End of the road for Gilbert Masengeli
Acting Police Inspector-General Gilbert Masengeli.
Last-minute attempts by convict Gilbert Masengeli to save himself from going to prison have been dashed after his request to present himself before the High Court was turned down.
Following his sentencing for contempt on September 13, Mr Masengeli was given a seven-day window to appear before Justice Lawrence Mugambi to purge the contempt and apologise.
He did not take up the offer.
However, on Thursday, hours to the expiry of the deadline, Mr Masengeli, through lawyer Cecil Miller, approached High Court Judge Chacha Mwita seeking orders to compel Justice Mugambi to grant the convict audience.
Mr Miller informed Justice Mwita that Mr Masengeli was finally ready to appear in court and provide an explanation over the whereabouts of three men who were abducted in Mlolongo and Kitengela in August and have not been seen since.
"Masengeli is ready to appear in court today between 12 and 3:30 pm to purge the contempt," Mr Miller told Justice Mwita.
The lawyer begged the court to permit the deputy inspector-general in charge of Administration Police to appear in an open sitting as there are some documents he wanted to present to the court.
However, his pleas did not yield fruit as Justice Mwita told him that he could not direct the convicting judge to convene a sitting for Mr Masengeli to attend.
"I cannot direct my fellow judge (Mugambi) to abandon a three-judge bench matter to handle Masengeli's case," Justice Mwita said.
The judge said that the purpose of the mention of the case before him was to give directions on the hearing of the matter since Justice Mugambi was engaged in another matter involving three judges.
Even after the judge averments, Mr Miller once again begged the court to handle the matter on behalf of Justice Mugambi in vain.
"We are ready to appear before the judge during lunch hour or even 3:30 pm when the court adjourns the case it is handling since the Masengeli sentence will take effect today midnight," Miller said.
His request was opposed by Law Society of Kenya lawyer Nelson Havi, teaming up with lawyers Levi Munyeri, Hosea Manwa, Eric Theuri and Faith Odhiambo, in asking the court to mention the matter next week Thursday.
Mr Havi told the court that LSK had filed another application seeking to have Chief Justice Martha Koome appoint a three-judge bench to hear Mr Masengeli's matter since it is grave.
"Your honour, l urge this court to refer the case to the Chief Justice to empanel a three-judge bench. Let the case be mentioned on Thursday next week as l am out of town attending to my grandmother’s burial," Mr Havi informed Judge Mwita.
But Miller said that the issue at hand was between Mr Masengeli and the court.
Judge's intervention
The judge intervened and directed the matter to be mentioned before justice Mugambi on Friday for further directions.
Justice Mwita gave the orders as Chief Justice Martha Koome was swearing in the newly appointed IG Douglas Kanja, who was flanked by Mr Masengeli, at the Supreme Court
Mr Masengeli's sentence and conviction arose from his persistent failure to comply with seven court orders issued in connection with the disappearance of the three men.
Jamil Longton Hashim, his brother Aslam Longton, and activist Bob Michemi Njagi were taken by unknown persons believed to be police officers.
Witnesses reported that the three were forcibly taken away in saloon cars, which sped off into the night.
Hashim and Njagi had recently hosted a talk show on X Space, discussing national issues and raising concerns about the bad state of governance in Kenya.
Their abduction was widely believed to be connected to their activism and outspoken criticism of the Kenya Kwanza administration under President William Ruto.
After their mysterious disappearance, LSK through its ex-president Nelson Havi moved to court to compel the police to produce them whether alive or dead. The police however declined to render any explanation for their whereabouts.
The High Court intervened, issuing multiple summonses requiring Masengeli to provide information and updates on the investigation into their disappearance.
These orders were intended to ensure that the authorities acted with transparency and diligence and to hold Mr Masengeli accountable for his role in overseeing the investigation.
However, despite repeated orders, Masengeli failed to attend court on seven separate occasions, prompting the judge to address his non-compliance directly.
His repeated non-compliance with these orders has now resulted in a prison sentence, marking a significant moment in the quest for justice and accountability.
The court’s ruling is notable not only for its impact on Masengeli but also for its broader implications for the relationship between the judiciary and high-ranking government officials.
By holding Masengeli accountable for his actions, the court has reinforced the principle that even those in the highest echelons of power must adhere to legal directives and respect the rule of law.
Masengeli had attempted to arrest the sentencing by asking the judge to give him a chance to explain why he did not comply with the court orders.
The judge’s refusal to accept Masengeli’s defense stressed the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining its authority and ensuring that legal obligations are met, regardless of the individual’s position.
