A magistrate's court has declined to invalidate the anti-corruption commission's search conducted at the home of a woman linked to a Sh510 million National Youth Service (NYS) corruption scandal.
Milimani Principal Magistrate Charles Ondieki ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction over claims that investigators breached the rights of Ms Felista Wanjiru during the Ruiru operation, referring the matter to the High Court.
Ms Wanjiru's case focused on two key issues; the first of which was her claim of forced disclosure. She told the court that she had been forced to surrender the log-in details for her electronic devices, which could potentially infringe her rights.
The second point was that the search was humiliating. She said her children were subjected to a humiliating search without parental consent, raising concerns about the execution of the warrants.
Ms Wanjiru claimed that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) investigators breached her rights to privacy and protection from self-incrimination.
Another contention was that EACC breached her rights by publishing information related to the investigative search on its social media page, informing the public about the operation.
But Magistrate Ondieki ruled that the court could not handle a dispute touching on the search warrants and human rights violation, citing lack of jurisdiction.
The court said her grievances lacked precision and that the application combined jurisdictional and constitutional issues.
“It is beyond peradventure that the two primary juridical issues raised by the respondent (Ms Wanjiru) are weighty. But unfortunately it is a mixed grill or cocktail of issues substantially in the nature of judicial review and alleged denial, violation or infringement of rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution outside Article 25(a) and (b) of the Constitution,” said Mr Ondieki as he struck out the application.
Article 25(a) and (b) of the Constitution provides that freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as well as freedom from slavery or servitude are not limited.
Ms Wanjiru's grievances were based on the enforcement of court orders obtained by the EACC on April 30, 2025 that allowed investigators to conduct a search at her home in Ruiru, Kiambu County.
The EACC claimed to have received a report that between January 2017 and March 2025, a public official named David Muthee accumulated unexplained wealth through abuse of office, conflict of interest, embezzlement of public funds and money laundering.
It was alleged that during the period, through two proxies, the official received Sh510 million suspected to be proceeds of corruption.
The EACC investigated the allegations and, in this connection, it sought to search the offices, residential and business premises of Ms Wanjiru, who was suspected to be working in cahoots with the public official.
However, Ms Wanjiru contended that the search was not conducted in accordance with the law. Her lawyers allege that the search violated dignity protocols, citing her children’s involvement without parental consent.
They accused the EACC of violating her privacy by publishing search details on social media, which her lawyers argued prejudiced her presumption of innocence.
They said this was contrary to the Constitution and asked the court to declare that the search was illegal, unconstitutional and an order of immediate return of the items seized.
The magistrate, however, ruled the High Court was the proper forum for such constitutional claims.
“A court should always strive to shun a possibility of piece-meal litigation when faced with a cocktail of jurisdictional issues by embracing a path which brings to the table all issues for resolution in one appropriate forum, which in this case, is the High Court,” said Mr Ondieki.
He, however, stated that she was at liberty to lodge the dispute at the appropriate forum by invoking the appropriate procedure.
For its part, the EACC argued that the court lacked authority to deal with the application because the search warrants had already been implemented.
It denied breaching her rights and that it was in the process of analysing the documentation since it is voluminous and in due course, the commission may return documents which are not needed to advance the investigations.
“The discomfort arising from the search cannot constitute a sufficient ground to set aside the search warrant,” it argued.
The EACC further submitted that section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not impose an obligation upon the applicant to demonstrate that the things seized are connected to the alleged offence.
The probe revives memories of the 2018 NYS scandal where Sh791 million was lost. The suspects were acquitted by court.
