Businessman Jimi Wanjigi was released on a personal bond of Sh10 million by a Magistrates Court in Nairobi, pending a ruling on his request to defer plea-taking on allegations of possessing unlicensed firearms. The decision was made by Chief Magistrate Susan Shitubi, who also ordered Wanjigi to deposit his passport in court until a ruling is delivered on September 12. This development follows a contentious legal battle involving allegations of illegal firearm possession and claims of court order violations.
Wanjigi, a prominent businessman and political figure, has been at the center of legal controversy after being accused of possessing unlicensed firearms. His legal team, led by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, former Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka, and lawyer Willis Otieno, has challenged the charges, arguing that their client’s rights were infringed upon. They claim that a High Court order issued by Justice Bahati Mwamuye had barred his arrest and detention, making the recent proceedings flawed.
During the court session, Muite emphasized the importance of respecting judicial orders and highlighted that Wanjigi’s arrest was conducted in violation of an existing court order. He argued that the plea-taking should be postponed to address these legal discrepancies. “Allow the plea to be postponed to give us an opportunity to challenge the High Court for the reason that when he was arrested, there was a valid court order,” Muite asserted. His comments underscored the gravity of the alleged judicial misconduct and the need for a thorough examination of the case.
The legal team’s concerns were further amplified by Otieno, who questioned the legitimacy of the charges against Wanjigi. He pointed out that the only items confiscated during the police raid on Wanjigi’s home were iPhones, iPads, and three flags—items that were seized without a search warrant. Otieno expressed frustration over the alleged procedural errors, stating, “But this was still done in the absence of a search warrant. Now they want to present a charge in court for disobedience of court orders?” His remarks reflect a broader contention over the legality and fairness of the actions taken against Wanjigi.
Additionally, Otieno raised issues regarding Wanjigi’s alleged detention incommunicado, asserting that his client had been held without access to legal representation or communication. This claim adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal dispute, as it touches on fundamental rights and procedural fairness.
The court’s decision to release Wanjigi on a personal bond while retaining his passport highlights the contentious nature of the case. The ruling on September 12 will be pivotal in determining whether Wanjigi’s plea-taking will proceed or if further legal challenges will alter the course of the proceedings. The outcome will also have implications for the broader legal framework concerning the enforcement of court orders and the handling of such high-profile cases.
As the legal battle continues, Wanjigi’s case remains a focal point of public and legal interest, raising questions about judicial oversight, the protection of individual rights, and the integrity of law enforcement practices. The upcoming ruling will be crucial in addressing these issues and shaping the future trajectory of the case.
