ABDIKADIR ABDULLAHI AHMED VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS ABDIKADIR ABDULLAHI AHMED VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

On 7^th October, 2024 the matter came up for further hearing of the police officer called by the DPP and the Hon. AG who was to provide the court with an update on the investigations into the disappearance of the subject.
The police officer C.I. JARED SEKO No. 236165 informed the court that investigations were still ongoing but there were challenges that they had encountered in getting information from persons he described as ‘’persons of interest’’.
MR. MUTUMA Prosecution Counsel teaming up with Ms. Mwangi State Counsel DPP and the Attorney General moved the court to have the officer give that information in camera.
The court granted the application for camera proceedings in camera after hearing Counsel for both parties.
The proceedings in camera proceeded with the police officer and two (2) of the subjects’ relatives being heard.
At the end of the session Ms. Mwangi for the Honourable Attorney General moved the court to terminate the proceedings since, according to her, the State had explained through the officers that they did not have the subject in their custody.
According to Ms. Mwangi there was no need for further proceedings.
MR. MUTUMA for the DPP supported the submissions of Ms. Mwangi and urged the court to terminate the proceedings at that stage.
MR. OMARI and MR. WAMBUI who appeared for the applicant and the LSK respectively held a contrary view.
In their submissions, Counsel pleaded with the court not to terminate the proceedings at that stage for they believed the police were far from providing satisfactory answers as to the whereabouts of the subject.
They urged the court to keep the matter alive to allow the officers conclude the investigations.
MS. MWANGI for the Attorney General argued that this is not the function of the High Court to direct the police on how to conduct their investigations and in her view this court should restrict itself to the scope of habeas corpus.
I have considered the rival submissions by Counsel for the parties and whereas the court agrees with the counsel for the AG that under Article 245(4) (a) of the constitution the Inspector General of the National Police Service is not subject to the direction of anyone other than the Director of public prosecutions under Article 157(4) with respect to the investigation of any offence or the enforcement of the law against any particular person or persons, the court has the authority under Articles 23, 160 and 165 of the constitution to inquire into the manner of the exercise of that authority.
Habeas corpus applications deal with the questions of life, liberty, security of the person and the right of a subject to enjoy enough protection of the law.
The Bill of Rights has very fundamental importance in our constitutional democracy and courts of law must ensure that all persons enjoy their rights to the fullest extent and where issues of the security of a person are involved, the courts must be prepared to hold everyone to account.
It is for this reason that the court declines the application by Counsel for the AG and the DPP to terminate the proceedings at this stage.
The application has not been prosecuted by the applicant and what the court has so far heard are representations by the respondents who volunteered to do so orally besides filing an affidavit.

The representatives of the Hon. AG and the DPP may now elect to adopt the information that has so far been placed on record if they do not have anything more to inform this court.
The application shall proceed to full hearing on 23/10/2024
It is so ordered.

ABDIKADIR ABDULLAHI AHMED VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

Details

Related decisions