A man was Thursday April 10 charged with impersonating President William Ruto’s daughter, June Ruto.
Samwel Mogwasi Mainga was arrested on Wednesday in Mombasa on allegations of identity theft and impersonation contrary to Section 29 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act 2018.
He was on Thursday arraigned at the Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi, where the police sought seven more days to detain him pending completion of investigations.
Directorate and Criminal Investigations (DCI) officer Peter Mwangi, in an affidavit sworn in court, said; “due to the nature and the complexity of this matter it requires more days to obtain some vital information/documents in relationship to the case.”
According to Mwangi, the police still need time to retrieve documents related to the suspect’s Facebook account, record statements from witnesses, and ensure that the suspect does not flee the jurisdiction of the court since his residence is yet to be established.
The court will rule on the application by the police to continue holding Mainga on Friday April 11.
Meanwhile, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) filed an appeal at the Migori High Court challenging the acquittal of three police officers previously charged with torture.
In the appeal, the DPP is seeking a review of the trial court’s decision and is urging the High Court to overturn the acquittal of officers Peter Langat, Peter Nyakundi, and Gilbert Aleka.
The DPP requested that the acquittal be substituted with convictions and appropriate sentencing.
The three officers were accused of torturing Edward Ondiek Amayo on May 24, 2022 while in custody at Homa Bay Police Station, in Homa Bay County.
The charges were brought under Section 4(a)(i) as read with Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Torture Act, No. 12 of 2017.
The trial court acquitted the officers under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the appeal, the DPP said the trial magistrate contravened Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code by issuing a judgment that lacked legal grounding and was instead influenced by personal opinion and discretion, despite clear statutory sentencing provisions.
The DPP further argued that the magistrate erred in concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal emphasized that the evidence presented—including testimony from 10 prosecution witnesses—was sufficient to establish the officers’ culpability.
According to the DPP, both prosecution witnesses and the accused persons confirmed that the complainant had been in the officers’ custody, yet the court failed to draw appropriate legal conclusions from this admission.
The DPP urged the High Court to review the evidence on record, set aside the acquittal, and enter a conviction against the three officers
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
