A Nakuru court has granted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) permission to withdraw charges against former Mungiki leader Maina Njenga and 11 co-accused, following a decision by the prosecution to discontinue the case due to insufficient evidence.
Njenga and his co-accused had faced several serious charges, including leading the outlawed Mungiki gang, plotting criminal activities on May 11, 2023, and possessing firearms, ammunition, and cannabis.
However, after reviewing the case, Principal Magistrate Kipkurui Kibelion ruled that there was not enough evidence to proceed, discharging Njenga and his co-accused, and ordering the refund of their Sh50,000 cash bail.
In his ruling, Magistrate Kibelion emphasized that the prosecution had voluntarily admitted that it lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. The court found that testimony from nine witnesses failed to support any of the 12 charges against the accused.
“The prosecution deemed it necessary to discontinue the case. It would be an abuse of court to proceed without evidence,” Magistrate Kibelion stated, highlighting the legal requirement for evidence to proceed with criminal charges.
Case Withdrawn Under Section 87A
The case was officially withdrawn under Section 87A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for the possibility of reopening the case if new evidence comes to light. In the same ruling, the court also ordered the return of mobile phones and other personal items seized from the accused during the investigation.
The trial of Maina Njenga, which had garnered significant media attention, was marked by high drama and a large public turnout. A screen was set up outside the courthouse to accommodate Njenga’s supporters who gathered to follow the proceedings. The police had imposed strict barriers to manage the crowd during the trial.
Challenges in the Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution’s case began to unravel when Njenga’s mother-in-law, Hannah Njoki, collapsed in court on November 20, 2023, before she could testify.
Njoki was expected to confirm that the Wanyororo house in Nakuru, which was raided by police on May 12, 2023, belonged to Njenga. However, Njenga denied ownership of the property.
During the raid, police had seized a pistol, a toy gun, a magazine containing three nine-millimeter bullets, 96 rolls of suspected cannabis, and 1kg of tobacco.
Despite these seizures, Prosecutor Wycliff Omwenga admitted that the unwillingness of Njoki to testify, combined with the failure of other witnesses to provide support, left the prosecution unable to substantiate the charges.
Furthermore, Omwenga confirmed that 20 other witnesses, initially lined up to testify, also chose not to come forward, which significantly weakened the case against the accused.
The prosecutor also disclosed that the raid was never recorded in the police Occurrence Book (OB), raising serious questions about its legality.
Defence Lawyers Question Legality of the Raid
Defence lawyer Ndegwa Njiru argued that the failure to record the raid in the OB rendered it illegal. Njiru further urged the court to dismiss the case under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which would prevent any future prosecution on the same charges.
He also suggested that the case was politically motivated and lacked any factual basis.
No Evidence Linking Njenga to the Alleged Crimes
The charges against Njenga and his co-accused were primarily based on the claim that they were gang members involved in criminal activities between May 12 and May 18, 2023.
However, despite the testimony of nine witnesses, including the police officers involved in the raid, no evidence was presented to directly link Njenga to the alleged crimes.
None of the witnesses could confirm that Njenga was present at the scene of the raid, and the court recorded that no individuals were found committing any offense during the raid, contradicting key aspects of the charge sheet.
The withdrawal of charges against Maina Njenga and his co-accused underscores the importance of sufficient evidence in ensuring a fair trial.
The case has sparked widespread debate, with critics questioning the motivations behind the charges and the handling of the investigation.
For now, the legal victory for Njenga and his co-accused is a testament to the judicial system’s commitment to ensuring that cases based on insufficient evidence are not pursued at the expense of the accused’s rights.
The court’s decision also raises important questions about the conduct of law enforcement and the role of political influence in criminal prosecutions.
As the legal process moves forward, Njenga and his supporters are likely to continue calling for accountability regarding the charges that were brought against him.
About the Author
