The Kiambu High Court has granted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) permission to recall a key witness in the ongoing trial concerning the 2019 Dusit D2 terror attack. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the case against three men—Mire Abdulahi, Hussein Mohamed Abdile, and Mohamed Abdi Ali—who face serious charges, including committing acts of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of 21 people.
Judge Dorah Chepkwony set aside the earlier decision of the trial court, which had refused to allow Chief Inspector Joseph Kolum to present crucial forensic evidence obtained from the accused’s mobile phones. The prosecution argued that this evidence is vital for establishing the accused persons’ involvement in the heinous attack, which has had lasting implications for national security in Kenya.
The background to this case is fraught with complexity. Following the Dusit D2 attack, authorities recovered approximately 177 mobile phones and other relevant materials from Mucatha village in Kiambu County. The prosecution contends that the exploitation of these devices led to the identification and arrest of the accused. However, the defense has vehemently opposed the use of this electronic evidence, asserting that it was obtained without a proper search warrant and should therefore be deemed inadmissible.
In her ruling, Judge Chepkwony emphasized the critical importance of national security and public safety, stating, “The right to privacy is fundamental but not absolute and can be limited under certain circumstances.” She criticized the trial court for overlooking the broader implications of allowing illegal evidence to dictate the course of the trial, especially given Kenya’s history of suffering severe repercussions from terrorism.
The judge noted that Kenya has faced numerous terror threats that have resulted in tragic loss of life, economic devastation, and widespread fear among the populace. Given these realities, she argued that urgent action is necessary when national security is at stake. “The threat to national security and public safety during and after the Dusit 2 attack must have necessitated urgent action, and the evidence obtained was crucial for the prosecution of the serious offences faced by the accused persons,” she asserted.
The decision to allow Chief Inspector Kolum to testify is a critical victory for the prosecution, as it opens the door for potentially damning evidence that could significantly impact the trial’s outcome. With the prosecution having already called 45 witnesses in their case, the ability to recall Kolum and introduce this key evidence could strengthen their position considerably.
The accused men, who are facing a range of charges including conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism and aiding and abetting terrorism, now find themselves at a crucial juncture in the legal process. The prosecution has closed its case but retains the right to recall witnesses as necessary before the court determines whether the accused have a case to answer.
This ruling has broader implications not only for the Dusit D2 case but also for the ongoing fight against terrorism in Kenya. The court’s acknowledgment of the complex interplay between individual rights and national security sets a precedent for future cases that may grapple with similar issues. As the trial progresses, it remains to be seen how this new evidence will influence the proceedings and whether it will lead to a decisive outcome in a case that has captured national attention.
In conclusion, the Kiambu High Court’s ruling is a reminder of the challenging balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring public safety in the face of terrorism. The introduction of this key evidence may very well be the turning point in the trial, underscoring the critical role of judicial decisions in shaping the landscape of justice in Kenya.
