A court will rule on December 11, 2025, whether it will grant the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) additional days to detain 26 individuals suspected of issuing irregular national identification documents pending investigations.
The suspects among them civil servants from the National Registration Bureau (NRB), the Directorate of Immigration Services, chiefs and freelance brokers, were arrested between December 5 and 6 in a multi-agency intelligence-led sting operation by detectives from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Anti-Terrorism Police Unit (ATPU).
They appeared before a Kahawa West magistrate's court on Monday where the prosecution asked for more time to investigate their activities.
The operation followed intelligence reports linking the group to a criminal network believed to facilitate the illegal acquisition of Kenyan documents, including for individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism.
According to the miscellaneous application, the DCI, through Corporal Lawrence Kiniti said the racket involved the irregular issuance of passports, national IDs, and other vital documents, some allegedly granted to individuals believed to be associated with terror cells across Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania and Uganda.
Investigators recovered a trove of government materials during the raids, including filled and blank ID application forms, fingerprint extraction tools, birth and death certificates, foreigner certificates, government stamps, passports, and multiple mobile phones.
Some suspects said Kiniti were also found with cheque books, company documents, and financial records that detectives say will be scrutinised for possible links to illicit payments from terror sympathisers.
Police told the court the syndicate posed a significant national security threat, alleging that some suspects had been in communication with foreign terror operatives and received funds from ISIS-linked individuals to facilitate illegal documentation, recruitment and movement of suspects across borders.
In their application, police asked the court to grant them 10 working days to detain all respondents at Capitol Hill Police Station, toconduct forensic analysis of seized phones and electronic gadgets, obtain call data records and mobile money statements from service providers and to verify the authenticity of recovered documents with the Registrar of Persons, Immigration and Births and Deaths offices.
They also wanted to conduct ID parades, trace and apprehend accomplices still at large, record statements from witnesses who investigators say may face interference if suspects are released.
Kiniti argued that releasing the respondents would jeopardize ongoing investigations, warning that some of them were “closely known” to witnesses and could compromise evidence “electronically and remotely.”
Defence lawyers on their end accused the prosecution of abusing constitutional safeguards and attempting to convert the court into an investigative arm of the police.
They argued that the application, grounds, and supporting affidavits amounted to an “abuse of legal process,” insisting that no lawful basis had been provided to justify holding the suspects any longer.
The lawyers said that the police had already detained the suspects for three days and could not now return to court seeking 10 additional working days.
They argued that investigators were attempting to use the court to cure their own investigative lapses.
They argued that the mention of terrorism appeared only once in the file and had no factual backing.The defence also questioned the jurisdiction of the court, urging the magistrate to “down its tools.”
They maintained that suspicion alone could not justify detention.
“Suspicion is not enough. No ground has been laid to demonstrate why these persons were arrested. They should apologise for arresting these people without charges,” one advocate argued.
They further faulted the prosecution for claiming they needed time to conduct an identification parade, saying the exercise was illogical since the suspects were already known to investigators.
“What is the essence of an ID parade when the prosecution arrested these people at their workplaces and homes?” counsel said.
The lawyers also pointed out that the law does not require a suspect to appear before a criminal court unless formally charged.
They asked the court to strike out the application in its entirety, arguing that the reasons presented were not convincing"Conjecture does not fall anywhere in this categorisation. Reasons must be strong, compelling and beyond reasonable control,” they submitted.
One of the lawyers pleaded for the immediate release of the 3rd respondent, saying that if the court required time to write its ruling, the accused should not be made to suffer in custody.
Another lawyer sought leniency for the 2nd respondent, saying he is a family man with a young family and could comply with any reporting orders the court might issue.
The court also heard a plea concerning one of the respondents, described as “a proud mother who underwent a C-section on November 3, 2024, for a pre-term baby.”
Her lawyer argued that prolonged detention would endanger both her health and the wellbeing of her newborn.
The court ordered that she be released on a Sh500,000 bond pending the ruling.
Magistrate Gideon Kiage directed her to report to investigators whenever required and to keep away from her workplace until the investigations conclude.
Kiage also ordered that all suspects with medical conditions be granted access to treatment and monitored as required.
Comments 0
Sign in to join the conversation
Sign In Create AccountNo comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!