A Nairobi court is today set to deliver a ruling on whether Police Constable James Mukhwana will be detained for 21 days pending investigations into the death of blogger and teacher Albert Ojwang, who died in police custody.
The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) is seeking Mukhwana’s extended detention at the Capitol Hill Police Station, citing concerns that he may interfere with investigations.
IPOA also raised alarm over tampered CCTV footage and warned of the “blue code of silence” within the police service, suggesting that releasing Mukhwana could obstruct justice.
However, his lawyer Danstan Omari dismissed the claims as speculative, urging the court to grant bail with reasonable terms such as barring him from the Central Police Station.
Omari further challenged IPOA’s authority to prosecute, asserting that the mandate lies with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).
Milimani Magistrate Robinson Ondieki will rule on the matter today.
Meanwhile, a separate ruling on whether web developer and activist Rose Njeri will be required to take a plea over charges of unauthorised interference with a computer system is also expected today.
Njeri, who was released on a Sh100,000 personal bond on June 3, faces accusations under Section 16 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act.
This is following her involvement in the development of the civic email platform, which was aimed at facilitating public feedback on the Finance Bill 2025.
The ruling by Milimani Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo will determine if the charges proceed to trial.
Njeri's team of lawyers, including former Chief Justice David Maraga and political leaders Kalonzo Musyoka and Eugene Wamalwa, had challenged the charges as defective and unconstitutional.
They argued that Parliament’s email was expressly set up for public participation, and Njeri's actions were within her constitutional rights.
"The charge sheet ought to disclose an offence known in law to enable the accused to be able to take a plea," the defence counsel submitted.
The prosecution, however, maintained that the case should be allowed to proceed, insisting the charge sheet provides sufficient particulars.
They argued that the questions raised by the defence, such
as whether Parliament intended the alleged acts to constitute an offence, are
issues that should be addressed at trial, not at the preliminary stage.
