“Life is inviolable. It is not diminished by status, circumstance or suspicion.”
With those words, the High Court delivered a blistering warning to members of the National Police Service, declaring that the law does not shield officers who abuse their power under the guise of enforcing order.
The court made this searing warning as it sentenced former Police Constable Yunus Athman to life imprisonment for the brutal murder of 20-year-old Mbaraka Maitha Omar.
Putting trigger-happy and rogue officers on notice, the court made it clear that the authority to use force is strictly bound by law, and that any officer who unlawfully takes a life will face the full weight of justice.
“For that reason, I sentence the offender to a prison sentence for the remainder of his life,” said the judge.
The court observed that the offender, being a police officer, had a statutory duty to protect the victim’s life but instead used extreme force against a defenceless civilian.
It further noted with concern what it described as a growing trend of trigger-happy and rogue police officers who pose a threat to the very people they are mandated to protect.
The judge emphasised that a strong message must be sent to deter such conduct, stressing that life is sacrosanct and is not lessened by status, circumstance or suspicion.
The judge stated that although a police officer carries the power of the State, including the lawful authority to use force, that authority is strictly constrained by law.
“Where that power is abused and a life is unlawfully taken, the offence transcends the individual victim, it strikes at the integrity of justice itself,” said the judge.
The court took into account Athman’s mitigation, the fact that he is a first offender, the pre-sentence report, the victim impact statement and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and considered a retributive and deterrent sentence appropriate.
Former Police constable Yunus Athman (right) and his advocate Eugene Wangila before the Mombasa High Court.
Photo credit: Brian Ocharo | Nation Media Group
From the victim impact statement presented in court, the deceased was a young man aged 20 years. His mother had to relocate to Malindi because of the psychological and emotional trauma resulting from the death of her son.
The family considered the actions of the offender as extreme, malicious and in stark violation of his oath of office. The report also shows that the deceased’s family has been negatively affected by the death of their loved one and is yet to heal.
“The victim was defenceless and the offender used extreme force. I note too that there is an increase of trigger happy and rogue police officers who pose a threat to the very people they are meant to protect,” the court noted.
In his mitigation, Athman, 40, gave a long list of family problems and expressed remorse, but the weight of the offence and the way he committed it outweighed the regret and his family problems, forcing the court to sentence him to life imprisonment.
During his trial, Athman would appear in court with a large Bible, often resting it on his chin and occasionally holding it against his chest, seemingly in response to blow-by-blow witness accounts of what he was suspected to have done.
In the end, however, the gravity of his crime outweighed the comfort of the book, which he clutched closely throughout the proceedings.
Athman’s trial exposed the lengths to which senior officers could go to shield their juniors from accountability, raising serious questions about police conduct and oversight.
Athman was found guilty of murdering Omar, who was shot twice at close range at his home in Likoni on 10 September 2018. The killing drew attention not only because of its brutality but also due to attempts by senior officers to obscure the facts and mislead investigators.
In the court’s own words, Chief Inspector Patrick Lumumba, then Officer Commanding Station at Inuka Police Station, attempted to cover up the killing by falsely claiming that a machete had been recovered next to the deceased.
The court noted that none of the eyewitnesses saw any weapon, rejecting Lumumba’s account as inconsistent and designed to conceal the excessive force used by Athman.
The court noted that the first senior officer at the scene could not account for how he handled the alleged weapon, which was never produced in court. “It can only be concluded, as the investigating officer said, that the OCS wanted to cover up for Athman after he fatally shot the young man,” the court ruled.
Police Constable Yunus Athman, who is accused of the murder of Mbaraka Maitha Omar when he appeared before the high court, in this photo taken on October 22, 2025.
Photo credit: Kevin Odit | Nation Media Group
The day of the killing began when Athman, dressed in civilian clothes, arrived at Omar’s home around 10 a.m. accompanied by Mohamed Karega, the victim’s madrasa teacher, and a boda boda rider, Albert Wekesa.
Omar’s brother, Mbaraka Baya, testified that Karega identified Omar, saying, “This is the one, finish him,” moments before Athman drew his gun and shot Omar at close range.
Baya fled for his life while Omar was left unarmed and defenceless on the veranda. Karega later testified as a state witness, confirming that Omar was not the actual suspect in the reported goat theft. Wekesa, who had taken Athman to the crime scene, was later found murdered under unclear circumstances.
Investigations, led by Senior Investigations Officer James Njuru and later overseen by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority, confirmed that Athman’s firearm was the murder weapon.
Ballistic analysis matched bullet fragments recovered from the post-mortem to his assigned pistol. The post-mortem report showed that Omar died from haemorrhagic shock due to severe head trauma caused by the gunshots. None of the 15 witnesses mentioned a machete, contradicting Lumumba’s false report intended to shield Athman.
In his defence, Athman claimed self-defence, alleging that Omar had a machete and attacked him. The court dismissed the claim, noting that no eyewitness saw any weapon or aggressive behaviour.
“Athman aimed at the head of the deceased instead of the hand that he alleged held the machete. He did not only shoot once but, after the first shot, he bent over the helpless boy and fired again at very close range. His conduct demonstrated malice aforethought,” the court observed.
The court further held that the gravity of the injuries inflicted confirmed the officer’s intention to kill, finding him guilty of murder.
