Deputy Inspector General of Police Gilbert Masengeli has appeared before Justice Lawrence Mugambi in an attempt to purge his contempt and defend his failure to appear in court. The case has garnered widespread attention, particularly with the personal appearance of Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, supported by Chief State Counsels Emmanuel Bita and Charles Mutinda. Masengeli’s defense argued that his nonappearance in court was not deliberate, citing pressing national security matters as the reason for his absence.
Masengeli’s contempt of court stems from his failure to produce a detainee as ordered by the court. As a senior police official, this incident has attracted significant attention, leading to legal challenges by both sides of the case. The Kenya Police Force, as one of the nation’s highest authorities, is expected to comply with court orders, and failure to do so raises concerns regarding accountability within the system.
In addressing the court, Masengeli’s legal team, led by Advocates Cecil Miller and Steve Ogolla, emphasized that the seven-day window for him to purge his contempt had not yet expired. They argued that it was premature to sanction him before the full period had lapsed. Moreover, they pointed out that Masengeli had taken steps to comply with the court’s orders and should be given an opportunity to explain his actions.
The matter became even more complicated when the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) contested Masengeli’s defense. Represented by seasoned lawyer Nelson Havi, the LSK argued that the court no longer had jurisdiction to entertain Masengeli’s application due to his appeal against the conviction and sentence. According to Havi, the legal principle in such cases is clear: once an appeal is filed, lower courts should refrain from hearing further matters related to the case until the appeal is resolved.
“This court can only hear from Masengeli on how he has complied with the order for production. If he has complied, then these proceedings must be terminated or held in abeyance awaiting the outcome of the two appeals he has lodged,” Havi submitted to the court, underlining that the ongoing proceedings could not continue unless there was proof of compliance with the court’s previous orders.
In response, Attorney General Dorcas Oduor sought to clarify the position of the Deputy Inspector General. Oduor argued that while Masengeli failed to appear in court as ordered, his absence was not an act of defiance. She explained that the police boss had been attending to sensitive national security matters, which were of utmost importance.
“We are not excusing the failure of Masengeli to appear in court but to demonstrate that it was not deliberate,” Oduor argued, defending Masengeli’s focus on national security over a court appearance.
Judge Lawrence Mugambi, after hearing both sides, took a measured approach to the matter. He noted that the court must act in the spirit of fairness and justice, and denying Masengeli an audience would go against these principles. In his judgment, Judge Mugambi said, “I will be going against my orders if I deny him audience as urged by LSK. This is a court of justice and must act fairly.”
The judge’s comments reflect the delicate balance courts must strike between enforcing orders and ensuring justice is served. Given that Masengeli had initiated an appeal and was still within the seven-day window to purge his contempt, Mugambi agreed that it was only right to give him a chance to address the court and rectify his actions.
The presence of the Attorney General, a rare occurrence in such cases, underscored the importance of the matter. Dorcas Oduor’s involvement signals the gravity of the situation, particularly concerning the intersection between law enforcement and the judiciary. National security, while vital, cannot be used as an excuse to ignore court orders, and the case has raised questions about how top-ranking officials navigate these competing responsibilities.
As the proceedings continue, it remains to be seen how Masengeli will comply with the court’s orders and whether the appeal process will alter the course of the case. For now, Justice Mugambi’s decision to grant Masengeli a platform to explain himself reflects the court’s commitment to fairness, even in cases involving powerful figures in law enforcement.
