Lauren Rose Friedman, a complainant in a matter where businessman Hatim Mohammed Tahir has been accused of disclosing personal data to a third party has dismissed a letter demanding clarification on witness interference allegations made in court.
When the matter came up for mention on Tuesday, Rose through her lawyer Danstan Omari dismissed the letter as legally baseless.
Omari argued that Tahir needed to make a formal application to court to contest the witness interference allegations.
“A mere letter to my law firm is purely to massage the ego of the accused person, it has no basis in law,” argued Omari.
“They should make an application and I will respond appropriately.”
Omari further condemned what he termed as an unwarranted attack on the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) following scrutiny from the businessman over a letter he wrote requesting enhanced charges.
“I am categorical that any onslaught against the office of the DPP is misplaced,” Omari stated.
“It is poetic justice that they have written to the DPP and expect a decision on their application, yet when we apply, it is met with resistance.”
He told principle magistrate Rose Ndombi that Article 157(11) of the Constitution allows any party, not just the accused, to seek a review of charges.
“These requests for review are not limited to the accused,” he said.
“The DPP operates under Article 157, which makes it clear that the office is not subject to external direction. The determination of charges is solely within the DPP’s purview.”
Tahir through his lawyer Duncan Oketch had written to Omari’s law firm seeking substantiation for allegations of witness interference against him.
He argued that without a proper response from the prosecution, the record should reflect that no such interference occurred.
Oketch said prior warnings issued by the court, based on unverified claims, have been sensationalized by the media, further complicating the case.
He stressed the necessity of maintaining the sanctity of legal proceedings and the court’s responsibility to uphold their integrity.
“The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is clearly defined in the constitution,” Oketch stated, insisting that the oversight of the case falls solely to the magistrate.
He criticized Omari’s request for additional or enhanced charges, saying that such a request should not arise from an advocate merely holding brief or the complainant’s sentiments.
Oketch accused the DPP of failing to provide crucial documents, including witness statements and evidence intended for use against the accused which has resulted in delays.
“My request to you resist the temptations of being drawn towards any action that would be deemed as punishing an innocent accused person at this particular point,” argued Okatch.
“It is clear they want to draw as much blood as they can from the accused. This court had the duty to balance scales. Let this not be used by the people who feel they are mighty to harass anyone.”
Meanwhile, the prosecution requested a one-week extension, saying they needed additional time to review letters sent to the DPP.
“The last letter raised pertinent issues.”
Ndombi however reiterated its directive that any allegations of witness interference should be reported to the police.
The matter will be mentioned on November 18 for further directions.
According to the charge sheet, it is alleged that on September 19, 2023 at Gigiri court yard in Westland’s sub county within Nairobi county, Hatim with another not in court, without authority disclosed personal data to Lynn Ng’ang’a, a lawyer handling his civil case.
The alleged data, a CCTV footage, belonged to an adult and a minor, the court heard.
The accused is out on a cash bail of Sh100,000.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
