Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju on Wednesday secured a win after a Nairobi court blocked police efforts to investigate him and conduct a search at his home, ruling that the application before it failed to disclose any offence.
The intended probe related to allegations of giving police authority false information after he went “missing” last weekend.
In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, the Milimani Magistrate’s Court struck out an application by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) seeking warrants to search Tuju’s home and seize evidence.
The magistrate found that the probe was fundamentally flawed and unsupported by facts linking Tuju to any crime.
“On a balance of probabilities, the application does not disclose an offence that is to be investigated on the part of the Respondent (Tuju),” the court ruled, refusing to issue the search warrant.
It added that the allegations relied on by investigators were inconsistent and improperly directed at Tuju.
The court noted that the initial report cited by police in relation to Tuju going missing was made by another person, not Tuju, yet the warrants targeted him. The investigations being pursued were premised upon a suspected false report presented under OB NO.17/22/03/2026.
“This report was, however, presented by someone other than the Respondent himself and yet the warrants for investigation sought are against the Respondent and particularly to retrieve evidence from the Respondent’s home,” the ruling stated, questioning the basis of the application.
Although police alleged a separate suspected false report by Tuju, the court found that no details had been provided to support that claim.
“It is only in the interest of justice that the application be struck out,” the court said, dismissing it.
The ruling effectively halts the planned search and shields Tuju from the immediate threat of intrusive investigations.
The decision marks a turning point in a fast-evolving saga that has seen Tuju at the centre of dramatic events involving his disappearance, arrest, and hospitalisation.
In recent days, Tuju’s whereabouts had become a subject of public concern after reports emerged that he had gone missing under unclear circumstances.
He later resurfaced, explaining that he was at a friend’s home and was arrested before being taken to the hospital following a scuffle with police officers.
The state wanted to charge him with the offence of giving “false information to a person employed, being investigated as against a person employed in the service contrary to section 129 (a) of the penal code”.
His legal team argued that the actions by investigators were irregular, heavy-handed, and unsupported by evidence. The High Court later granted him a Sh200,000 anticipatory bail.
His advocates maintained that Tuju was being targeted without a proper factual foundation, raising concerns about abuse of investigative powers.
The court’s ruling appears to validate those concerns, drawing a clear line on the limits of police authority.
By rejecting the application, the magistrate highlighted the requirement that any search or investigation must be anchored on a clearly disclosed offence.
The case had been filed under provisions allowing courts to issue search warrants where there is reasonable suspicion that evidence of an offence exists. It indicated that investigations were properly grounded remain within their mandate.
However, the court found that the threshold had not been met.
