Download PDF: 2025 Following the Ivory_Wildlife Courts SEEJ
Abstract
This report is based on a two year court monitoring project attending 125 elephant ivory prosecutions with offence dates between 2015 and 2024. The study ran from March 2023 to March 2025. Court monitors attended 774 sittings at 21 different Kenyan Law Courts located in areas where there was heavy trafficking activity.
Paramount to this project, the keystone of the study, was the recording of witness testimony, a dynamic not previously explored by others. Witness testimony was recorded from over 200 witnesses in 57 cases of the 125 cases under review.
The recording of witness testimony, the majority of whom were KWS investigators or rangers, presented avenues of study that had not been previously explored and revealed opportunities to assist the KWS in their investigative role as well as providing vulnerabilities that have not been openly recognised and may want to be addressed. The arrest process, the use of intelligence, crime scene photos, entrapment, escapees, were among the other areas discussed.
Of particular focus was the manner in which the seized ivory was processed post arrest, including its legal requirement to be presented to the court as an exhibit and the number of times it is done so.
Inconsistent sentencing has always been a topic of concern in wildlife crime cases. During this study, 72 cases concluded with 44 cases registering convictions, 21 acquittals, and seven others either terminated or withdrawn and a final conviction rate of 61%. A table is included detailing the sentences rendered.
Recognising the vulnerability of ivory cases and the fragility of the criminal justice system, integrity issues were one of the key parameters of this study. 18 of the 125 cases were deemed to have been corrupted and a further 41 presented criterion of prosecutions with possible integrity issues.
The study concludes that the criminal justice system’s susceptibility to exterior pressures in major ivory prosecutions, particularly those involving transnational organised crime, makes the expectation of a conviction or sentence of justice and deterrence unrealistic and not achievable.
Preface
I have always believed, since my introduction to the world of wildlife crime courtroom monitoring in 2015, that the true potential of that initiative had never been attained. No disrespect intended to Wildlife Direct (whom I consider my wildlife crime ‘Alma mater’), Space for Giants, the African Wildlife Foundation, or Big Life Kenya, all of whom have had a presence in various courtrooms around Kenya based on their own vision and priorities. Indeed, and to the best of my knowledge, it was Wildlife Direct who initially launched the courtroom monitoring initiative beginning in 2013.
In early 2023, through fortuitous chance, I, ‘SEEJ-AFRICA’, was presented with the opportunity to take up the wildlife crime courtroom monitoring torch through an agreed strategy between Wildlife Direct and the Elephant Crisis Fund, to further the court monitoring initiative but with my own design and purpose.
I believed that if a wildlife case was going to be monitored, there was a necessity to be inside the courtroom for almost every sitting, certainly every hearing, to go deeper than the data, to track the cases to conclusion where possible, to analyse the courtroom processes, to record witness testimony, the presentation of exhibits, and perhaps mitigate against the the corruption/compromise (I will those terms interchangeably) that affects vulnerable prosecutions. Ivory cases, by their very nature, are vulnerable prosecutions.
Make no mistake, with the local value of ivory equating to approximately one month’s salary for the average Kenyan, and also bearing in mind that Kenyan’s with steady employment are in the minority, there is a proverbial ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over every ivory related trial. The horse hair that holds the sword breaks more often than realised.
This constant existential threat of subversion needs to be discussed beyond just general terms, with silence, censure, and misrepresentation, surely being the ally of those responsible for continuing to endanger threatened species for their own personal gain, including elections. Just as importantly, specific dialogue and pro-active measures, beyond anti-corruption workshops, are signals of support to all those rangers and police who make arrests and carryout investigations with unwavering dedication and integrity, often putting their careers and indeed, their lives, in harms way.
There have been at least six previous reports authored in Kenya in the past ten years that relate to how the criminal justice system handles wildlife crime in the courtroom. This report differs in at least two significant ways. Elephant ivory cases are the focal point. We recorded witness testimony.
The recording of witness testimony, the majority of whom were KWS investigators or rangers, presented avenues of study that had not been previously explored and revealed opportunities to assist the KWS in their investigative role as well as providing vulnerabilities that have not been openly recognised and may want to be addressed.
While this study was based on attending courts over a two year period, some observations and recommendations are drawn from my ten years experience in attending, studying, and analyzing, wildlife crime prosecutions in Kenya. Recommendations are few, never seen in previous reports, and primarily related to the elephant ivory seized on arrest and how it is availed in the justice process.
This is an interim report and does not include a number of major ivory cases that concluded prior to the commencement of this project. Transnational Organized Crime cases with definitive links to the West African crime group will also be dealt with in a future and more comprehensive report.
This report would not have been possible without the support of The Elephant Crisis Fund, an initiative by Save The Elephants and the Wildlife Conservation Network. The author also thanks, with extreme gratitude, the efforts of the listed as well as unnamed contributors who attended the courts, spent countless hours standing in hallways or dusty courtyards, sitting on hardwood or brick benches, facing invective on occasion, while recording what transpired.
Index
Acronyms
Glossary
Introduction
By the Numbers
Executive Summary
Methodology and Parameters
Findings
Arresting Authority
Intelligence
The Arrest and Statements
The Charge Sheet
The Ivory Exhibits
Magistrates, Prosecutors and Courtrooms
Trial Process
Trial Duration
Prosecution Witnesses
Conveyance or Location
Crime Scene Photos
Escapees
Phone Data
Entrapment
Sentencing
Ivory Weight Discrepancies
Integrity
Vulnerabilities and Challenges
Recommendations
Conclusion
Appendix A – Summary of Significant Cases
Appendix B – Previous Articles/Reports by author
Appendix C – Project Case List
Acronyms
BUS Busia Law Courts
DCI Directorate of Criminal Investigation
EACCMA East Africa Community Customs Management Act, 2002
GUI Guinean
HLO High Level Offender
HQ Headquarters
IO. Investigating Officer
LATF Lusaka Agreement Task Force
LLO Low Level Offender
KAH Kahawa Law Courts
KAJ Kajiado Law Courts
KBR Kibera Law Courts
KIL Killifi Law Courts
KWA Kwale Law Courts
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
KWTF Kenya Wildlife Task Force
KAA Kenya Airport Authority
KRA Kenya Revenue Authority
JKIA Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (and Law Court)
MAC Machakos Law Courts
MBA Mombasa Law Courts
MAL Malindi Law Courts
MAR Mariakani Law Courts
MER Meru Law Courts
MKU Makindu Law Courts
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSA Msambweni Law Courts
NAI Naivasha Law Courts
NMK National Museum of Kenya
NAN Nanyuki Law Courts
NAR Narok Law Courts
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NPS National Police Service
NYA Nyahururu Law Courts
NYE Nyeri Law Courts
ODPP Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
SEEJ-AFRICA Saving Endangered Species through Education and Justice – AFRICA
SCPU Special Crime Prevention Unit
SHA Shanzu Law Courts
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SSU Special Service Unit
TCO Transnational Criminal Organization
TOC Transnational Organised Crime
TZA Tanzania
UGA Uganda
WCMA Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013
Glossary
Big Life Foundation Kenya: An NGO based in the shadow of Mount Kilimanjaro (on the Kenyan side) and in the environs of Amboseli National Park, Big Life utilizes “innovative conservation strategies and collaborating closely with local communities, partner NGOs, national parks, and government agencies, seeking to protect and sustain East Africa’s wildlife and wild lands.” It is the first organisation in East Africa with co-ordinated anti-poaching teams operating on both sides of the Kenya – Tanzania border.
Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI): The investigative arm of the National Police Service. The DCI has been the investigative lead in all major ivory seizures in/and relating to Kenya.
Hearing: A term referring to a court sitting before a magistrate or judge where witness testimony (prosecution or defence) or other evidence is presented and includes cross-examination.
Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS): The Kenya Wildlife Service is an organization of approximately 4500 staff that falls under the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife. It has a wide mandate to manage and protect over 40 national parks and reserves across the country, which includes enforcing the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013. The elimination of poaching and the protection of wildlife through enforcement and investigation is just one of its many responsibilities.
Kenya Wildlife Task Force (KWTF): The Kenya Wildlife Task Force was initially established in July 2021 as a multi-agency unit to investigate bushmeat and sandalwood offences. Comprised of members from the DCI, the Kenya Forest Service, and highly experienced advisors and analysts from international NGO, Focused Conservation, it later added ivory trafficking investigations to its repertoire. The KWS joined the Task Force in early 2024. The KWTF were disbanded in October 2024, reportedly for funding reasons.
Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF): The operative arm extending from a 1994 treaty amongst seven members to combat the illegal wildlife trade. The members are Republic of Congo, Kenya, Liberia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and the Kingdom of Lesotho. There are three signatories, South Africa, Ethiopia, and Eswatini. The LATF are headquartered in Nairobi on the same grounds as the Kenya Wildlife Service. Their mission includes reducing and eliminating the illegal trade in wildlife through facilitation of interagency law enforcement cooperation, investigations, dissemination and exchange of information and capacity building.
Magistrates Court: There are between 116 and 127 (sources differ) Magistrate court stations in Kenya. Within each court station or Law Court, there are between three to ten courtrooms and each is presided over by a magistrate. There are five ranks of magistrate ranging from Resident Magistrate to Chief Magistrate.
Mention: A term referring to a court sitting before a magistrate or judge that is typically shorter than a hearing and deals with administrative or procedural matters such as setting prospective hearing dates, checking witness availability, and/or the issuance of relevant documents or disclosure.
Major Ivory Seizure: An ivory seizure where the recovered weight is more than 500 kg.
National Police Service of Kenya (NPS): The national policing body in charge of law enforcement in Kenya. It has a total strength of approximately 100,000 personnel. Under the NPS umbrella is the Administration Police Service of approximately 25,000 personnel who are primarily tasked with border and infrastructure security. The General Service Unit (GSU) is a paramilitary arm of the NPS and numbers approximately 10,000. The Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI) is a sub-unit within the NPS.
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP): The national prosecuting authority of Kenya with a headquarters in Nairobi and eight regional offices.
Remand custody: Refers to the imprisonment of an accused while a trial is ongoing or after being found guilty and prior to sentencing.
The Special Crime Prevention Unit (SCPU): A special operations unit of the DCI that was first established in 1999. They were involved In two ivory seizures of significance that are captured in this study. In 2019, they were renamed the Special Service Unit (SSU) and involved in two more seizures. The SSU was disbanded in October 2022 after 16 members were implicated and charged in the abduction (and killing) of two Indian nationals and a Kenyan taxi driver. President Ruto admitted publicly that they had been “killing Kenyans”, referring to extrajudicial killings.
Special Service Unit (SSU): See Special Crime Prevention Unit.
Introduction
In the late afternoon of Monday, March 23rd, 2015, Kenneth Mwangi Njuguna pulled up to Gate 9 of Mombasa Port driving an old Fiat lorry, registration KNY 944, and hauling a 20’ container. He was accompanied by Samuel Jefwa, of Potential Quality Supplies, and Victor Shikuku, an export clerk from Siginon Freight Ltd. and met by Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) gate officer, Jonathan Mungoti. Inside the container were bags of tea leaves and 511 pieces of ivory weighing 3127 kg. This ‘gating in’ was captured by CCTV.
There had already been two breaches of regulatory protocol. The KRA officer who had verified the loading of the tea into the container at the Siginon warehouse 48 hours earlier had not entered that information into the KRA Simba system as per regulations. Secondly, the container arrived at the port missing one of the two seals. Regardless, the lorry and container were permitted entry and four weeks later, now in Thailand, the container was opened and the ivory discovered.
The seizure led to charges against Mombasa businessman, Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh, his father, half brother, and six others, for dealing in wildlife trophies and engaging in organised crime. One of the nine was the KRA officer who was less than ‘diligent’ in her duties at the Siginon warehouse. A financial and asset recovery investigation was commenced. Eight years and four months later, the group of nine were acquitted. Kenneth Njuguna, the lorry driver, was one of the nine. He had led police to the Mombasa area compound where he left the container to be loaded with ivory (although never proven.) Samuel Jefwa and brother Nicholas, the logisticians, were never apprehended, despite an Interpol international arrest warrant (red notice). They did, however, turn themselves in when the trial was all but over (subsequently released without charge). Export clerk, Victor Shikuku, spent one month in jail during the early investigation before being released also without charge. KRA officer, Jonathan Mungoti, never appeared in court despite being summonsed as a witness on more than one occasion. In a previous 2013 Mombasa ivory seizure, the KRA gating officer had been charged and convicted under similar circumstances. The CCTV footage that captured the ‘gating in’ was never entered into evidence.
