Attorney General defends Masengeli

By Robert Mutasi 

Attorney General Dorcas Odour has come out to defend the then Acting Inspector General of Police, Gilbert Masengeli, against claims that he refused to obey court summons out of hand defiance. 

Odour explained that Masengeli failed to appear in several courts to attend to various cases because of pressing security engagements that necessitated his presence outside Nairobi.

"It has been wrongly alleged that the summonses issued by the court were ignored or defied by Gilbert Masengeli as an act of arrogance. This is far from the truth as every time his attendance was required, he was disabled from so doing by pressing exigencies of duty out of Nairobi," said Odour while explaining Masengeli's failure to attend court sessions.

High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi found Masengeli guilty of contempt of court for disobeying the court's orders despite his defence by the Attorney General. 

Masengeli was called severally to explain the disappearance of three persons abducted in Kitengela, a matter that brought protests to the public domain.

The matter received attention following the call by the Law Society of Kenya for accountability, blaming the police command for nonchalance.

Justice Mugambi, in a judgement delivered on September 13, 2024, jailed Masengeli for six months. 

The judge rejected previous accounts that Masengeli was attending to official duties in Wajir and elsewhere, saying the then Acting Inspector General had treated the court with contempt by refusing to attend any of the seven hearings.

He was ordered by the court to surrender to the Commissioner General of Prisons within seven days to begin serving his sentence. 

Failure to which, Interior Cabinet Secretary Kithure Kindiki was tasked with ensuring the sentence was enforced.

The case fallout further spilt into the streets when, only days after his ruling on Masengeli, the National Police Service withdrew Judge Mugambi's security detail.

Chief Justice Martha Koome led a delegation in condemning the move and termed it a violation of judicial independence as ensconced in the Constitution under Article 160. 

Koome termed the action an attack on the judiciary, reminding all of respect for the rule of law and separation of powers.