MCCR/1132/2015, the Republic (of Kenya) vs Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh and eight others - a case study
Part 2 of Inside the Wildlife Crime Courtrooms of Kenya
By Chris Morris
Part One (linked): The day of the acquittal, the context surrounding the seizure, the initial investigation and arrests, and early prosecutorial decisions.
Part Two (linked): Early Days of the prosecution, Financial Investigation and Asset Recovery, Mutual Legal Assistance request and failed Thailand trip, Jefwas-the First Cracks of corruption, Testimony re-cap of 25 witnesses.
Part Three: The Second Mutual Legal Assistance Request, Last day of the Prosecution, Case Management, Analysis of Evidence, Phone Data, Questions and Contradictions.

MLA II – NEW EVIDENCE APPLICATION
COVID intervened. On April 7th, 2021, prosecutor Mr. Mulamula and Lucy KRA A#4 found themselves amidst a Nairobi COVID lockdown and could not attend the scheduled hearing.
Fate intervened a second time within days when the ODPP office in Mombasa, through an April 9th letter from their Nairobi headquarters, was advised that new information had been received (informally) from the United States Office of the Attorney General, relating to ‘Sheikh’s et al’ and specifically the Sheikh’s and the Jefwa’s involvement with Moazu Kromah of the West African crime group. ‘Informally’ meant that the evidence would have to be transferred to Kenyan authorities in a format that would make it admissible evidence in court and through a mutual legal assistance request process.
Subsequently, on May 20th, 2021, the ODPP made an application to the court (in CM Makori’s chambers), with a supporting affidavit, requesting the new evidence be admitted as part of the trial. It was stated that it was evidence that the police and prosecution believed was, “new, credible, relevant and admissible evidence to the offences now before the court”.57
Inserted into the same application was also a request to avail to the court a forensic analysis report from Thailand relating to the seized ivory. This report had been received from Thailand during the initial stages of the Kenya Thailand mutual legal assistance negotiations. The report had yet to be entered into evidence.
From an evidentiary perspective, the new evidence motion had three key paragraphs:
- THAT this intelligence information follows the successful extradition of one Mansur Mohamed Surur alias Mansur to the United States of America from Kenya in relation to illicit Narcotics trade and the illegal exportation of a wildlife product knowing it to be in violation of the Kenya Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, East Africa Customs Act , Uganda Wildlife Act and the United States Lacey Act and is part of the transnational criminal enterprise with operations in the said countries
- THAT upon reviewing the said intelligence, it is apparent that the person of interest “Kromah”, and the some of the accused persons with others not before the court are directly linked with the preparation of the bill of lading relating to the consignments of 511 pieces of ivory seized in Thailand, container and the subject of this case to the extent that they are seen giving or receiving instructions as to the place of final destination of container no. FCIU5235796.
- THAT intelligence discloses that the said Moazu Kromar currently facing Ivory Trafficking Charges in the USA used to receive Instruction from Accomplices in Thailand and thereafter transmit the same to accused One and Two in this case. It is necessary to receive the said information in the form of admissible evidence in a court of law in Kenya before it is relied upon.”
Mansur Mohamed Surur, was one of the four, including Moazu Kromah, named in the 2019 United States South District Court of New York indictment, and known as the key decision maker in Kenya for Kromah and the West African crime group. Surur had been arrested in Mombasa in July 2020, having just landed on a flight from Yemen. He was extradited as per rule of law to the U.S. the following January.58
The ODPP application was authored by Senior Principal Prosecution Counsel, Jami Yamina, re-assigned the ‘Sheikh’s et al’ portfolio after a 2 ½ year absence. He would be handling this matter while also the head of the ODPP office in Malindi, a coastal town and resort destination three-hour’s drive north of Mombasa. He had not long returned from the United States, having achieved honours while attaining a Master’s degree in Animal Law at the Lewis and Clark Law School.
The supporting affidavit had been drafted by Superintendent (promoted from Chief Inspector) James Githinji. He had also been apparently re-assigned the file for the DCI, having been transferred out of Mombasa in mid-2016. He was based in Nairobi at the time.
Conversely, Chief Magistrate Makori was pending transfer. Despite his having heard all prosecution witnesses, it was clear at this point that he would not see the trials conclusion. He was on a 2019 list of 40 Judges to be promoted, promotions that had been unprocedurally delayed by President Kenyatta59.
There were no changes with defence counsel who were now waiting for a scheduled hearing date to present their oral arguments in opposition to the proposed application. July 5th,2021, was the date set.
But the hearing to argue this application of new evidence was never to happen. Just over one year later, on July 14th, 2022, and now before Chief Magistrate Martha Mutuku (who had transferred in eight months previously), Prosecutor Jami stood before the court and withdrew the application.
He prefaced his remarks by telling the court that when the case had commenced in 2015, his seven-year-old son had not yet been born. It was time now to allow this trial to continue to its logical conclusion. He continued that the reasons for the withdrawal and the one-year delay in hearing this application, was not on the shoulders of the ODPP but due to complexities of the mutual legal assistance request. Mr. Jami further advised that there would be an updated statement relating to the matter from Superintendent Githinji. A court date of September 5th was set for CM Mutuku to provide further directions. The court was advised that there were six more witnesses to testify to conclude the prosecution’s case.
THE PROSECUTION – THE LAST DAY
The Mutuku Period – October 2021 to October 2023
It was a further eight months before the last witnesses testified. A legitimate attempt to conclude the prosecution had been made on November 16th was adjourned by the state as four of the five witnesses were unavailable; the lone civilian witness was out of the country, Dr. Mwebi of the National Museum of Kenya was again testifying at another court in northern Kenya, one police witness was on leave, and another was unwell.
Coincidentally or otherwise, on the same day, the Jefwa’s were turning themselves in to the Mombasa DCI under the protection of a High Court anticipatory bail order of Lady Justice Ong’injo, signed the day previous. The Jefwa’s surrender was based on information received from an inside source at a significant level that the ‘Sheikh’s et al’ was all but over. The ‘anticipatory bail order’ was a court order that prohibited the Jefwa’s from being from incarcerated on the condition that they provided a statement to police.
March 6th and 7th, 2022, were the set dates for the last prosecution witnesses to testify. Dr. Ogeto Mwebi, PW26, of the National Museum of Kenya (NMK) was to lead off. He is a very familiar face in ivory trials within Kenya, produced as an expert witness, to confirm through scientific examination, that the seized ivory is actually ivory. He told the court that he had been at the NMK for 32 years and had a Ph.D. from Aix-Marseilles. He specialized in animal remains identification. He continued by telling the court that he had done many ivory examination reports over his career, over four per month.