The prosecution, submitting that the 3127 of seized ivory was a crucial exhibit in their prosecution, attributed the acquittal essentially on the failed mutual legal assistance negotiation with the Thai government who would not repatriate the ivory.
The lone Kenya media report on the court case, ‘How State Lost Sh570 million Ivory Smuggling Case‘ followed the same line; the accused were found not guilty due to a “failed mutual legal assistance between Kenya and Thailand and gaps in evidence adduced in court”.
And while it was correct that Thailand did not return the seized ivory to Kenya, the ODPP did not withdraw the charges when the failed repatriation was a certainty four years prior to acquittal.
The truth was very different. The case study, “Failed or ‘Failed’, Postmortem of an Ivory Prosecution” proved conclusively that the investigation and prosecution were manipulated, almost certainly by highly placed individuals within, or associated to, powerful figures within the Kenyan government, to ensure that only one verdict was possible. A conviction in this matter was never in the cards.
Over the course of the eight year trial, no evidence, and meaning completely no evidence, was presented against six of the nine accused. Circumstantial evidence was presented relating to the primary accused and the driver of the lorry but nothing that indicated possession or knowledge of ivory. The strongest case, for regulatory violations, was against the KRA officer who oversaw the tea loading. Key exhibits were never presented in court, basic police search protocols were not followed, critical statements were not taken, irrelevant witnesses testified, crucial witnesses did not, basic investigative avenues were not explored, no financial linkages were made, and the ivory shipment’s link to many other seizures, including connections to the Shuidong group in China, and the West African crime group in Kampala, never made it to court.
A major ivory prosecution with a ground breaking, financial and asset recovery component, initially portrayed to the international conservation justice community as being progressive and auspicious, ultimately collapsed with the blame falsely attributed to Thailand.
The “Failed or ‘Failed’” case study also explored the organised crime linkages that did not make it to this prosecution. Nineteen other cases were found, dating back to 2010, all with linkages to the West African crime group, and almost all suffered the same fate as Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh et al.
These facts are known because persons were in the court, watching, listening and recording.
By The Numbers
- SEEJ-AFRICA attended 125 ivory cases over the two year period at 21 Law Courts. 90 cases were attended three times or more. A Kahawa court case, E113/2022 – R. vs. Hoang Thi Diu, was attended on 30 occasions, officially the most under this project.
- Witness testimony was heard from over 200 witnesses in 57 of the 125 cases.
- Ivory cases monitored were found in 55 different courtrooms of the 21 Law Courts.
- 91 different magistrates were involved in the adjudication of those 125 cases. 58 cases involved two magistrates and 13 cases involved three or more magistrates.
- 22 cases eclipsed the five year duration mark with six of those still ongoing. Five cases lasted over 8 years. The Covid period did have a slight impact.
- 72 cases concluded during the two year project period with 44 cases registering convictions, 21 acquittals, seven others either terminated or withdrawn and a final conviction rate of 61%.
- 14 cases included foreign nationals. Tanzanians were the most represented with seven nationals, the accused in 5 cases. Two of the 16 foreign nationals (Chinese and Indonesian) were transit passengers at JKIA.
- Nine cases involved 13 law enforcement officers. This included the Indonesian national who was employed as a United Nations security officer transiting through Nairobi from Central African Republic to Indonesian.
- The Kenya Wildlife Service was the lead agency in at least 98 of the cases being monitored.
- At least 74 arrests/seizures originated from intelligence, the source of which was never divulged and without judicial oversight.
- In 2023, there were at least 71 incidents where ivory was seized with a total seizure amount of 2,037.17 kg.
- In 2024, 1521.80 kg of ivory was seized in 45 incidents. This seizure data for both years are the known incidents, figures that don’t include cases from other courts not monitored, seizures made without charges laid, the ‘fish thrown back’ so to speak, or the other 80% undetected.
Executive Summary
Over the course of the two year court monitoring project, SEEJ-AFRICA attended 774 different court sittings in 125 cases at 21 Law Courts across Kenya. Witness testimony was recorded from over 200 witnesses in 57 cases.
13 court monitors were utilised on a freelance basis over the duration of the project including five advocates of the High Court of Kenya. Three of the advocates were available for only portions of the two years period.
SEEJ-AFRICA was attending court independently as a member of the public. The mission was to obtain a deeper understanding and perspective of the actual trial process, not only from a procedural perspective but with an eye to existing corruption issues. This project attended 125 prosecutions at least once and 90 prosecutions three times or more.
KEY FINDINGS
- The ivory cases monitored were found in 55 different courtrooms of the 21 Law Courts attended. 91 different magistrates were involved in the adjudication of those 125 cases. 58 cases involved two magistrates and 13 cases involved three or more magistrates. The causal effect of magistrate mid-trial transfers was often extended trial duration and rendered decisions of guilt or innocence based on hand-written notes of the initial trial magistrate.
- 22 cases eclipsed the five year duration mark with six of those still ongoing. Six cases lasted over 8 years. What has been referred to as a “culture of adjournments” within the court system is still a persistent force. There have been recent improvement in some courts, however, and since the end of 2022, 13 cases have concluded in under two years.
- The Kenya Wildlife Service was the lead agency in at least 98 of the cases being monitored. There were 14 cases whereby another agency was the lead but KWS maintained involvement through its mandate to secure the seized ivory exhibits. The KWS investigative team based in Nairobi played either a lead, or provided intelligence and manpower in 44 different seizures/arrests of the 125 under study. These arrests were not only in the Nairobi area but also affected in Busia, Nyeri, Meru, Nanyuki, Nyahururu, Narok, Machakos, Kajiado, Kisii and Maralal.
- In 71 cases, the basis and grounds for arrest and seizure was intelligence. There was no requirement for judicial authorisation or oversight.
- The most contentious issue from accused persons that arose during trial related to the taking of crime scene photos by KWS post arrest. Typically, these photos that capture the accused and the seized trophies, were taken not at the point of arrest, but at a police or KWS field station. Many accused subsequently claimed that they never had ivory or were not arrested at the said location.
- 72 cases concluded during the two year project period. 44 cases registered convictions, 21 cases registered acquittals, five cases included both convictions and acquittals, two matters were withdrawn, and five cases were terminated for reasons not confirmed. The final conviction rate was 61%
- Sentencing was found to be inconsistent with penalties ranging from a 20 million shilling fine (USD $155,000) or in default life imprisonment, to a two year community service. The amount of ivory seized or the assigned charge sheet value of that ivory (rarely correct whether black market or local price) did not factor into the penalties handed down by the courts.
