Examination in chief
The wtiness gave his name, C.D., and stated that he is based at the KWS – HQ , assigned to investigations department for the last 18yrs. He stated that on 9 February 2022, he was in the office, when he was informed by his supervisor, E.F., to prepare for an assignment and details were given to him and his colleague A.B. They were to join a multi-agency cooperation in the Joska area, Machakos county. Further details of operation were to be given once they had met multi-agency team. In the afternoon of that particular day, A.B. and the witness went to Joska to meet said teams and it took them up to 2 hours before they could get a full brief.
He stated that in Joska, they had gone to Greenpark Estate specifically, but corrected himself with prosecution assistance and stated it as Savanna Green Estate (as per the charge sheet). He stated that it took about 2 hours from around 2 to 4. They were informed that at house # 26 in that estate, was a person suspected to be involved in dealing with ivory and other contraband.
He stated that after getting the file details, they went straight to house no 26 where they introduced themselves as officers. One male occupant came to the door where he received the multi agency team. He remembers the occupant stated that he was Isaac (the occupant). From intelligence, the witness confirmed that he was the suspect and the team was able to arrest him. The occupant was interrogated by the multi-agency teams in regards to the illegal business. The interrogation took a long time because he was supposed to clarify a number of issues. One of the issues being involved was in exploiting unknown peoples accounts. Prosecution asked what type of accounts. Witness responded that what he can remember is bank accounts that he could withdraw money, clean the money, then send it back to the accounts. After a lengthy interrogation, a search was finally done in the house. A number of items were recovered within his house and were listed in the inventory which the witness had prepared.
He stated that a total of 79 items were recovered and listed as part of the inventory. In general, there were laptops, mobile phones, several assorted sim cards from various service providers being Safaricom, Airtel, and Telcom. There were visa cards, education certificates, a title deed, and storage devises like hard disks.
Most of the electronic gadgets were handed to the IO and he took them for analysis. Other recoveries which including a G3 magazine (previous marked and produced as evidence) fitted with 5 rounds of ammunition. These were specifically recovered from the bedroom of accused person, in a wardrobe. One piece of ivory was also recovered (shows it) from the wardrobe to (had already been marked as evidence).
After recovery, he inventoried all the recovery. He and A.B. signed it as well as other 2 multi-agency persons. Accused refused to sign and the witness indicated the inventory produced as evidence.
At around 10 pm on that day, the accused Isaac was escorted to Joska police station then transferred to KWS for further processing. He was later booked at Langata police station and charges were proffered against him
When they reached KWS HQ, the witness weighed the ivory and prepared a certificate. The weight was 1 kg. The witness signed the weighing certificate, and did A.B and the two multi agency officers. The accused refused to sign. The weighing certificate was produced. The witness stated that most of discoveries were returned to accused by the IO.
The witness showed the assorted sim cards showing the three various service providers as detailed. The number of said sim cards from inventory is 75 Airtel lines, 96 Telcom lines and 18 Safaricom lines (marked as exhibit). The witness stated that they were handed over to the IO (Chief Inspector Inoti – he is the one who conducted further investigations in this matter). The witness then identified the accused before the court.
Cross examination
The witness confirmed the operation that he was informed of the operation by his supervisor named G.H. The witness confirmed that G.H. gave them some details and much more was to be given by the multi-agency.
The defence counsel asked him if G.H. gave the information source – the witness stated that he had been briefed but not told source of information.
The defence counsel asked him if Mr. Bett gave a description of accused? The witness said No.
The defence counsel asked him what time he got to Joska. The witness mentioned that they got to Joska around 2pm on 9 February 2022.
The defence counsel asked him why it took 2 hrs before going to the house of the accused. The witness answered that at around 4 is when he approached suspect house confirmed and confirmed it is within 2 hours of arriving.
The witness confirmed that it was the suspect that opened the door.
The defence counsel asked him to look at his statement – where Paragraph 3 read one occupant opened the door to the living room. At that point he had not given an explanation. Witness then read that he wrote that they called for the owner who was resting in the bedroom and came to the sitting room.
The witness confirmed that in the house there were five occupants (as per what he wrote in his statement).
Defence counsel asked him whether he knows search procedures since he has been this profession for 19 years and ought to know the procedure for conducting a search and when a search warrant is required.
The witness confirmed that he does and the cases where a search warrant isn’t required. The witness confirmed that he knows and has read the police act and standing orders and says that in some operations a search can be conducted without a warrant.
The witness confirmed that they did not have a search warrant
The defence counsel clarified that upon receiving instructionsin the morning, couldn’t they have gotten a search warrant and that there was ample time? The witness stated that there was ample time but they did not get a search warrant.
The defence counsel asked him whether he can recall the number of bedrooms in the house or painting of the house. The witness stated that he can’t recall the painting of the house and confirms that there was more than one bedroom.
The defence counsel asked if he could confirm the bedroom which accused was in. Witness says that search was done on the areas of interest.
The defence counsel asked if he had visited the house before? The witness says he hadn’t.
The defence counsel asked if the witness can confirm if anyone informed him if accused person is the one who occupied which bedroom. Witness stated that in his statement there was no such information.
The defence counsel asked if dusting was done. Witness confirmed that no dusting was done. The defence counsel then affirmed that the witness cannot establish that the fingerprints belong to Isaac.
The defence counsel asked if witness knew size of the house. The witness said it was a normal house, not very big.
The defence counsel asked why take 8 hrs? The witness stated that the were interrogations of various aspects and that A.B. can confirm, he was with him
The defence counsel asked him on the extent he participated in search. The witness stated that the participated in the initial search before he started preparing inventory.
The defence counsel asked where he prepared the inventory which the witness responded that he prepared the inventory in a car where the items were being brought. The car was adjacent to the door.
The defence counsel asked if he personally got into the bedroom? The witness said yes, as items and that he recovered laptops. The witness stated that he did not recover the G3 or ivory.
The defence counsel asked if that among the witnesses, apart from A.B., is there a witness here that participated in that operation? The witness said he doesn’t know.
The defence counsel asked if the witness weighed at the scene? The witness stated yes, he had a pocket scale not calibrated. The defence counsel stated that his (the witness) colleague, A.B. confirmed that he did not weigh at the crime scene and the witness’s statement does not state this.
The defence counsel asked if the witness knew whether or not it was an offence of being in possession of multiple sim cards? The witness replied that he is not sure but having that many sim cards is questionable
The defence counsel asked if the SSU Unit (Special Service Unit) was also present? Witness said that it was not wise to give details of the operation and cannot confirm before the court.
The defence counsel asked if specifically, if he can remember names of the team bringing the recovered items to him. The witness responded that he cannot remember the names of the team that was bringing the items to him.
There was no re-examination. The prosecution stated that she had three pending witnesses, the investigation officer (IO), ballistics and the ivory expert from NMK. Prosecution requested for a further hearing date and defence had no objection. A further hearing date of June 27th was given.
It has been observed that in situations where none of the witness officers take ownership of an item of seized contraband, the likelihood of a “plant’ is high.