He relayed that on May 25th, 2015, he received an exhibit memo and five exhibits from DCI investigators, CI Githinji and IP Kibagendi. The exhibits were in the form of five small envelopes, four containing white fragments and a fifth containing animal hair. He told the court that he determined through microscopic analysis that the fragments were elephant ivory. He could not ascertain whether they were from savannah or forest elephants.
The second and final witness on March 6th, was PW27, the property agent involved in the signing of the Nyali lease. In 2015, she was working as a property agent for Mombasa Investments. She was managing the property owned by Mr. Attamimy. Said Juma Said (aka Abdulrahman A#1) was the tenant.
She confirmed that the lease agreement was for two years from August 2013 to July 2015, the rent was paid in advance with 2 months deposit. Said Juma Said produced a Tanzanian passport as identification. She was asked if she could identify Said Juma Said in court but she could not, stating that it had been sometime since she had seen him. She did state that the tenant, Said Juma Said, did take physical control of the property and was given the keys. All rent was paid in cash.
March 7th, 2023, was the last day of the prosecution’s case. It can be encapsulated through a comment from defence counsel, Jared Magolo, during his cross examination of Senior Superintendent (SSP) James Githinji:
“You have no ivory, no witness that received or discovered ivory or seized, the only thing you can avail are correspondence, showing how you have tried and they (Thailand) have let you down. This is a criminal proceedings – you are asking the court to sympathize with your efforts you made but failed” but we want evidence, right?….. looking at these documents you are crying”.35
For all intents and purposes, the day was devoid of real evidence. The true character and integrity of the case was to be presented to the court.
The hearing was meant to begin at 11:00 hrs. Mr Jami arrived 12:04 hrs. The case was called at 12:20 hrs but there were no police witnesses present, including SSP Githinji. Mr. Jami asked for the courts indulgence, telling the court that SSP Githinji was enroute. CM Mutuku retired to her chambers and the packed courtroom waited. He arrived at 13:14 hrs, without other police witnesses. The hearing commenced.
One needs to bear in mind that at this point in the trial, while significant evidence against the absent Jefwa brothers has been heard, the only direct, solid, and legally admissible evidence of any wrongdoing was in relation to Lucy Kahoto, the KRA officer.
SSP Githinji took the witness stand in Mombasa courtroom #1 and introduced himself. He was now the IO of this investigation, having taken over from the deceased, Senior Superintendent Alphonse Kamlus.
His testimony lasted approximately two hours, a hybrid of an investigational summary, an intelligence briefing, and a public relations exercise. The evidence was directed from time to time with specific questions from Mr. Jami. SSP Githinji submitted to the court a number of exhibits, primarily documents and reports, but their relevance to the specific facts in issue were limited at best. It was noted that defence counsel did not challenge any of the submissions even though the officers that authored the reports were absent and had never testified.
SSP Githinji spent 30 minutes of his two-hour testimony presenting details of the failed mutual legal assistance process with Thailand. He presented various correspondence which were submitted to the court as evidence of failed negotiations. The last document tendered relating to the failed MLA was a letter dated January 2023, (two months previous) from the Solicitor-General of Kenya, Kennedy Ogeto, to the Director of the DCI, detailing chronologically, all steps and actions taken by the central authorities of Kenya in trying to get assistance from Thailand. SSP Githinji was specifically directed to paragraph 12 of the letter that related to ODPP concerns over the reciprocity requested by Thailand authorities. (this was in reference to Thailand’s wish to conduct their own investigations in Kenya.)
Of more relevance to the case and submitted to the court (despite its inadmissibility), was the DNA analysis report authored by the Thailand authorities confirming that the seized ivory was that of African savannah and forest elephants.
The court heard (and being made public for the first time), through direct questioning of by Mr. Jami, that the Jefwa brothers, had five months previously, turned themselves in to the DCI in Mombasa.
SSP Githinji submitted to the court photographic evidence and a related crime scene report dated June 2015 regarding the search of the Nyali consolidation point and the items seized. The crime scene officer who took the photographs and wrote the report was not in court, reportedly unwell. This is the same officer who was unwell for the last attempted hearing on November 16th, 2022.
The report and photos had been provided to defence counsel only the day previous. As an explanation for the seven-year disclosure delay, SSP Githinji told the court that it was due to: a breakdown in communications between two investigative teams, his transfer from Mombasa (in 2016), and the passing of IO Kamlus.
The cybercrimes report, (relating to emails between Siginon Global Logistics, the Jefwa’s, and Rais Shipping) also dated 2015, was also submitted to the court without the author present and without comment from defence counsel. SSP Githinji advised the court that the police officer who wrote the report was absent as he was unable to travel.
A third scheduled and non-attending witness, an officer of the DCI Flying Squad (since disbanded) whose relevance was not ascertained, was not present due to an operational necessity in Lamu.
In the last ten minutes of his examination-in-chief, SSP Githinji spoke of the restraint/freezing of assets from a number of the accused persons, and touched on the role of Samuel Mundia, A#6, the taxi driver who was alleged to have conspired in the Jefwa’s escape from authorities. No admissible evidence had been produced for the court to substantiate Mundia’s involvement.
CROSS-EXAMINATION – THE LAST DAY
The examination-in-chief of SSP Githinji appeared to be an attempt to deflect the weakness of the investigation and prosecution away from Kenya and onto Thailand. On the surface, and for those not aware of the intricacies of the case, the tactic was successful.
That was to change under the cross-examination of Jared Magolo, and co-counsel. The following was revealed through the cross-examination:
A. No financial transactions were identified or traced as having come from or being specifically tied to any aspect of the ivory shipment under investigation in relation to any of the accused.
B. SSP Githinji wrote his statement pertaining to this case in 2019. The reason for the four-year delay was due to the death of lead investigator SSP Kamlus, who he believed to have died in 2017. Supt. Kamlus had not written a statement for the file.
C. SSP Githinji’s written statement included a list of items that were seized at the Nyali consolidation point; a bag containing tea leaves, a weigh scale, a consignment of baby diapers, a Nakumatt receipt, assortment of scratch cards, and several gunny bags. There was no exhibit inventory made by any officer at the time of the initial search that included these or any other items.
D. There was no document or statement from any officer as to whom the Nakumatt receipt was associated to and no statement was taken from an employee of Nakumatt. (this was the sole evidence linking Sheikh A#2 to the Nyali property and it was not submitted as evidence.)