- Corruption/compromise, based on a balance of probabilities, was identified in 18 of the 125 cases. A further 41 cases presented characteristics or identifiers of a case that had, or was being, subverted. These indicators could be found in either of the investigation, prosecution, bail, or adjudication stages.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Designate one courtroom per Law Court to handle wildlife trophy cases.
One Law Court can presently have between three and up to ten magistrates courtrooms. Each one of these courtrooms, and each presided over by a different magistrate, may have wildlife cases. It is recommended that one courtroom per Law Court be dedicated to handle all wildlife trophy prosecutions to ensure more proficient handling and consistency in the adjudication of such.
B. Re-assessment of Prosecution Witness Protocols.
While the typical ivory trial has only 3 – 5 witnesses, the reduction of even one witness can decrease trial length by a considerable number of months. At present, an expert from the National Museum of Kenya (NMK) or a KWS Veterinarian testifies in every trial relating to the seizure of a wildlife trophy regardless as to whether the substance of the seizure is in dispute. A review should also be conducted relating to the smaller KWS investigations where a Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) investigation officer (IO) is expected to testify in circumstances where they have no direct, first hand, or relevant evidence to present.
C. A singular submission and presentation of the ivory exhibits to the court.
Ivory exhibits are produced for the court on each occasion that a prosecution witness who had a part to play in the arrest/seizure is to testify. Factoring in trial adjournments, that could equate to KWS having to transport and secure ivory in court up to 10 times per trial. If the ivory exhibits could be submitted for examination to the trial court just once, and then forwarded to KWS Nairobi, this would mitigate against local transportation issues, storage, and accountability vulnerabilities.
D. Clear Policy in Law as to Evidentiary Requirements Relating to Major Ivory Prosecutions
There have been significant contradictions in past major ivory prosecutions relating to the purported legal requirement for entire ivory shipments to be presented as evidence to the court. While many legal purists have advocated that the ivory is required for the court regardless from where it was seized, past practice has been inconsistent and opaque. Excluding the obvious confusion for investigators and prosecutors, this lack of clear policy or regulation plays into the hands of organised crime.
E. KWS to implement a protocol to have crime scene photos taken at the arrest/seizure site.
It is recommended that in circumstances where officer safety is not a factor, that these photos be taken at the arrest site. The photos, which will automatically include time and location, provide strong evidence for the court, shut down multiple lines of defence from the accused and mitigate against possible injustices.
F. Charge Sheet wordings to no longer include the street value of the seized ivory.
Charge sheets presently include the the street value of the ivory seized. Characteristically, the value is pegged by KWS at 100,000 Kenya shillings per 1 kg of ivory. That amount has not varied in over 10 years despite the fluctuation of the black market price in South East Asia or the local price which is more in the area of 1,500 shillings per 1 kg of ivory. The fact that the street value of of the ivory has no bearing on the sentence rendered by the court makes the policy redundant.
RELATED OBSERVATIONS
- A by-product of court monitors attending court and enduring long wait times before cases proceeded were the valuable insights provided through the informal conversations between monitors and investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and court staff.
- Attempts to promote coverage of ivory cases through journalists of main media houses was not successful. Journalists often cited personal safety concerns for not following wildlife crime. While a number of journalists were found who indicated an interest in covering wildlife trafficking stories, attempts to publish their articles, when beyond arrest or ivory seizure reports, were rarely approved by their editors.
- This court monitoring report, read in conjunction with the Uganda report, “You walk on glass if you are in that space”: Risks and harms of corruption in wildlife justice pathways in Uganda”, demonstrates that there is significant work to be done within the respective criminal justice systems for justice and deterrence to prevail in the protection of wildlife.
Based on 10 years analysis of wildlife crime cases, buttressed by the findings of this report, it is concluded that without an independent active presence or involvement in the courtroom post-arrest, the expectation of the courts to deliver a conviction or sentence of justice and/or deterrence in a major ivory prosecution is unrealistic and not achievable. ‘Major’ in this instance, is defined as including prosecutions against offenders who are part of a transnational criminal organization, regardless of the weight of the ivory seized.
Methodology and Parameters
The official start date of the project was March 2023. At that point in time, SEEJ-AFRICA was already informally monitoring 14 wildlife prosecutions in the Mombasa and Nairobi region. Two of those prosecutions were considered major ivory cases and a third had definitive links to the West African TCO.
To build on the existing case load of 14 prosecutions being monitored, SEEJ-AFRICA had an advocate of the High Court of Kenya attend other Law Courts to peruse, with consent, the criminal court registries for other ivory cases being prosecuted. The number of prosecutions monitored slowly increased, as did the number of Law Courts being attended increased as well.
This project was not about data. While certainly data was obtained, this project was about attending courts on a regular basis, observing, listening, and recording the events of the trial process in 21 different law courts across Kenya.
The mission was to obtain a deeper understanding and perspective of the actual trial process, not only from a procedural perspective but with an eye to existing integrity issues. This project attended 125 prosecutions at least once and 90 prosecutions three times or more. A Kahawa court case, E113/2022 – R. vs. Hoang Thi Diu, was attended on 30 occasions, officially the most under this project. Unofficially, the honour of the most attended court sittings fell to a Kibera case, 1649/2017 – R. vs. Julius Abluu Adika & Abdinur Ibrahim Ali & 4 others, a TOC prosecution linked to the Kampala based, West African crime group. That prosecution had been attended on 22 occasions prior to the commencement of this project and another 19 times following.
Paramount to this project, the keystone of the study, was the recording of witness testimony, a dynamic not previously explored in other reports. SEEJ-AFRICA recorded testimony from over 200 witnesses in 57 cases of the 125 cases under review. That information was reinforced by the obtaining of written judgements and rulings in a further 14 cases.
Regular attendance at these prosecutions and listening to testimony opened the door to other unrealised areas of concern. It was noticed that there was an increase in Tanzanian border activity including the arrest of seven Tanzanian nationals in five cases. It was found that ivory exhibits were presented to the court multiple times during the trial process. Trial duration, never definitively analysed, needed to be documented. It was also ascertained that there appeared to be an abnormal number of arrest incidents characterized by the escape of at least one suspect. It was also decided to put under scrutiny, the utilisation of intelligence, crime scene photos, and phone data usage.
