seven days and serve it to the respondents.
The case shall be mentioned on March 8 for further directions.
In the application filed in court, Omari argues that the police and the DCI are acting in bad faith as they are not acting on a legitimate complaint either by his client or any other complainant and there is no justification for commencing investigations against him.
Through Lawyer Dorcas Mwae, Omari has questioned why the DCI has not summoned Matiang’i himself or Azimio leader Raila Odinga for questioning.
“Quite telling is the fact that neither the client nor Raila Amolo Odinga has been summoned to record their statements despite the latter addressing the media on the night of the raid,” reads court papers.
He argues that the police have only singled out an Advocate who was rendering professional legal services for Matiang’i who was under real apprehension that they had set out to arrest him in the wee hours of the night with a view of harassing him.
Omari says the summons by DCI is a clear attempt to victimize an advocate for a spirited defense of his client and is only meant to harass, silence and intimidate him.
He maintains that the summon is an affront to the functionality of Advocates by intruding on the privileged information they receive from their clients and an attempt to intimidate advocate(s) who take up politically instigated cases to divulge information touching on their client pleas and atrocities.
“The Notice is therefore a clear attempt to victimize me for putting up a spirited defense for my client and is only meant to harass, silence and intimidate me, and by extension all Advocates of the High Court from exercising their noble duty of advancing the rule of law,” Omari argues.
According to court papers, the nature of the information that the advocate is required to give, as per the said notice, is privileged under section 134 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of Kenya and the said privilege has not been waived by Matiang’i’s express consent.