E. The third accused, Mahmoud A#3, was charged on the basis that he had been seen at the Nyali consolidation point on one occasion with the first two accused. This fact was not included in SSP Githinji’s statement.
F. There was no attempt to investigate the authenticity of the Tanzanian passport of Said Juma Said, if he was an actual Tanzanian, or if the identification was linked to other criminal acts in Kenya or Tanzania.
G. Samuel Mbote Mundia’s involvement (6th accused), alleged to have assisted the Jefwa brothers in escaping arrest, is not captured in SSP Githinji’s statement.
H. SSP Githinji did not know why Salim Mohamed Juma Khamisi (7th accused) or Abbasi Issa Rashid (8th accused) were charged, stating that charging decisions were made by the ODPP.
I. Evidence that lorry KNY 944 went to the Nyali consolidation point after being loaded with tea at Siginon is based solely on a statement taken from the driver, Njunga A#9. There was no other corroboration. (Njunga’s statement was not entered into evidence)
J. SSP Githinji was not sure who was coordinating the search of the Nyali consolidation point that was comprised of 50 officers from a number of different units and agencies. At the time, he was the affiant and the author of all affidavits produced for the court. (Typically, an affiant knows as much a lead investigator)
K. There was no evidence of any written contract or any agreement between Musa Jacob Lithare and the Jefwa’s in relation to the transport of the container.
L. SSP Githinji told the court that he could not disprove that ivory was put in the container after it left Mombasa port and before it was opened in Thailand as he did not know the condition of the seals on opening by Thai customs.
There was no re-examination by the prosecution and the day ended at just after 16:00 hrs.
The court would sit eight more times before the acquittal ruling was delivered. The proceedings had to typed, submissions had to be written by both prosecution and defence, Chief Magistrate Mutuku went on leave twice, and she wrote a 113-page ruling although much of it was a recapitulation of witness testimony. The final acquittal was read on October 23rd, 2023. Chief Magistrate Mutuku was transferred the following week.
That, however, was not the case conclusion. Chief Magistrate Alex Ithuku took over the matter and there would be 15 further sittings relating to arguments over the returning of the accused’s vehicles and assets under restraint. The file did not finally culminate until September 2024.
CASE MANAGEMENT & TRANSFERS
The trial of ‘Sheikh’s et al’, would sit on 81 occasions between June 23rd, 2015, and October 23rd, 2023, the day of arraignment to the final acquittal ruling.
From those 81 sittings, 40 sittings did not achieve their intended purpose, resulting in adjournment. Of those 40 sittings, 28 were for scheduled hearings that did not take place. Overall, the court itself was responsible for 14 adjournments, defence counsel/accused for seven, and the ODPP for 17 adjournments. Two adjournments were for reasons not specified in the court file.
The causes of the adjournments were varied and not limited to; transfer of magistrates or prosecutors, absent witnesses, prosecutors absent in another court, sickness, training, incompletion of submissions or rulings, and annual leave that was not factored into case management.
The matter was handled by four (or five) Magistrates; Chief Magistrate Shitubi for 11 sittings over 2 months, and Senior Principal Magistrate Rotich for 9 sittings over ten months. There was a nine-month hiatus where the file appeared to be unassigned although Chief Magistrate Matheka did set hearing dates on October 27th, 2016. Chief Magistrate Evans Makori had the file from February 2017 for 4 ½ years that included 37 sittings and testimony from 25 witnesses before his tumultuous transfer59 (over a delayed promotion) in September 2021. Chief Magistrate Martha Mutuku had the file for just over two years and 17 sittings up to the acquittal ruling. She was transferred just days following.
For the ODPP, the case was handled by five primary prosecutors with a number of others stepping in from time to time regarding bail matters or holding brief for various reasons.
Alexander Muteti (now a High Court judge) appeared in court on eight occasions before his transfer to Nairobi in 2017. He led one witness. Jami Yamina appeared 28 times, split between 2015 to 2018 and then on his return from 2021 to conclusion. He led 24 witnesses. Eugene Wangila led three witnesses in his four appearances before his abrupt ‘transfer’ in mid-2019. He was followed by Edgar Mulamula with 10 appearances prior to Jami Yamina’s return. There were five other Mombasa prosecutors who sat in from time to time when trial testimony was not being heard and that totalled 20 occasions. Prosecutor Alex Gituma, the regularly assigned prosecutor for Mombasa courtroom 1, held brief on 11 occasions.
As has been observed, transfers of magistrates and prosecutors figured prominently in the eight year trial process.
Transfers, or the re-location of personnel from one law court, one station, one post, to another, are part and parcel of Kenya’s criminal justice system. In a yet to be completed study by the author, of 93 ivory cases under observation, at least 41 of them have been subject to disruptions associated to mid-trial transfer of presiding magistrates.
The Judiciary, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Police Service, and the Kenya Wildlife Service are all national agencies and so all employees know that re-location is in the job description. The author has observed that it is not uncommon for persons within the criminal justice sector to work in one area of the country while close family members live in another. A bureaucratic, inflexible, and compromised education system60 contributes to the challenges faced by affected staff with families and children.
On paper and in theory, the reasons for transfers are logical; organizational gaps due to promotions, retirements, re-alignment of services, to name but a few. The “enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of service” is part of the transfer policy of the ODPP. For the NPS, it is stated that considerations for transfer should include that they be justified, financially viable, cause minimal disruption, be considerate to gender and ethnic representation, and that an officer must have served in a duty station for at least one year and maximum of three years to be considered for transfer. That time factor can be bypassed in exceptional circumstances.61
The policy also states that transfers should be “fair and just and does not allow corruption including soliciting or offering money or other services to acquire or avoid a transfer.” There is also a Bribery Act, Chapter 79B, Revised edition 2022, that reads as per Section 6 sub-section 1 that it is an offence to receive a bribe.
One has only to read the Kenyan news on a haphazard basis to understand that transfers in the criminal justice sector are often implemented as a punishment. It is regularly reported and observed that transfers are used as a penalty for professional misconduct, perceived or otherwise, and in lieu of criminal charges.62 They may also be affected to provide to the public the perception that action is being taken against a rogue offender.
