Premium
MP Jayne Kihara released on Sh50,000 bond as lawyers wrangle over offensive conduct charge
Naivasha MP Jayne Kihara has been freed on a bond of Sh50,000 until July 29, 2025, when the court will decide whether or not the charge filed against her is defective.
Ms Kihara was arrested in Naivasha on Thursday, July 17, 2025, by a contingent of police officers and driven to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) headquarters in Nairobi. She had earlier declined to appear before the investigators after being summoned.
The MP did not plead to the charge as her lawyers claimed it was defective and asked the court to decide on it.
According to a document presented in court, Ms Kihara is charged with “offensive conduct conducive to breach of the peace contrary to Section 94(1) of the Penal Code, Cap 63 Laws of Kenya.”
It is alleged that on July 8, 2025, within Nairobi, being in a public gathering, she uttered words which threatened peace.
Also Read: Naivasha MP Jayne Kihara arrested
The lawyers objected to the charge, saying it “does not disclose an offence and precious judicial time should not be wasted on such a case.”
Ms Kihara walked to freedom around 3.30pm after her defence team, led by Wiper leader Kalonzo Musyoka, former Attorney General Justin Muturi, CN Kihara, Ndegwa Njiru, Paul Wathuta Kiragu and Wambugu Wanjohi applied for her release on a personal bond pending determination on the charge.
Urging the court to quash the case against the MP, Mr Kihara said the charge is usually filed against drunkards and vagabonds, among others.
Mr Kihara said Article 33 of the 2010 Constitution guarantees freedom of speech.
“The MP before you is an elected representative of the people whom she speaks about and also on her own behalf. She cannot be prosecuted for voicing the issues affecting the electorate and the general public,” Mr Kihara submitted.
On his part, Mr Musyoka said the legislator is serving her third straight term in Parliament and the charge against her is a misdemeanour, punishable by a fine of Sh5,000 or a prison term not exceeding six months.
The former Vice President protested that Ms Kihara is being persecuted politically and discriminated against as there are other MPs who have said worse things than what she is accused of uttering.
He said Tiaty MP William Kamket was quoted in the media claiming that he would transport goons to Nairobi to attack protesters opposed to the government.
Mr Musyoka also told Mr Ekhubi that Wajir County Woman Representative Fatuma Jehow has publicly stated that there will be rigging in the 2027 General Election in favour of President William Ruto.
“There are MPs who have made dangerous public utterances and they have not been arrested and charged. This is pure discrimination. Courts should not allow it. Declare the charge defective and discharge her,” Mr Musyoka submitted.
He added that the charge against Kihara offends Article 2 of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and, therefore, cannot stand in the face of the law. The lawyers also questioned the huge deployment of police officers to arrest Ms Kihara for such an offence as a waste of public resources.
Mr Ekhubi heard that the law under which Ms Kihara has been charged was enacted on August 1, 1930, and is, therefore, outdated and offends the 2010 Constitution.
He said the law should have been amended but it has not due to the ineptitude of the successive parliaments.
Ms Kihara’s lawyers urged the magistrate to quash the charge as it does not disclose any offence. In their arguments, they said the charge does not say who was threatened by the alleged utterances and whether President William Ruto — who she is accused of naming in her speech — will be summoned to testify in court.
“In the alleged offensive speech, Ms Kihara only condoled and empathised with those whose relatives were killed and others injured during the demos, which police used excessive force to counter,” Mr Njiru said.
He added that in the alleged speech, Ms Kihara expressed sympathy to those businessmen whose property was torched, vandalised and goods stolen by goons, whom she claimed had been transported to Naivasha.
Mr Njiru urged the court to reject the charge under Section 89(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 134 of the CPC, which deals with faulty charges.
He said the Magistrates Act allows the interpretation of the Constitution and making of a declaration that they can be quashed, once flaws and breaches are found in the charges drawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
