Milimani Magistrate’s Court has ruled that each of the four suspects linked to the alleged abduction of Juja Member of Parliament George Koimburi be released on a bond of Sh1 million plus one surety of a similar amount.
Alternatively, they may secure their release by posting a cash bail of Sh300,000.
Magistrate Carolyne Nyaguthii issued the ruling after reviewing submissions from both the prosecution and the defence.
“However, the court cannot ignore the fact that the likely charges facing the respondents are serious, and there is a need to ensure that the investigations are not jeopardised,” she noted.
In addition to the bail terms, the magistrate imposed several pre-charge conditions.
The respondents, Peter Kiratu, David Macharia Gatana, Cyrus Kieru Muhia, and Grace Nduta Wairimu, were barred from contacting any witnesses, directly or indirectly, including through proxies, to prevent interference with the ongoing investigation.
They were also directed to report to the investigating officer, Nicholas Njoroge, weekly or whenever summoned, until further orders from the court.
DCI had initially asked the court to detain the suspects for 15 days.
The case stems from an incident on May 25, 2025, when George Koimburi was reported missing after attending a church service at Full Gospel Ebenezer Church in Mugutha area.
Witnesses and videos circulating online showed Koimburi being bundled into a Subaru Forester.
The incident sparked national concern and prompted swift reactions from political leaders and the public.
Police told the court that Koimburi, who remains hospitalised, had yet to record a formal statement with investigators.
In their application to detain the suspects for 15 days, investigating officer Nicholas Njoroge had argued that the continued custody was necessary to obtain the medical report from Karen Hospital, secure a formal statement from Koimburi, and trace and arrest other suspects believed to be linked to the incident.
He also cited concerns that releasing the respondents could compromise the investigation.
The defence, however, opposed the application, arguing that the police had already interrogated the respondents and seized their electronic gadgets, making further detention unnecessary.
They contended that the medical report could be obtained independently of the respondents’ continued custody and emphasised their clients’ willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