As example, Chief Inspector Peter Mbua, who was the point police officer in the Feisal Mohamed Ali 2252 kg ivory case, was re-assigned when it appeared that his integrity had been compromised in relation to the investigation/prosecution. He was transferred as the officer commanding one of the larger Mombasa police stations to a supervisory post with a traffic unit in rural central Kenya.24
Transfers have also become weaponized, used as an overhanging threat or as incentive to coerce or promise actors within all the different criminal justice sectors to engage in or turn a blind eye to, unjust, illegal, and/or corrupt acts. They may also result from the non-execution of an unlawful or corrupt directive or a transfer may appear as a promotion for facilitating an unlawful or corrupt directive. A targeted employee may be re-assigned for the sole reason that another wants his/her position and has favour with a superior who can affect it.
Transfers can come from doing one’s job too well, or from doing one’s job poorly, and it may come on the basis of one phone call. There is little recourse. A scheduled transfer may be delayed if an individual due for re-assignment contributes and enhances the economic well-being of his/her superior(s).
This weaponization, this ‘sword of Damocles’, is made even more effectively malevolent due to the utter lack of employment opportunities within Kenya, and especially within the government and public service. A transfer that impacts the economic stability could be devastating for those who find themselves supporting extended family, as is often the case. Single mothers within the criminal justice sector are particularly vulnerable, especially in circumstances where they have close family ‘in situ’ of their present posting or station and involved in child upbringing.
The current transfer process and its misuse does raise concerns and questions when re-assignments are affected during investigations or trials of significance or at significant points during a trial. There is no evidence that any magistrate, prosecutor, or investigator involved in this trial were transferred for reasons untoward. The transfer process did, however, have an impact on the duration of the trial. Perhaps that was the point.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
In her acquittal ruling, Chief Magistrate Martha Mutuku wrote the following relating to the three charges before the court.
There was no evidence, no photographs, no witness testimony adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the claim that the accused persons were dealing, selling, or purchasing the said wildlife trophies.
There has been no evidence produced that the nine accused persons were in any way exporting specimens of wildlife species contrary to Section 99 (1) of the WCMA.
None of the witnesses connected the accused persons or produced any telephone conversations or minutes of a meeting where the accused persons structured themselves to acted together and in concert with others.
She continued with other key facets of prosecution. There was no evidence at all to prove that the subject motor vehicle (KNY 944) left the yard (Siginon Global) with the container once it had been stuffed with tea, was driven to the compound at Nyali and stuffed with ivory before being driven to the port to deliver the container.
There was no evidence at all as to when the said container was stuffed with ivory, neither is there any eyewitness who saw the motor vehicle at the compound of the plot at Nyali (ivory consolidation point) with the container.
A breakdown follows on the evidence presented to the court in relation to each accused and the key components of the investigation.
- Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh aka Said Juma Said A#1 – The evidence of Chief Inspector Barnaby Chumo, whereby the Nyali property agent, in an identification parade process, identified Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh and Said Juma Said as one and the same person, was significant. This would indicate he was the person leasing the property where the ivory was allegedly being collected. However, from the court’s perspective, there was no further evidence on details concerning the regular lease payments (by cash) over the two-year period and no apparent investigation on the Tanzanian passport of Said Juma Said produced as identification. LIMITED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
- Sheikh Mahmoud Abdulrahman A#2: A receipt found during the search of the Nyali property was alleged to have included a Nakumatt (supermarket) client number that was traced to A#2. This receipt was never entered into evidence nor was any statement ever taken from an employee of the Nakumatt store that produced the receipt. NO EVIDENCE
- Mahmoud Abdulrahman Sheikh A#3: The alleged evidence against A#3, came out through testimony of SSP Githinji that the three (primary accused) were seen going together to the (Nyali) house. There was no witness testimony to this fact. NO EVIDENCE
- Lucy Muthoni Kahoto, Kenya Revenue Authority, A#4: She was the verification officer who attended the loading of tea into the subject container. Witness testimony indicated that she did not enter required customs information into the KRA system relating to this shipment on the date and time required. There was no evidence that she communicated with any of the co-accused. EVIDENCE OF PROCEDURAL INFRACTIONS
- Musa Jacob Lithare A#5: Was the de-facto owner of the vehicle that transported the ivory into the port. This was not in admissible evidence before the court as his spouse was the actual owner. There was no evidence before the court showing that Lithare had any connection to the Jefwa’s or the primary accused or had any knowledge relating to the ivory. NO EVIDENCE
- Samuel Mbote Mundia, taxi driver, A#6: Mundia was alleged to have been complicit in the escape of the Jefwa’s. His name did not come up in court until the last five minutes of SSP Githinji’s testimony. That evidence was apparently based on a statement given by Mundia to police that was not entered into evidence and the facts of which were not corroborated. NO EVIDENCE
- Salim Mohamed Juma Khamisi A#7: The court was provided no evidence in relation to this accused. The lead investigator could provide no reason as to why he was charged. NO EVIDENCE
- Abbasi Issa Rashid A#8: The court was provided no evidence in relation to this accused. The lead investigator could provide no reason as to why he was charged. NO EVIDENCE
- Kenneth Mwangi Njuguna, driver, A#9: The driver of the container was identified by witnesses as having delivered the container to Siginon and departing with the loaded container. He is also identified as having delivered the container to the port. The report of his having taken the container to the Nyali compound is based on his statement provided to police. It is not known if it was a statement under caution, but regardless, no attempt was made to enter it into evidence and the facts contained therein were not corroborated by other independent admissible sources. There is no evidence of any communication with any of the other accused parties. LIMITED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
The container was confirmed through evidence to have entered Mombasa port and its being loaded onto the vessel, Cape Moss. There is circumstantial evidence through emails between the Jefwa’s and Rais Shipping that indicated that the container did arrive in Singapore prior to trans-shipment to Thailand. There was no admissible evidence that the container arrived at Port Laem Chabang.
There is evidence through testimony and photographs that the container left the Siginon warehouse with two seals, one provided by the Jefwa’s (through Rais Shipping) and a second seal provided by the Siginon through the warehouse supervisor. Testimony from a KPA employee indicated that the container arrived with one seal. No evidence or testimony was provided to indicate what may have happened to the second seal. No evidence was before the court as to how the ivory was placed in the container or specifically where that occurred.
The CCTV footage of the truck and container entering the port, also depicting a document transaction between Samuel Jefwa and three other individuals within a two minute and 26 second time frame was not produced for the court. There was no indication in that footage that the container seals were visually checked. That footage was still available in 2021 and used for the film documentary, “The Planet Killers – The Ivory Kings”7.