Information on bail and bond was collected when available but was not analysed. The bail and bond process in the criminal justice system is a Pandora’s Box, described in the 2015 Criminal Justice Report as “lacking clear criteria, are exorbitant (in fee structure), unjustifiable and unaffordable by the majority of accused persons who are vulnerable and poor.” More recently, in a 2025 media report, “Courts accused of crushing dissent with punitive bail and bond terms”, the Judiciary’s independence was questioned in light of inconsistent bond terms.
The arraignment of accused in 81 cases being monitored occurred prior to the project start date of March 2023. The longest running of the prosecutions commenced in 2014, a case related to the West Africa crime group. 4789/2014 Kibera – R. vs. Musa Maseleka Kisembo and Francis Kamau Wangechi. This was also the last time that a controlled delivery was seen to be used by KWS.
During the period of this study, 72 cases concluded providing an accurate picture of the challenges being faced in prosecution and sentencing. The various judgements and rulings passed down orally by presiding magistrates also provided insight into their attitudes on the various cases as well as the investigative techniques of the KWS.
The data set indicated that there were nine cases in which 13 law enforcement officers were charged. On the positive side, there were convictions registered in all four cases that concluded. More disturbing, however, and not captured in this project, was the fact that there were 5 additional cases in the past year where police officers were the accused parties.
This report is being written chronologically, beginning with arrest authority, intelligence, the arrest process, handling of the seized ivory, courtroom procedure, the testimony of witnesses, presentation of other evidence, ruling and judgements, and concluding with sentencing, vulnerabilities, and recommendations. A summary of significant cases, past articles/reports written by SEEJ-AFRICA, and the project case list, concludes the report.
ARRESTING AUTHORITY
The majority of the ivory seizure/arrest cases under study involve the Kenya Wildlife Service. There were 14 cases identified whereby another agency was the lead but KWS maintained involvement through its mandate to secure the seized ivory exhibits.
Having said that, it was not always clear as to who was actually the lead agency. The investigator in charge of a particular case is referred to as the ‘Investigating Officer’, more commonly known as the ‘IO’. The IO is not necessarily actively involved in the arrest/seizure. The IO for cases involving the KWS investigative team in Nairobi is generally a seconded Chief Inspector from the DCI. Outside of Nairobi, however, the IO responsibility, for reasons unknown, can shift from a local DCI investigator to the KWS investigator. In addition, it is not uncommon for KWS to utilize National Police Service (NPS) resources for back up support in an arrest and seizure operation. The table below identifies the different agencies, units, and sub-units, involved in arrests based on charge sheet information and witness testimony.
The numbers may not be exactly 100% accurate but the general lay of the land is presented in the above table.
It was observed that the investigative team based at KWS headquarters in Nairobi played either a lead, or provided intelligence and manpower in 44 different seizures/arrests of the 125 under study. These arrests were not only in the Nairobi area but also affected in Busia, Nyeri, Meru, Nanyuki, Nyahururu, Narok, Machakos, Kajiado, Kisii and Maralal.
The KWS investigative team in Mombasa was key in the coastal region and provided the investigative lead in 22 cases. They also made arrests stretching from Malindi on the north coast, to Lunga Lunga on the Tanzanian border, and Mariakani to the west.
The remainder of the arrests were attributed to the various KWS field stations around the country.
The Kenya Wildlife Task Force (KWTF) was the lead in six of the cases monitored. Four of those six cases pre-dated KWS inclusion in that multi-agency team.
The Special Crime Prevention Unit (SCPU), later re-named the Special Service Unit (SSU), was the initial lead in four investigations. Typically, once arrests and initial statements were taken, they handed off the file to KWS to administer as the prosecution continued through the courts.. The subsequent prosecutions involving the SCPU/SSU were all characterised with significant integrity issues. Two recent cases in Kahawa Law Courts, E016/2022 – Republic vs. Isaac Mugwandia Macharia, and E027/2021 – Republic vs Edward Mwambura Kamau, Peter Macharia Njuguna and two others, resulted in acquittals due to several procedural irregularities. Amongst the ‘discrepancies’, E027/2021 featured a 38 kg ivory weight discrepancy between arrest and charging, and in E016/2022, cross examination revealed that neither of the two KWS investigators seized the ivory amongst other significant contradictions. This is often a hallmark of planted evidence.
The NPS were the lead in four cases where uniform officers made arrests through the regular execution of their duties.
It is investigative protocol for the DCI to be the lead in all major national investigations and that was the case in the two major ivory prosecutions (over 500 kg) being monitored in this project. In one of those cases, DCI took over the lead from the LATF in an investigation/prosecution stemming from a 2014 Singapore ivory seizure that transited Mombasa. That case, 418/2017 Shanzu – R. vs James Kinyua Njagi, Falah Manzu Yusuf @ Mohamed Faki, and 4 others, is a corrupted investigation/prosecution as has been documented in several previous submitted reports. It has been waiting for a judgement to be rendered for eighteen months.
Based on media reports, the Kenya Airport Authority (KAA), was the lead in the arrest of a UN security officer transiting JKIA for Indonesia, found to be carrying 38.4 kg of ivory in carry-on luggage.
INTELLIGENCE
The genesis of KWS ivory related arrests is intelligence. It was realised through testimony that KWS has a superlative system of gathering intelligence and that was essentially the source of all their arrest operations. 74 cases originated from intelligence and 12 cases derived from what witnesses referred to as ‘tips’, although the difference between the two is likely semantics. SEEJ-AFRICA did not have the information available to conclusively state that the remaining 35 seizure/arrests were based on intelligence but it is highly likely that most did.
There were only four cases found not to have developed from intelligence or a tip. One was through a NPS routine check of individuals walking through a town at 04:00 that yielded 1.7 kg of ivory in a backpack. Two cases resulted from JKIA transit search protocols, and one was the result of an ivory trafficker who died of natural causes in his Nairobi apartment and left behind ivory, rhino horn and big cat teeth (E113/2022 – R. vs. Hoang Thi Diu)
.Arrests based on intelligence received by KWS are not judicially authorised nor is it required to be. The source is never revealed in court and is consistently accepted as legitimate. Accused persons commonly ask KWS witnesses for the source of the implicating information or the identity of the informant, always unsuccessfully. It is a common defence for accused persons to state that they had been set up by a KWS agent, a defence rarely given heed by the courts.
