A Nairobi court acquitted a Somali man accused of fraudulently obtaining Kenyan registration documents, giving false information to public officers, and being unlawfully present in the country, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Delivering judgment on September 22, 2025, Principal Magistrate Rose Ndombi ruled that the evidence presented against Abdihakim Saidi Jama was riddled with gaps and inconsistencies that could not sustain a conviction.
Jama had been charged with three counts allegedly committed in 2011 when he applied for a national identity card in Isiolo, including obtaining registration by false pretence, giving false information to a public officer, and unlawful presence in Kenya.
The ruling came more than two years after the complainant, Ayni Hussein Mahammud , wrote to the Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) protesting what she termed irregular handling of the matter.
Jama was initially arraigned at Makadara Law Courts on assault charges, later detained on suspicion of forgery and unlawful presence in Kenya, before eventually being charged at Milimani Law Courts.
The prosecution called seven witnesses, among them Mahamud, who testified that she had known Jama since childhood in Mogadishu, Somalia, and maintained that he was not Kenyan.
She told the court she had once employed him in her Nairobi business but later discovered irregularities, even linking him to a YouTube video in which he campaigned for a parliamentary seat in Somalia under a different name.
However, the court dismissed her testimony, noting that she had no tangible evidence.
“PW1 did not produce any documentation except her word of mouth … She did not place any tangible evidence before this court,” ruled Magistrate Ndombi.
“She instigated the process after her personal business dealings with Jama soured hence the fallout and it was only after the disagreement that the allegations of irregular registration and unlawful presence emerged.”
Another witness, Fatuma Mohamed (PW3), whose ID number appeared on Jama’s application form, disowned him, insisting she was not his mother and had eight children, none of whom was the accused.
The magistrate faulted the prosecution for failing to call registration officials or local elders who vetted the application, leaving what she termed a “critical gap” in the case.
The court further observed that Jama, who is illiterate, may have relied on others to complete the forms.
On the charge of obtaining registration by false pretence, the court ruled that possession of an identity card alone was not proof of deliberate falsehood. On giving false information, the court found no evidence linking Jama directly to the alleged misrepresentation.
As for unlawful presence, Jama produced his late parents’ Kenyan death certificates.
The magistrate emphasized that citizenship by birth is inalienable and cannot be revoked unless fraud is proved through due process.
“Suspicion, however strong, cannot form the basis of a conviction,” Magistrate Ndombi stated, acquitting Jama under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“After considering the evidence presented in its totality, I find that the benefit of doubt is in favour of the accused person herein. I therefore find that the accused person NOT GUILTY ON ALL THREE COUNTS (3),” ruled the court
“He is hereby AQUITTED under Section 215 of the CPC.”
In her 2023 letters to the DCI and DPP, Mahamud had complained that police irregularly transferred the case and omitted key charges.
She said Jama was initially arrested on suspicion of being unlawfully present in Kenya and producing forged documents, with police obtaining orders to detain him at Muthaiga Police Station for 14 days.
But instead of arraigning him at Makadara on July 14, 2023, as directed, he was charged at Milimani three days earlier.
Mahamud also alleged receiving death threats linked to the accused, which she reported at Muthaiga Police Station.
Through her lawyers, she petitioned the ODPP to amend the charge sheet to include additional offences such as forgery, uttering false documents, personation, and unlawful presence under the Immigration Act.
“Our client feels that as the whistleblower, and considering the gravity of the allegations, the current charge does not exhaustively cover the offences committed,” her lawyers wrote.
Despite the concerns, the court ultimately found that the prosecution’s evidence fell short, setting Jama free.
The case has sparked a debate amid plans to appeal the ruling.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