From evidence provided by IP Kibagendi and SSP Githinji, the following items were found during the Nyali house search; suspected ivory shards and particles, a bag containing tea leaves, children’s diapers, weigh scales, a cutting machine or saw, a Nakumatt receipt, airtime scratch cards. There was no exhibit inventory relating to this search. The bag of tea, weigh scales, the children’s diapers, and the Nakumatt receipt (the only piece of evidence linking the second accused to this case) were not submitted as exhibits nor were explanations provided as to reasons.
The ivory shards/particles were in small envelopes. There is legible writing on only one envelope as to the location found. It is not known which of approximately 50 officers present, found these ivory particles. These exhibits were submitted for analysis to the National Museum of Kenya. In his testimony, IP Kibagendi had only a copy of the exhibit report and no knowledge as to the whereabouts of the original.
The cutting tool seized in the Nyali compound was not initially produced by IP Kibagendi as he told the court that it was missing. A cutting tool was produced two years later with the testimony of SSP Githinji. Considering the compromised search and handling of the exhibits, the legitimacy of the tool is questioned.
The airtime scratch cards were submitted as evidence. It was stated that there was evidence of communications through the use of these cards but the officer who authored the particular report did not testify.
Financial evidence was produced in relation to the cost of tea and the associated shipping costs of Siginon Global Logistics and Rais Shipping. There was no evidence relating to any financial transaction that had any bearing on the purchase and delivery of the ivory or any asset owned by the accused’s as being proceeds of crime. An affidavit of July 3rd, 2015, drafted by then CI Githinji, stated that there were reasonable grounds to believe that all seized vehicles and several assets/properties under investigation were proceeds of crime and derived from the illicit trade in ivory. Which statement was correct?
While reference was made through early affidavits provided to the court indicating that one of the accused, Musa Lithare, had been charged in relation to another ivory seizure, no similar fact evidence was provided the court as to how the matter under investigation was linked to other ivory seizures. Muteti had also told the court that there was a nexus between ‘Sheikh’s et al’ and the ivory seizure involving Feisal Mohamed Ali. Evidence of this was never provided.
No arresting police officers of accused persons and no officers involved in taking statements from those accused persons were called as witnesses.
Siginon Global Logistics declared their absolute innocence to all. This was not correct. While it was clear that the ivory was not loaded into the container at their warehouse, the fact that one of their clerk’s attended at the port with the gating in of lorry KNY 944 and its container, 48 hours after loading, indicated impropriety within their organization. The same impropriety was noted with the Singapore sister seizure.
While early affidavits indicated that some evidence had been gained though the analysis of phone/communications data, there was no reference to this data or any other related communications data during the trial.

QUESTIONS AND CONTRADICTIONS
PHONE DATA
The use of phone data is integral to essentially all major DCI investigations. They even have investigators seconded to Safaricom (the largest telecommunications provider in Kenya) for such facilitation. The application of this evidence in prosecutions is, however, inconsistent and appears open to misuse and manipulation.
During the trial of Feisal Mohamed Ali, the prosecution, through the DCI, and their Safaricom liaison officer, produced for the court a chart (figure 17) that depicted phone communications (a visual call log) between FMA and 15 other individuals. That evidence was produced and submitted to the court in February 2016. Alexander Muteti was the prosecutor representing the state on that day.
In a second high-profile ivory trafficking case in Nairobi, MCCR/1649/2017*, R. vs. Julius Abluu Adika & Abdinur Ibrahim Ali & 5 others {217 kg}, one in which the six accused had also been charged with an organized crime offence, the prosecution produced mobile phone data during the trial. The Safaricom liaison officer who testified, told the court that he had been instructed to compile and generate Mpesa statements (mobile banking accounts) and call logs on seven Safaricom accounts relating to the accused. This instruction was received on July 3rd, 2017, within a week of the original arrests. A chart was produced depicting the calls between all accused.
The 2016 prosecution of a Mombasa clearing agent, MCCR/2511/2016*, R. vs. Ephantus Gitonga Mbare {1098 kg}, also utilized phone data. He had been charged regarding his involvement in the 1098 kg shipment of ivory that had originated in Kampala, Uganda, and was destined for Cambodia.
And in a fourth instance, in a matter investigated prior to ‘Sheikh’s et al’, the January 2013 Mombasa seizure, MCCR/417/2013* – R. vs. Fredrick Sababu Mungule and James Kassiwa {3827 kg)}, the IO submitted to the courts a phone data report that included persons who were suspect but not arrested.
But in ‘Sheikh’s et al’? No phone data evidence was submitted to the court. This, despite the fact, that early affidavits relating to bail arguments made it evident that a phone data analysis in some capacity had been initially conducted.
Chief Magistrate Martha Mutuku also made mention of the absence of phone communication data in her ruling, stating:
“The Prosecution called a total of 28 witnesses and none of the witnesses connected the accused persons or produced any telephone conversations or minutes of a meeting where the accused persons structured themselves to acted together and in concert with others to deal in game trophy namely 511 pieces of ivory weighing 3,127 kg without a licence.”
There have been two other major ivory prosecutions where phone data was not utilized in the prosecution. MCCR/754/2013*, R. vs. Fredrick Mungule, James Kassiwa and Nelson Ayoo {1833 kg Singapore}, the corrupted acquittal, had no evidence of phone communications. The other matter was MCCR/1673/2014 – R. vs. Kenneth Kamau Maina & N’faly Doukoure {784 kg}, where two of the involved parties were Guinean nationals, one being Amara Cherif, the second in command of the West African crime group.
When one is waiting in the halls of law courts for long periods of time (which is almost always the case when monitoring court trials) people talk and things are heard. In 2015, in the halls of Mombasa law courts, it was overheard that one of the primary accused had made a phone call to someone who was a state actor. No name was mentioned.
At the time, it was just a tidbit of interest, and a tidbit that was of no surprise. Rumours had been floated in Kenya from the 1970’s to the present day of ivory trafficking involvement by persons of prominence including, Rift Valley governors,63 Cabinet Secretaries’, MP’s, and even President Joma Kenyatta’s fourth wife and President Uhuru Kenyatta’s mother, Lady Mama Ngina.64,65 In 2013, ivory stolen from the Mombasa State House was found in a seized ivory shipment in Mombasa port.66

In February 2016, four policemen were arrested while in the process of ferrying 5 kg of ivory in a government vehicle. One policeman was the driver for the Minister of the Interior, Fred Matiang’i, another was a guard for NARC leader Martha Karua, and the other two were attached to a former Principal Secretary whose identity was never discovered. (the four were initially convicted and sentenced to a 20 million shilling fine or in lieu life imprisonment which was reduced on appeal to 1 million shilling fine or in lieu 5 years imprisonment.) (MCCR 994/2016*, R. vs. Francis Kioi Karanja, Stephen Chege Ngawai & 2 others).