The NGO, Big Life Kenya, contributed either resources or intelligence in 15 seizure cases that were being monitored. Their area of operations are Tsavo West National Park and Amboseli National Park environs, but they also contributed to arrests made by KWS in Meru, Naivasha, and Nyeri areas.
THE ARREST AND STATEMENTS
Of the cases monitored, on 37 occasions, intelligence made reference to an individual or individuals who had ivory to sell and were looking for a buyer. Testimony identified that KWS investigators then planned an operation, typically factoring the number of suspects, the requirement for an undercover buyer, and the time of day or night for the meet or intercept. It was noted that it was a common SOP for an arrest team to be in play, with the addition of either a support or surveillance team.
On successful completion of the operation, the arrested suspects and seized ivory were taken to the nearest police or KWS field station for the commencement of processing. In situations where the field station does not have jail cells, the suspects may be taken first to the field station for investigation and then to the police facility to be booked and placed in cells. The ivory is typically wrapped in heavy manila or sisal sacks and is colloquially called ‘luggage’. Crime scene photos are taken (if not taken at the arrest site), the ivory is weighed, and an inventory of the exhibits seized by KWS is completed and signed by all involved, including accused. The signing of this inventory by persons under arrest is regularly a contentious point in trial, the accused typically claiming that threats of violence were involved.
Where a motorcycle or motor vehicle were used in the commission of the offence, it’s seizure was part of the process. They were often forfeited to the state upon conviction. Often, the mobile phones being used by the suspects were also seized for analysis.
Hand written statements were taken from the accused and all rangers/officers involved in the arrest also prepared statements. The accused statements were rarely under caution. It is required by law for cautioned statements to be taken by a person of the rank of Chief Inspector or higher which may be a factor as to lack of use. When statements from accused persons are not taken under caution, that statement cannot be used as evidence against them. The author, in the ten years of following wildlife crime in the courts, has never seen the prosecution attempt to enter any statement of an accused into evidence. This would tend to indicate that statements are taken from the accused, not for admissible evidence at trial, but for further intelligence.
The following day or the first business day after arrest, the suspects are taken to court for arraignment and plea. As a general rule, the accused are charged with two counts; dealing with wildlife trophies of an endangered species and an alternative count of possession of wildlife trophies of an endangered species.
The accused typically pleaded not guilty. In 125 cases under review, in only three instances did the suspects plead guilty. Two of those were the transit passenger cases at JKIA. The third was a Tanzanian national who had been arrested with 38 kg of ivory near the Tanzanian border and Shompole Conservancy. (E050/23 Kahawa R. vs. Morris Mure Kadilii)
THE CHARGE SHEET
Proceedings against accused persons are initiated by a charge sheet that is submitted to the court. The charge sheet incorporates the names of the accused persons, the section of the WCMA that they are alleged to have violated, and a paragraph, or offence synopsis, that details the elements of the offence which includes the weight and number of pieces of ivory seized. It has to be approved by a prosecutor of the ODPP and is stamped accordingly.
The offence synopsis also includes the street value of the ivory. The valuation comes from the KWS. For the past 10 years, and it has not changed, most charge sheets assign a street value of 100,000 Kenya shillings (USD $800) per 1 kg of ivory. This would appear to be a very loose approximation with the black market price in South-east Asia. It is not the amount that a pastoralist might receive from a local buyer, which is more in the range of 15,000 shillings (USD $120) per kilo.
The street value as detailed on the charge sheet is rarely challenged in court. It also has no bearing on the final sentence rendered by the court should there be a finding of guilt.
THE IVORY EXHIBITS
On the day following arrest or very soon after, one or two of the involved rangers/officers transport the seized ivory in its entirety to the National Museum of Kenya (NMK) in Nairobi. This is for the purpose of scientific examination enabling the prosecution to prove to the court that the seized substance was elephant ivory. On occasion, for seizures in the area of Tsavo National Park, the required examination is conducted by a KWS Veterinarian. On almost all occasions, the scientific report is completed after the accused has been arraigned and taken plea. This process is regularly challenged by defence counsel (to no affect), arguing as to why their clients had been charged prior to analysis confirmation.
When the ivory analysis has been completed, investigators drive back to Nairobi to return the ivory to the KWS field station from whence the arrest was made. It will remain there until the conclusion of the trial as the ivory is required in court on each occasion that a witness who had a part to play in the arrest/seizure is going to testify. This also includes the NMK or KWS veterinarian who conducted the analysis. Factoring in hearing adjournments, that could equate to KWS having to transport and secure ivory in court in excess of 10 times per trial. This is more problematic for trials involving more than a few kilos of ivory. In 1649/2017 Kibera – R. vs. Julius Abluu Adika & Abdinur Ibrahim Ali & 4 others, the IO requested the court to attend at KWS headquarters to examine the 216.76 kg of ivory exhibits (as is the practice in major seizures) in lieu of the ivory having to be transported to court on numerous occasions. The court denied the request and KWS had to transport the ivory and other exhibits to court on at least four occasions witnessed by either Wildlife Direct or SEEJ-AFRICA. In E812/22_VOI – R. vs Salim Chibonja Myala and Chivoro Ndamau Chivoro, 209.5 kg of ivory was observed in court on six occasions.
Conversely, in the prosecutions involving quantities of ivory over 500 kg, the court will convene on a single occasion at the location where the seized ivory has been stored. It is generally recognised in legal circles within Kenya that for a case to proceed, the ivory must be physically seen for a successful prosecution. However, in 1132/2015 Mombasa – R. vs. Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh et al, the ivory was never returned to Kenya from Thailand and even when, by mid-trial, it was clear that the ivory was not going to be repatriated, the ODPP did not withdraw the charges. In 418/2017 Shanzu – R. vs James Kinyua Njagi, Falah Manzu Yusuf @ Mohamed Faki and 4 others, the ivory that had been seized in Singapore had already been destroyed prior to charges being laid.
MAGISTRATES, PROSECUTORS AND COURTROOMS
Prosecutions in Nairobi area courts constituted a major part of the project. Until late 2020, the Kibera Law Courts were the home to the majority of wildlife prosecutions for the Nairobi area. SEEJ-AFRICA monitored 21 cases in Kibera divided between nine of the ten magistrates courts, each court with a different magistrate and different prosecutor.
