Deputy Inspector General of Police Eliud Kipkoech Lagat now wants the High Court to dismiss a petition linking him to the alleged abduction, torture, and death of Albert Omondi Ojwang.
Through his lawyer, Cecil Miller, the DIG told the court that the claims made by the petitioners are “grave, defamatory and entirely unsupported by any credible evidence.”
In submissions filed in response to the petition and application dated June 24, 2025, the DIG insisted he neither participated in, instructed nor covered up the killing of Ojwang.
He said he was not present at the scene and his role was purely administrative, with no operational command over the incident.
“We therefore submit that the 11th Respondent neither supervised nor authorized the actions of the individuals charged. He was not at the scene and his administrative role did not involve operational command over the incident in question,” read the court documents.
Miller told the court that the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) had investigated the matter and found no evidence to implicate DIG Lagat.
According to him, IPOA recommended charges against other individuals, while the DPP decided to prosecute only six individuals in the case.
“The blanket allegation that I am a prime suspect is defamatory and unsupported by any investigative finding. The law does not impute liability simply because of rank or office, absent proof of personal involvement.”
“It is important to note that the 11th Respondent was not present at the scene, did not issue any unlawful instructions, and his role as DIG was purely administrative and command-based. He did not engage in operational conduct relevant to the incident,” reads court papers.
Miller alleged that the DIG voluntarily stepped aside from his duties to allow for unfettered investigations, which he says is proof of his commitment to accountability.
Lagat argued that the petitioners’ attempt to have the court compel the DPP to prosecute him is an unlawful bid to “usurp the powers of constitutionally mandated institutions”.
“The petitioners’ prayer to have this court compel the DPP to prosecute the 11th Respondent is an improper attempt to take over the functions of independent institutions. This court cannot declare someone guilty without a trial nor direct the DPP to prosecute absent evidence of constitutional failure,” the submissions read in part.
The court heard that the continued inclusion of the DIG in the case amounts to an abuse of court process, forum shopping, and trial by publicity, especially after investigative agencies had cleared him of wrongdoing.
The DIG now wants the court to find that he has been unfairly targeted and to dismiss the petition with costs
He also wants the court to uphold the independence of IPOA and the DPP in discharging their constitutional functions
“Courts must not allow themselves to be used as vehicles of oppression, or as platforms for public shaming without substantiated legal basis,” read the court documents.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
