Njoroge v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E018 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 26541 (KLR) (8 December 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2023] KEHC 26541 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E018 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
December 8, 2023
Between
Harrison Mwaura Njoroge
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1.On 1st December 2023, the applicant was presented before the Chief Magistrate's Court sitting at Kibera for the hearing of a motion on by the respondent in Kibera Miscellaneous Criminal Application no. E078 of 2023 Republic vs Harrison Mwaura Njoroge & 4 others. In that motion, the respondent sought that the applicant be remanded in police custody for 21 days to enable the DCI, to complete investigations. By a ruling made on the same day, the lower Court allowed the application and ordered that the applicant be held until at Kileleshwa Police station for 10 working days.
2.Aggrieved by that decision, vide a notice of motion dated 7th December 2023 the applicant moved this court under the provisions of article 49 (1) (g) and (h) of the Constitution of Kenya and sections 362, 364, and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Rules praying for the revision of that order. He prays for revision of the orders issued by the subordinate court. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant of a similar date.
3.In his affidavit, he contended that the ruling was a grave violation of the Constitution in ordering his detention for 10 working days without being informed of the charge that he is likely to face and that since his arrest, he has been cooperating with the police and the Banking Fraud Unit. He prayed to be released on reasonable bail terms pending investigations.
4.I have considered the application, the affidavit in support, and the applicable law. For consideration is whether the court should grant the orders sought.
5.In this case, the applicant contests the trial court's order detaining him for 10 working days. Article 49 (1) (g) provides that an arrested person has the right at the first court appearance, to be charged or informed of the reason for the detention continuing, or to be released.
6.I have considered the said article of the Constitution of Kenya and the rights enumerated thereunder. The trial Court in exercise of its discretion seems to have equally considered the provisions of the same article in the ruling. It is trite law that this Court cannot substitute its discretion for that of the trial Court just because it could have arrived at a different decision. It is incumbent upon the applicant to show how the trial Court acted irregularly in making the impugned order. The parameters within which this Court’s powers are to be exercised under Section 362 are well spelt out.
7.A cursory glance of the averments contained in the affidavit of the investigating officer reveals that the investigations include banking fraud and money laundering crimes. This is one of the reasons that necessitated his detention. Secondly, it was averred that the investigations involved additional suspects who are yet to be arrested. Further, that the crimes alleged to have been committed are transnational in nature and therefore the investigations are complex.
8.It is worth noting that in undertaking investigations, the applicant’s electronic gadgets have been confiscated for forensic analysis. Since his arrest, has not been formally charged with any offence. He is only a suspect. Article 49 (1) (g) provides for pre-charge detention provided that the suspect is informed of the reasons for the continued detention. This was enumerated in the case of Betty Jemutai Kimeiywa vs Republic [2018] eKLR. In this case the applicant was informed of the reasons for the pre-charge detention. I find the decision in the Betty Jemutai’s case to be persuasive. It is a requirement under article 29 of the Constitution that one should not lose his liberty without a reasonable and justifiable cause. The duty of the court is to satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds upon which the prosecution requires to hold a suspect, but, for a reasonable period. Indeed, the applicant was informed of the reason for his continued detention and therefore his right to liberty was limited within the law. The question however, is whether the limitation period imposed by the court is reasonable.
9.My interpretation of article 49 (1) (g) of the Constitution is that the court must strike a balance between the constitutional rights of an arrested person entrenched in article 49, the rights of the victims and public interest. The text of article 49 (1) (g) may, in certain circumstances and contexts, such as investigations of transnational organised crimes, comprehend a situation where a person is presented before a court without being formally charged, provided that he is informed of the reasons for his continued detention. The rider however is that the State must satisfy a double test.
10.The first consideration is that the state must demonstrate good faith and must have reasonable grounds to believe that the continued detention of the individual without a charge being preferred whether provisional or otherwise is inevitable due to existing exceptional circumstances. Secondly, that the continued detention of the individual without charge is the least restrictive action it can take in balancing the quadruple interests present in a potential criminal trial: the rights of the arrested individual; the public interest, order and security; the needs to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice; and the interests of victims of crime where appropriate. (See: Sudi Oscar Kipchumba vs Republic (Through National Cohesion & Integration Commission) [2020] eKLR)
11.As indicated above, the trial magistrate was within the law in granting the detention orders. However, It is my view, that pre-charge detention orders of ten (10) working days are excessive as they amount to detaining the applicant for 14 days. It is a constitutional imperative that the limitation of an applicant’s liberty should be proportionate to the crimes under investigations. Ngugi J (as he then was) in Sudi Oscar Kipchumba vs Republic (Through National Cohesion & Integration Commission) [2020] eKLR) discussed the importance of a holding charge and held as follows:
12.I am persuaded by the reasoning in the case of Oscar Sudi (supra). Its my view that within 10 days, the investigating officer should have formed a decision as to which charge they are likely to prefer against the applicant. In the alternative, they are at liberty to present a holding charge.
13.The upshot of the above analysis is that the order detaining the applicant for 10 working days issued on 1st December 2023, is set aside and substituted with an order that:i.The applicant shall be detained for ten (10) days only.ii.The applicant shall be produced before the Chief Magistrates Court at Kibera on 13th December 2023 to answer to a formal charge or a holding charge.iii.Once arraigned, the applicant is at liberty to make a formal application for bail/bond before that court.iv.This order shall be served upon the Officer Commanding Station, Kileleshwa Police Station where the applicant is currently held.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023........................D. KAVEDZAJUDGE