In December 2020, the newly constructed Kahawa Law Courts opened, instituted to handle the higher profile prosecutions. This was primarily for anti-terrorism cases but also included wildlife trafficking prosecutions. SEEJ-AFRICA monitored 19 cases at Kahawa, split between two courtrooms and two magistrates. Five of the 19 cases were from arrests outside the Nairobi area.
Seven wildlife cases were monitored at the small, two courtroom premises of the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) Law Courts. Two cases resulted from arrests of air passengers in transit while the remaining five prosecutions were from joint force operations of the Kenya Wildlife Task Force (KWTF). Their cases were initially heard at Kahawa Law Courts but were moved to JKIA Law Courts for reasons relating to efficiency and integrity. All of their cases were from outside the Nairobi area.
The remaining monitored cases were distributed as per table A. The table is not indicative of the total number of ivory cases in the specific courts, but the number SEEJ-AFRICA was monitoring.
Overall, the 125 ivory cases came from 55 courtrooms of the 21 different law courts. 91 different magistrates were/are involved in the adjudication of those 125 cases. This number was due to the transfer policy within the Judiciary in combination with the longer running ivory cases. At the time of this report, 53 cases had been, or were being presided over by one magistrate. 58 cases involved two magistrates and 13 cases involved three or more magistrates. The causal effect of magistrate mid-trial transfer is often extended trial duration and rendered decisions of guilt or innocence based on hand-written notes of the initial trial magistrate.
Recording the names of prosecutors in the all aforementioned cases was more of a challenge. While the names of 48 involved prosecutors have been recorded in the dataset, the number involved is likely at least double. In all courts, with the exception of the specialty court at Kahawa, wildlife prosecutions were interspersed with a spectrum of criminal cases. Typically, one prosecutor is assigned to a specific court with a specific magistrate. Prosecutors are also subject to transfer with the same regularity as magistrates.
In approximately 2014, the ODPP established a Wildlife Crime Prosecution Unit. It was incorrectly perceived by many to consist of specially trained prosecutors who only prosecuted wildlife crimes. It was, in fact, an advisory unit only. Over the years, a handful of major ivory prosecutions have had specially assigned prosecutors, but that is not the norm for wildlife cases around the country.
TRIAL PROCESS
The trial process can basically be broken down into three stages. Initially there is pre-trial where bail and bond issues are dealt with and defence counsel are provided with relevant documents/statements that the prosecution will use as evidence . This is followed by the prosecution stage where the state will produce its witnesses. When all prosecution witnesses have testified the magistrate will rule as to whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case, or in other words, has the prosecution proven all facts in issue such that if the accused were not to testify, they would be found guilty. This is referred as “case to answer.”
It would appear that on occasion, presiding magistrates who are on transfer notice, will make a ‘case to answer’ ruling to abrogate their involvement in the case. This can be seen in particularly complicated or sensitive cases. 418/17_SHA – R. vs. James Kinyua Njagi, Falah Manzu Yusuf @ Mohamed Faki and four others, is an example when Chief Magistrate Florence Macharia, on being promoted to Judge and pending transfer, ruled there was a case to answer, when very clearly, the prosecution had not provided enough evidence to convict. That ruling was made in May 2022, and two magistrates later, the judgement has yet to be handed down. In her defence, this was a compromised case and she may well have been acting on higher instruction.
When the ‘case to answer’ threshold has been met, for the third stage, the accused are put on their defence and can testify or produce witnesses on their behalf. On conclusion, both sides submit arguments to the court as to why the accused should be found guilty or not guilty. The magistrate will make a judgement and if a conviction is registered, a ruling on sentencing will be delivered on a future date, with the convicted accused now in custody. During the court process, there may be various applications, the most common being the return of a seized motor vehicle or motorcycle to the actual owner if not belonging to the accused.
The court maintains its own file in the trial process in which the magistrate chronicles the proceedings with handwritten notes, including the names of involved court officers and advocates. Witness testimony given in Kiswahili is translated to English ‘on the fly’ by the magistrate. On cross-examination, the questions asked of the witness are not recorded, only the answers. This negates one of the prime identifiers of a deceptive witness, particularly for a magistrate transferred mid-trial who did not hear the testimony first hand.
Typically these files are kept in a central registry when the case is not in court. There are, however, some files, referred to as ‘lock and key’ files that are kept in the presiding magistrate’s office and may not see the central registry until trial conclusion. These are files that have some sensitivity for what ever reason. ‘Sensitivity’ can have a negative implication.
All the court sittings are generally divided into either ‘mentions’ or ‘hearings’. A mention is administrative in nature and a hearing is for the testimony of witnesses. Similar to the airline practice of over-booking, courts schedule more hearings per sitting than they could possibly handle or have time for. Approximate figures from this study indicate that a scheduled trial hearing has a one in five chance of taking place.
Court case management was found to be a significant issue. On numerous occasions, a courtroom packed with witnesses and accused will find out that the sitting magistrate is on leave, on training, on other official duties, or on transfer. Many of the witnesses, and indeed advocates, in these matters have travelled considerable distance or at expense to themselves.
In the latter part of 2023, SEEJ-AFRICA became aware of the Judiciary’s on line case tracking system also known as the e-filing system. It is described as providing accountability and transparency to the process. A screen shot is depicted below.
780/2019 Kwale – R. vs. Augustine Odwori Malingo and Nancy Akoth Owino is a case where the accused were charged with having in their possession on September 20th, 2019, four pieces of elephant ivory weighing 500 grams and one hippo tooth of 500 grams. SEEJ-AFRICA did not pick up this matter until it was in its latter stages so the witness testimony was not heard. This case does highlight a number of issues, including the fact that the prosecution closed its case without expert testimony from either a NMK expert or KWS veterinarian. This was atypical and not seen in any other ivory related prosecutions.
The E-Filing system screen shot indicates the accused were arraigned on September 23rd but the name of the magistrate who handled the matter has been deleted. It has been regularly observed that many Law Courts are now in the practise of removing the name of a magistrate from a specific case when transferred or no longer assigned. In this instance, the initial magistrate was Principal Magistrate Paul Wambuga who was later sacked from the Judiciary for gross misconduct regarding irregularly altering bond terms. In this particular matter, and while not believed to be a part of that allegation, accused Nancy Akoth Owino, was given free bond, meaning she was released without having to post any surety or pay any cash deposit. This is the first time that SEEJ-AFRICA had observed a free bond given in a wildlife trophy case.