In more recent times, three police officers and a civilian were arrested in June 2024, while ferrying 29 kg of ivory in a government vehicle. One of the officers was attached to the Presidential Escort Unit of President Ruto, another was assigned to a senior politician from Eldoret, and a third was reported to be attached to the Judiciary at Milimani court (MCCR/E071/2024 Kahawa, R. vs. Charles Nzuki Mutua, Ben Kipkosgei and 2 others).67 This matter is still in the early stages in Kahawa court with the delay game having already commenced.
In November 2017, Mongabay published an article, “Four senior politicians investigated for wildlife trafficking” that included interviews with the DPP Keriako Tobiko and a senior DCI investigator. It detailed how three sitting Governors, Mike Mbuvi Sonko, Anne Waiguru and Ferdinand Waitutu, were under investigation for involvement in the trafficking of wildlife trophies to fund their election war chests (The story was retracted within days for ‘inconsistencies’.)68 There has never been any indication that the reported investigation bore fruit although Sonko and Waitutu were both impeached and removed from office in 2020 for integrity issues.
As has been identified in this case study, the involved clearing agent, Siginon Global Logistics, was part of the business empire of ex-President Daniel Arap Moi. It was not the only Moi business entity connected to an ivory seizure.
The consignor, as per documents of the July 2013 Mombasa 3287 kg seizure, (MCCR/3081/2013*, R vs. Nicholas Maweu John) was ‘Fresh Produce Limited’, a company reportedly owned by Gideon Moi,69 a son of ex-President Moi and a sitting Senator. The magistrate who made the acquittal ruling in that matter stated:
“The consignment’s customs entry form exhibit herein gives the exporter consignor as Fresh Produce Ltd, Nairobi, yet no one from the company was charged or called to testify. Even the driver of the vehicle used to deliver the cargo at the port has not testified. Clearly, the case was poorly investigated and also, the accused was only charged about 6 months after the incident with no explanation for the delay.”
A third affiliated business to the Moi empire that surfaced in an ivory trafficking investigation was ‘Lukiza Limited, South Sudan’.70 The said business was listed as the consignor in the initial shipping documentation for a consignment that was found to contain 1098 kg of ivory hidden in hollowed out teak beams that began its journey in South Sudan with stops in Kampala and Mombasa. The second consignor, ‘Ispina Trading Company’ of Kampala, Uganda, was never investigated.71 (MCCR/2511/2016*, R. vs. Ephantus Gitonga Mbare {1098 kg})
It has been demonstrated that in the early stages of this trial, phone data in some form was analyzed. Paragraph 13 of Chief Inspector Githinji’s affidavit relating to bail opposition and signed on June 23rd, 2015,46 stated “that communication data has shown a coordination linking the movement to the port from Nyali of the ivory container between the first, second and fifth accused persons and one of their respective drivers accused in this matter.”46 This was significant evidence, the only evidence, in fact, implicating two of the primary accused with the suspect container and its movement to the port. This evidence did not make it to trial.
Telephone conversations were also indicated to have taken place between one of the Jefwa brothers and the second accused, Sheikh A#2. These allegations were found in the supporting affidavits of the Jefwa brothers to their application for ‘Anticipatory Bail Pending Arrest’ dated November 3rd, 2022.72 It was divulged that there had been a minimum of four telephone conversations between the Jefwa’s and ‘Sheikh Ahmed Abdulrahman’ relating to the discovery of the ivory in Thailand and Singapore. While the veracity of the Jefwa’s statements may be suspect, it is realistic to believe the high likelihood of a phone conversation taking place between the two on the discovery of the ivory in Bangkok and Singapore.
It is also highly likely that the intelligence linking the Sheikh’s to the Jefwa brothers, Moazu Kromah, and Mansur Surur originated from a mobile phone (s). A known modus operandi of the West African crime group was the relaying by mobile phone, of bill of lading information to their ‘exporters’.
Is there any inference that can be drawn from phone data omission that is not synonymous with compromise?
WHEN DID THE COMPROMISE BEGIN
The answer to this question may well be found in the answer to the last question. Who did the primary accused first reach out to?
In any event, the first obvious indicator of outside interference was not until October 2016. This was on the occasion of DCI Director, Francis Muhuro Ndegwa’s, statement to the media that the Jefwa’s were being protected by wealthy persons behind the killing of elephants and rhinos. There were, however, indicators that the derailing had commenced well before.
Prior to the arrest of the three Sheikh’s on June 3rd, 2015, the investigation appeared to be moving forward smoothly. The multi-agency investigative team had found the ivory consolidation point and seized exhibits that subsequently led them to the three primary accused. During the various bail processes for those arrested, there was reference in open court, either verbally or through affidavit, as to how ‘Sheikh’s et al’ was linked to the FMA prosecution, had a Uganda connection, how investigative efforts were being made through MLA to contact Tanzania on the Said Juma Said passport, and how communications were being initiated with Singapore to obtain suitable evidence relating to the sister seizure. Nothing actionable came from any of those statements of intent. In fact, there is no evidence to indicate, from that observed in the courtroom, that investigators did anything after June 30th, 2015, to solidify their case for the prosecution.
In court on July 30th, when the two associated arrest files, 1086/15 and 1190/15, were consolidated with 1132/15, the ODPP told the court that their investigation from the international aspect was incomplete and requested that it was premature to proceed to a hearing date under the circumstances. Defence counsel were strongly opposed and requested a hearing date or withdrawal of charges.
In her ruling on August 13th, CM Shitubi made it clear to the court that she was not going to permit, what in her opinion, was unnecessary delay in this trial. Her position was that “at the point of preferring charges the prosecution is supposed to be armed with all the evidence that can go to trial.” She further stated that that regarding the mutual legal assistance request, “the prosecution must come out clearly or seek other avenues of resolving the issue.”32 It was clear that Chief Magistrate Shitubi was not going to allow her court to endure a long and protracted trial. She was replaced the next day with a Magistrate on ‘probation’ and battling an addiction.
WAS THERE EVIDENCE TO CHARGE?
