Mumias East MP Peter Salasya, when he appeared before the court on Wednesday, June 4, 2025 /FILEMumias East MP Peter Salasya has asked the court to allow his hate speech case to be settled outside the courtroom, even as the prosecution confirmed that the file is under review by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The case resumed on Thursday, September 4, before Principal Magistrate Paul Mutai, with a hearing in his case scheduled, but it was not ready to proceed with the trial.
Salasya, who was present, disclosed that he had taken steps to write formally in a bid to have the matter resolved through alternative means.
“I have written a letter to the DPP so that this matter can be resolved outside court,” the MP told the magistrate, signaling his preference for an out-of-court resolution instead of undergoing a full trial.
The court pressed the prosecution on why the DPP had not already concluded a review before preferring charges against the legislator.
In response, the prosecution noted that reviews are continuous processes that may be undertaken whenever circumstances change.
“The issue of review is always an ongoing process. Sometimes circumstances change, and as per the DPP Act, it is within our mandate,” the prosecution stated.
Following the submissions, Magistrate Mutai granted the DPP 30 days to consider the review application and provide guidance.
The matter was adjourned to October 8, 2025, for directions.
Salasya was arrested in May and charged with making inciting remarks during political rallies.
He was released on a Sh500,000 bond with an alternative of Sh200,000 cash bail.
At the time, authorities alleged he had made hate speech utterances while traveling from political engagements in Meru and Isiolo counties and on his way to rallies in Nanyuki.
This marks another time the hearing has been adjourned.
On July 30, proceedings were halted after lawyers failed to attend a scheduled court session, further delaying its progress.
Salasya told the court that one of his lawyers was unwell, while the other was attending to a different matter in another courtroom.
The magistrate also raised concern over the prosecution’s failure to produce their witness physically, despite earlier indications that the testimony would be delivered virtually.
