Former cabinet minister Raphael Tuju present for plea taking on charges of falsifying information at Kibera law courts, Nairobi on April 8, 2026/LEAH MUKANGAI
A Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) officer investigating the case against former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju has told a Kibera court that a person could not be abducted while inside his own residence.
Sergeant Moses Mongera, a DCI investigator attached to Karen, made the remarks on Tuesday while being cross-examined in the case in which Tuju is facing a charge of giving false information.
Mongera was explaining the circumstances surrounding police surveillance at Tuju’s residence in Karen after a report was made that the former cabinet secretary was missing.
The officer told the court that on March 23, 2026, he reported to Karen police station at around 6am and was assigned two officers to conduct surveillance at Tuju’s residence in Mwitu, Karen.
He said the assignment followed a report made the previous day concerning Tuju, with police also having received information that he had allegedly been trailed days earlier.
According to Mongera, the Officer Commanding DCI Karen directed him to conduct surveillance while officers waited for a court order that would allow them to enter the residence and establish whether Tuju had been abducted.
“We were to do surveillance as we wait for a court order. Surveillance entails monitoring to get the truth,” he told the court.
Mongera said officers arrived at the residence and remained outside the gate because they were denied access.
At around 11am, he said, about five vehicles, including Land Cruisers, arrived and were allowed into the compound.
At approximately 1.30pm, he alleged Tuju emerged from the residence accompanied by several lawyers, including Kalonzo Musyoka.
Mongera said police officers informed their superiors, who later arrived and addressed the lawyers before Tuju was escorted to Karen Police Station to record a statement.
It was at the station, the officer said, that Tuju was arrested and subsequently charged with giving false information.
Asked by the prosecution whether a person could be abducted while inside his own residence, Mongera responded: “Nobody can be abducted in his residence.”
During cross-examination, Tuju’s lawyer challenged the officer on the basis of the missing-person report and whether police had actually established that Tuju was missing.
However, the officer admitted that he was stationed at the gate and did not personally see Tuju inside the house.
“I did not see him,” he told the court when asked whether he had seen Tuju at the residence before he emerged later in the day.
The defence also questioned Mongera over inconsistency in his account of the reports that triggered the police operation.
He initially said the missing-person report had been made by Tuju’s son, Manu, but after being shown the report, he said it had been made by a security guard from West Nairobi School.
Mongera was also unable to clearly state who had made an earlier report concerning Tuju allegedly being trailed.
He said he was aware of two reports linked to the matter: one concerning the alleged trailing of Tuju’s vehicle and another involving a missing person or abandoned vehicle.
The DCI officer also faced questions over the number of vehicles that arrived at Tuju’s residence, giving differing accounts during his testimony.
While he initially told the court that five vehicles arrived at the compound, his written statement indicated that six vehicles had arrived, prompting the defence to highlight the discrepancy during cross-examination.
The prosecution indicated that it had about 10 witnesses remaining, while the defence asked the prosecution to scale down the number of witnesses to shorten the trial.
The prosecution acknowledged the request and said it would consider it.
The matter will resume on September 10, 2026 for further hearing.