It has been shown that this prosecution was, on reaching its conclusion, practically devoid of admissible evidence. Considering that the charging decision is made by the ODPP, it is of interest as to how they reached their initial decision to charge. In theory, the decision to charge is based on the likelihood of conviction. From what has been observed, once the witness selection had been finalized, there was never any likelihood of conviction in ‘Sheikh’s et al’.
This would indicate that one of two things occurred. The ODPP were duplicitous and made a decision to charge for reasons that had nothing to do with evidence. Conversely, their decision to charge was based on actual evidence that was later withheld or not made available by the DCI.
The DCI were in the same boat. Initial affidavits indicated an investigation with substance, but that disappeared in dust. The logical conclusion, therefore, was that the DCI and CI Githinji were either walking a line of perjury in their initial affidavits and testimony or the investigation was stifled as the prosecution progressed.
WHO WAS MAKING THE DECISIONS
Who was really making the major prosecutorial decisions? It was not the prosecutors of the Mombasa office.
Two letters between the DCI, the ODPP regional office in Mombasa, and their headquarters, provide some insight on the ODPP decision-making process, and perhaps their workload and/or the importance of these wildlife trafficking cases.
On June 30th, 2015, a charge sheet was presented to Mombasa court under file MCCR/1197/2015 alleging that David Ali and Musa Jacob Litare had conspired with others to contravene the East Africa Community Customs Management Act through the conveyance of the 1833 kg ivory into the port two years previous. This was in relation to the seizure in Singapore in January 2013 of 1099 pieces of ivory that had originated in Mombasa and was repatriated. As will be recalled, Musa Jacob Lithare, was the owner of the two lorries that had transported at least six containers of ivory into the port. File MCCR/1197/2015 was to be consolidated with MCCR 754/2013* R. vs. Fredrick Sababu Mungule, James Kassiwa and Nelson Ayoo {1833 kg}.
In a letter from the head of the DCI office at Kilindini (Mombasa Port) to the ODPP regional office in Mombasa on March 16th, 2016, advice was requested relating to Lithare and Ali, who while they had now been charged as accused in MCCR/754/2013, were also described as “crucial witnesses” in that same prosecution. The letter stated the matter was coming up for hearing on May 19th, 2016.
On July 18th, 2016 (four months later), the Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Mombasa, forwarded the above request with a copy of the police file to the ODPP HQ Nairobi requesting input. Mombasa received a reply dated March 27th, 2017 (eight months later) from the Deputy Director Public Prosecutions, Nicholas K. Mutuku, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keriako Tobiko, advising that the charges against Lithare and Ali should be withdrawn so they can testify as prosecution witnesses.
Lithare and Ali did subsequently testify as “crucial witnesses” for the prosecution and provided no evidence of substance that would prove any of the facts in issue against any accused in that matter.
The question follows that if the ODPP HQ are making the decisions such as described, what was the range of their involvement in this prosecution?
The Second Failed Mutual Legal Assistance Request
The failed process of the second mutual legal assistance request of Kenya to the U.S. to provide new evidence was never explained. One would surmise that prior to making the ‘informal’ evidence announcement, that backroom discussions would have ensued between the U.S. government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), the ODPP, and perhaps Kenya’s Attorney-General’s office, on the feasibility of utilizing the new evidence,
Details of the application and affidavit, alleging the evidence of direct collaboration between the Sheikh’s, the Jefwa brothers, and Moazu Kromah, made it to Kenya’s three major daily’s on or about the same day. As the application had been made in closed chambers in Mombasa, the indication of a planned ‘release’ was evident.
One may therefore question as to whether decision makers were using this as an opportunity to show publicly that the accused were guilty, knowing that the evidence would never reach the admissible stage? Or perhaps some other political game was being played? Considering that the application never made it to open court for arguments, the most rational conclusion to be reached was that the process was blocked at a level above that of the DPP and the Attorney General. In the end, after eight successive adjournments, the trial was delayed by over a year and another mutual legal assistance request by Kenya for significant evidence against the accused of this prosecution did not materialize.
THE DEATH OF THE IO AND OTHERS
The passing of the initial lead investigator, Superintendent Alphonce Odhiambo Kamlus, was provided as mitigation to explain the absence and/or very late submission of exhibits to the court. It has been determined that around the time of his death as head of the Economic Crime Unit and Financial Investigation Unit, he was also investigating internally, traffic officers who had an accumulation of unexplained assets and who had been dismissed through a related vetting process. In other words, if his death was of a suspicious nature, there were no shortage of suspects.
There is nothing to suggest that his death had anything to do with the ‘Sheikh’s et al’ investigation or even anything to do with his policing duties. He was not, however, the only significant person to reportedly die in this investigation or even in other major ivory prosecutions.
Musa Kipkoech Kiptoo was an employee of Siginon Global Logistics and the warehouse supervisor on duty on March 21st, 2015, when the container was loaded with tea. He was the individual who provided the Siginon seal that was affixed to the container on its closing. He was selected as a witness but reportedly passed away before he could testify.
In two related Mombasa ivory prosecutions, a co-accused to Fredrick Mungule also died before the trials properly commenced. Gideon Naftali Onsinyo Nyangau was a KPA employee of 27 year’s experience and had the position of Berths Record clerk when the three January 2013 seizures were made. One of his duties was the preparation of the container loading list. It was through an anomaly on one of these lists, that the discovery of the Mombasa 3827 kg ivory shipment had been realized. It was alleged that he was the author of the specific anomalies that loaded prohibited containers onto the ships. It is likely that he had ‘adjusted’ many previous loading lists allowing ivory and other cargo to be exported out of Kenya.
In January 2014, just under a year after his initial arrest, it was reported that he had died at Kenyatta Hospital in Nairobi from a pulmonary embolism. He was obviously a very key person in the investigation and prosecution. In 2017, while Wildlife Direct was monitoring the ‘Sheikh’s et al’, they launched an investigation as to whether Nyangau was actually deceased, deceased through natural causes, or just reported as such. Their findings were inconclusive.
Lastly, in a Kibera (Nairobi) court case, MCCR/1649/2017*, R. vs. Julius Abluu Adika & Abdinur Ibrahim Ali & 5 others {217 kg}, the first accused in that matter, Julius Abluu Adika, who was renting the home where the 217 kg of worked ivory was found, also reportedly passed away mid-trial.
THE TEA SCANNING EXEMPTION
It was widely reported that the container subject to this report was not scanned in port due to a tea exemption made through an agreement between the East African Tea Traders Association and the KPA Mombasa port. No official details of that agreement were ever provided.
At the time, (and likely nothing has changed but the price) it was known that one could get a container into the port and onto a ship, no questions asked, 6,7 for a fee of USD $5000.
