Turkish refugee to remain in ATPU custody pending court ruling
Mustafa Güngör, a Turkish refugee living in Kenya for 16 years, remains in ATPU custody after the State requested 15 days to investigate his alleged ties to terrorism based on a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request from the Turkish government.
A Magistrate’s Court has allowed the continued detention of a Turkish national and refugee as police investigate alleged terrorism links following a request for legal assistance from the government of Türkiye.
Principal Magistrate Gideon Kiage Oenga, sitting at the Kahawa Law Courts, on Monday ordered that Mustafa Güngör remain in police custody pending a ruling on whether investigators can hold him for 15 days to complete investigations.
The decision followed a lengthy hearing in which the State cited national security concerns, while defence lawyers urged the court to protect the rights of a refugee who has lived and worked in Kenya for 16 years.
The SGR arrest
Mr Güngör was arrested last Saturday at the Standard Gauge Railway’s Nairobi Terminus after arriving from Mombasa. Anti-Terrorism Police Unit (ATPU) officers said they acted on reasonable suspicion of his involvement in terrorism-related activities. Upon arrest, police seized his mobile phone and refugee registration documents for analysis.
According to court papers, the arrest was triggered by a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request from Türkiye seeking cooperation in terrorism charges pending against Mr Güngör before the Kahramanmaraş Second High Court in Turkey.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) asked the court to authorise Mr Güngör’s detention at ATPU headquarters for 15 days, allow forensic examination of his electronic devices and permit searches at his Kileleshwa residence.
In an affidavit sworn by ATPU officer Richard Ngatia, investigators said Güngör was being probed for offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, including financing terrorism, recruiting members, and being part of a terrorist group.
Mr Ngatia indicated to the court that the suspect had “operational links, communication channels, and ideological alignment with extremist and terrorist networks,” adding that some alleged associates remained at large.
He warned that releasing Mr Güngör would risk interference with witnesses and compromise investigations, especially given his access to encrypted communication platforms. He said detention was necessary to prevent tampering with digital evidence.
“Investigations conducted thus far have established that Mr Güngör maintains operational links, communication channels, and ideological alignment with extremist and terrorist networks, some of whose members are still at large,” said Mr Ngatia in the affidavit.
“There is, therefore, a high likelihood that the respondent, if released, may interfere with witnesses, compromise confidential informants, intimidate potential witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, thereby seriously prejudicing ongoing investigations,” added the officer.
National security vs refugee rights
It was further argued that Mr Güngör posed a flight risk because he is a foreign national with transnational connections and faces severe penalties if charged.
“Bail is not an automatic right,” the prosecution submitted, urging the court to balance personal liberty with the duty to protect the public and national security.
However, defence lawyers led by Mr Mwaura Kabata strongly opposed the application, describing it as speculative and oppressive. Mr Kabata told the court that Mr Güngör is a recognised refugee protected by Kenyan and international law.
“He left his country many years ago and sought refuge in Kenya,” Mr Kabata said, adding that the Refugee Act and the 1951 Refugee Convention protect Mr Güngör from discrimination and refoulement.
Mr Kabata said Mr Güngör was a teacher and that his residence and workplace were known to authorities, arguing that he was not a flight risk. He dismissed claims of witness interference, saying the allegations related to old social media activity.
“He is accused of reposting or retweeting Facebook posts in 2017 and 2018,” lawyer Kabata said. “What witnesses will he interfere with?”
The defence lawyers said the original Turkish request only sought to have Mr Güngör invited by police, identified, and informed of accusations against him—not arrested.
“The instructions from the Turkish government were simple. Invite the accused, record his details, and explain the allegations. Those instructions have been fully executed,” they said.
The defence argued that investigators had failed to disclose any specific terrorist act or nexus linking Mr Güngör to terror groups in Kenya. They said detention was unnecessary for forensic analysis of seized devices.
“Suspicion, however grave, is not evidence. Detention, however long, is not investigation,” they said, adding that Mr Güngör was also a taxpayer in Kenya. They urged the court not to be used by the State to violate human rights.
The prosecution responded that refugee status does not shield a person from arrest or investigation. It said the State needed time to complete complex, cross-border inquiries.
“A refugee still enjoying his status is not a bar to arrest, detention, or even trial,” the prosecutor argued, adding that the State was only seeking time to conclude investigations.
After hearing both sides, Magistrate Oenga said the issues raised were weighty and the application broad. He reserved his ruling until December 30.
“Since the application is broad and owing to the issues raised by parties, the ruling will be delivered on December 30,” the magistrate said, ordering that Mr Güngör remain in ATPU custody in the meantime.
The case has drawn attention due to past controversies involving Turkish nationals in Kenya and renewed debate over the balance between national security and refugee protection under Kenyan law.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
