Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) boss Mohamed Amin have filed an urgent application to quash court orders demanding their personal appearance in the case of three Mlolongo abductees.
The two were summoned to explain the whereabouts of three Mlolongo residents - Justus Mutumwa, Martin Mwau and Karani Muema - who were allegedly abducted.
Stephen Mbisi and Kevin Muthoni, who were allegedly abducted with the three and are still missing, were dropped from the current case because they have another case pending before Judge Bahati Mwamuye, which is scheduled to be heard on January 27.
Mr Kanja and Mr Amin argue that the court was misled into issuing the January 13, 2025 orders compelling their attendance.
Abductions: Police IG Kanja and DCI Boss Amin face court
They claim they were not served with the application filed on January 8, 2025, and were not given an opportunity to present their case.
"Unless this application is certified as urgent and heard promptly, there is a risk of a grave miscarriage of justice," they said in their application.
They also asked the court to set aside the orders requiring them to produce the missing persons, whether alive or dead.
Justice Chacha Mwita has ordered the application to be heard immediately.
Mr Murkomen argues that his role in the Ministry of Interior is limited to policy, advisory, and oversight, and he has no direct involvement in security operations.
His lawyer, Danstan Omari, told the court that the CS was not served with the court orders.
Meanwhile, drama unfolded outside the Milimani Law Courts when relatives of the abductees were barred by administration police from attending the proceedings.
In response, Justice Mwita directed the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to ensure the relatives were allowed access.
However, he noted that the complaint was administrative and instructed Senator Maanzo to formally raise it with the registrar.
The IG and DCI, represented by lawyer Paul Nyamodi, argued that they were not properly served with the January 8 orders.
Mr Nyamodi submitted that service via email was not legally recognized and urged the court to dismiss any penal consequences for non-compliance.
“The petitioners failed to prove that the emails used to send the court orders were legitimate addresses of the respondents,” Mr Nyamodi said.
However, the petitioners’ lawyer, Noel Otieno, insisted that service was properly effected as electronic communication is legally recognized.
The court continues to hear arguments on whether the orders were properly served and if the summons compelling the IG and DCI to appear in person should be set aside.