The tea scanning exemption was saving ivory traffickers significant bribe money that would otherwise have been paid as a scanner avoidance charge. It would be of interest as when and who was the architect of that proposal.
HOW DID THE IVORY GET INTO THE CONTAINER
This question has never been answered. Chief Magistrate Martha Mutuku in her ruling stated:
“All the prosecution witnesses who inspected and sealed the container told the court that by the time the container was loaded and sealed it had not been tampered with.”
She overlooked one fact.
While there was photographic evidence as well as testimony from more than one witness that the container left Siginon with two seals affixed, the testimony of a KPA security guard at Mombasa Port indicated the presence of only one seal.
There were a number of ambiguities surrounding this testimony.
This is evidence that should have come from the KRA officer manning Mombasa port entry gate 9, Jonathan Mungoti, It was one of his duties to record and verify seals on containers entering the port. Jonathan Mungoti was, in fact, amongst the first to be arrested with the Siginon Global employees. He was a witness selected to testify but never attended court despite a summons to do so.
With his absence, planned or otherwise, it appeared that his replacement to get the seal evidence into court, was through KPA security guard, Haddson or Haddison (or perhaps Harrison) Kathogo. The notes taken on his testimony by CM Makori and/or its transcription are nebulous at best. It was not clear as to Kathogo’s exact duties on that date, whether he was on the entry gate or exit gate, but he did produce a copy of a page from a book register that recorded vehicles and containers entering the port. This copy was not dated as it was explained that it was a page continuation. Kathago made reference, on cross examination, of seal #728614, that it was affixed to the container brought in by Samuel Jefwa and Kenneth Njunga and had not been subjected to tampering.
If Kathago was being deceitful and there were no seals on the container when it entered port, then it is easily surmised that the two seals were cut off prior to the loading of the ivory at Nyali.
If Kathago was being truthful, and a seal, #728614, was on the container, alternate theories need to be considered. A media report published shortly after the seizure stated: “An X-ray of the container done in Thailand showed that the ivory was put into the containers after their bottoms were cut.”73 There was no indication as to the original source of this information but it would have likely derived from the police or someone inside the investigation. But was it true?
From the photos taken of the container fully laden with tea at Siginon, it would seem labour intensive to cut out the bottom of a container, remove 11 tonnes of tea, re-stock with over 3 tonnes of ivory and more tonnes of tea, and then replace and re-secure the bottom of the container. More so, without the assistance of heavy equipment and in a compound within a high-end suburban area.
The far more plausible explanation, an explanation that the KRA and KPA would be reticent to admit, but as provided through an investigator of Wildlife Direct in 2015, the shipper’s seal was counterfeit.74 This informant information was corroborated by a G4S report of the same time period that stated that through the use of 3D printers, criminals could counterfeit a security seal in less than 10 minutes.75
In this particular case, seal #728614, was received by the Jefwa’s from Rais Shipping four days before the container went to port, ample time to come up with a replacement seal. Alternatively, if Rais Shipping or an insider was in the loop, two identical seals could have been provided initially.
The most likely explanation, therefore, is that at the collection point in the Nyali compound, the two seals were cut off, prior to re-loading. The Sheikh’s/Jefwa’s had only a counterfeit seal for the one provided by Rais Shipping and so only sealed the container with the one seal. They were not concerned with KRA protocols on port entry as that had already been ‘covered’.
Interestingly, a similar discrepancy with seals arose in the prosecution MCPCR/418/2017 Shanzu* – R. vs James Kinyua Njagi and 6 others (1004 kg – Singapore). In this trial, SSP Githinji was also testifying, and when questioned in relation to a container with the absence of a seal, stated he did not wish to speculate.
THE IVORY
The actions of the ODPP relating to Kenya’s failure to repatriate the Thailand ivory raised the question as to the importance or necessity of having the actual seized ivory as an exhibit before the court for a successful conviction.
By 2019, and surely on the conclusion of Kenya’s Principal Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Dr. Monica Juma’s visit to Thailand, it would have been clear to all, that this ivory was not going to be returned. If the ivory was, in fact, an essential prerequisite for prosecution, should not the prosecution have then withdrawn the charges? One is left to speculate as to whether there were other circumstances involved.
In early May 2015, Thai Minister of Natural Resources and Environment, Dapong Ratanasuwan, in a joint press conference with the Director-General of Customs, Somchai Sujjapongse, advised that the ivory that they had seized in Bangkok had been previously reshipped to Kenya to be used as evidence against ivory traffickers. General Dapong was quoted as saying: “ most of them were the tusks earlier seized and sent back to their origins in Africa whereas some were those having been kept as evidence in some countries.”76 Kenyan authorities responded that they would investigate and two weeks later a denial was issued from the Mombasa port police boss, Zachareus Ngeno, saying that all exhibits were intact; not that denials of criminal wrong doing from the National Police Service have strong standing.
Nevertheless, this subject of stolen stockpiled Kenyan ivory was never broached again. In the public realm, and years preceding this seizure, Thailand had made two major seizures of ivory that had originated in Kenya; one in 2011 of 2033 kg (later reported as 881.81 kg77) in a shipment of frozen fish and involving Fredrick Sababu Mungule, and a second in July 2012 involving an air freight consignment of 456 kg of ivory declared as handicrafts.
There is no public record of either shipment, or portions thereof, being repatriated to Kenya. This does not mean that it did not happen through back channels. The 2011 seizure weight reported as both 2033 kg and 881.8 kg, but with a recorded number of tusk pieces unchanged at 247, may have some significance. Minor differences in ivory seizure weights are not uncommon, however, a difference of over one tonne is suspect.
In 2020, Dr. Wasser returned to Bangkok and was permitted to take the appropriate samples for DNA analysis, not only from this Thailand seizure, but also from the seizure made the week previous that originated from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The sampling of the DRC seizure was made at the request of Thai authorities and the entire process was completed as a collaboration between Thai customs, the Attorney General’s office, the Department of National Parks, and U.S. Homeland Security Investigations – Thailand office. All samples were packaged for shipping to the University of Washington lab pending the release of the required export permits. Inexplicably, the permit issuance was blocked the DNP.
Five years later, the exhibits are still languishing in Thailand.
It would seem that there is something about this ivory that is still sensitive to someone.
Part 4 to follow with conclusion and an addendum on this seizure’s connection to transnational organized crime and many other ivory shipments, evidence that never finds its way into the courtroom.