The number on the left of the screen shot indicates the number of sittings. This case was in Covid times so there was minimal activity between September 2019 and October 2020. Item #14 indicates an activity of ‘Hearing’ and on the far right an outcome of ‘Hearing date set in court’. From that description, it cannot be ascertained as to whether a hearing took place on that date or not. Item #13, also a hearing, shows an outcome of ‘Adjournment’ which indicates definitively that the hearing did not take place. As can be seen, there is no description documenting the cause of the adjournment.
Through item #7 we can ascertain that the defence had concluded and Principal Magistrate Lillian Lewa set a judgement date. It took five sittings, with four adjournments, over 8 months for that judgement to be rendered. The reasons for the adjournments; the court was too busy, PM Lewa was away on official business, PM Lewa was unwell, and PM Lewa was away attending a Heads of Station workshop in Kisii.
The table indicates indirectly that the accused were convicted on May 14th, 2024. It also indicates that there was one mention date prior to sentencing. This was false. SEEJ-AFRICA attended that court for sentencing as per court directions on May 27th, May 28th, May 30th, June 3rd, and June 4th, before the actual sentencing took place on June 10th, 2024 at 17:00hrs. On that date, SEEJ-AFRICA, sent a monitor with whom Kwale court was not familiar.
Overall, what can be observed is that the E-Filing system can be somewhat reliable for posting court sitting dates, but is protective of involved magistrates, ambiguous in process description, and can be manipulated for purpose.
TRIAL DURATION
There is a belief held by many that in the criminal justice system, the length of time that a criminal proceedings is in court is proportional to the likelihood of its being compromised. This project found that 22 cases eclipsed the five year mark with six of those still ongoing. Five cases lasted over eight years. The Covid period did have a slight impact.
All five cases lasting over eight years had integrity issues. 4789/2014 Kibera – R. vs. Musa Maseleka Kisembo and Francis Kamau Wangechi, with the two accused sentenced to 20 years jail in absentia, was found to be compromised. Another conviction, 3412/2015 Kibera – R. vs. Paul Maranu Mwangi, Lawrence Kinoti and 1 other, had integrity issues. Two acquittals, 1132/2015 Mombasa – R. vs. Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh et al, and 5425/15 R. vs. Kim Young, Patrick Willy Mutuku and one other, had been compromised, and the fifth matter, 418/17_SHA – R. vs. James Kinyua Njagi, Falah Manzu Yusuf @ Mohamed Faki and four others is awaiting judgement and had also been compromised (see table on page 44 for details).
What has been referred to as a “culture of adjournments” within the court system adds to the ease in which compromise may occur. The cause of adjournments could be a dissertation in itself but suffice to say that it is a rarity for an adjournment request to the court be denied. On numerous occasions it was observed that a presiding magistrate informed the court that the last adjournment had been granted but that was never seen to be enforced.
This project attended/reviewed 20 cases with an arraignment date prior to January 2019. Eight cases fell into a ‘compromise identified’ category and another six had integrity issue indicators. There were six ongoing cases amongst the 20 of which three are compromised and two are likely compromised but there is not enough information to assess definitively. One of those matters involve an Italian trophy hunter, Rossani Giovanni Ricci, who with a Kenyan national, were charged in 2018 in relation to 243 kg of ivory and a host of other trophies mounted on a wall in his Malili area home. Since 2018, that Machakos court has sat on over 60 occasions. Four witnesses have testified. (408/18 Machakos – R. vs. Rossano Giovanni Ricci and Joseph Kimilu)
A 2018 Kibera case, 1382/2018 – R. vs. Abdirahman Mohamed and one other, went five years before the first KWS witness testified, perhaps coinciding with SEEJ-AFRICA’s attendance in the matter. In that case, 4 kg of ivory initially seized was seemingly replaced by hippo teeth prior to trial which may have been the reason for the delay.
The last two years have, however, seen a significant improvement in trial duration times in some courts. Since the latter part of 2022, 13 cases have concluded in under two years. The JKIA court handed down 3 convictions in cases that lasted 8 months, 16 months and 22 months. All three cases came through the multi-agency KWTF which may have factored in the efficient manner in which they were handled. A Malindi court handed down an acquittal in an 11 month trial. The Voi Law Courts handed down 5 convictions in under two years. To its credit, Voi Law Courts promote the use of virtual testimony more than any other court being monitored. In one matter, the NMK expert testified virtually relating to the seized ivory, saving time and the expense of a witness having to travel from Nairobi.
While these recent trial times may appear impressive, in the recently published report; “A review of Wildlife Crime Case Outcomes in Malawi”, the average trial length times ran between 71 days to 284 days depending on the district.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
There are typically three to five witnesses called for the prosecution in a wildlife case. Two to four witnesses will be involved officers from the KWS. That number will increase should evidence be introduced relating to phone data/seized mobile phones or if there are any civilian witnesses. No trial where the seizure weight of ivory was less than 1000 kg has seen more than nine prosecution witnesses.
There will also be the expert testimony from the NMK or the KWS veterinarian.
Of the 125 cases under study, there has been only one prosecution where the expert who examined the ivory did not testify. This was in 780/2019 Kwale – R. vs. Augustine Odwori Malingo and Nancy Akoth Owino whereby, and as per the judgment written by Principal Magistrate Lillian Lewa, one of the KWS arresting officers irregularly entered the expert forensic report into evidence, a report they did not author. There was no reference as to who had written that report. Nancy Akoth Owino, single mother of five school age children, who had told the court that her earnings derived solely from making gravel, was sentenced to pay a 1 million shilling fine (USD $8000.00) or in lieu serve five years imprisonment.
Despite the typically small number of witnesses involved, SEEJ-AFRCA has observed on only one occasion where all prosecution witnesses testified on the same day. That was a Mariakani Law Court case before Resident Magistrate Olivia Koranje. She advised the investigative team from KWS Mombasa at the time that she would continue to follow that practice on wildlife cases.
CONVEYANCE AND LOCATION
SEEJ-AFRICA examined the conveyance being used by traffickers and the locations of these arrests. It was found that in 32 cases the traffickers were arrested while on foot, followed by 27 cases where they were using a motor vehicle. A motorcycle was used in 19 cases, primarily for transportation of the ivory but in a few cases, a motorcycle was utilised to guide the ‘buyers’ to the meeting site. Vehicle usage by accused is typically documented on the charge sheet before the court. A determination of conveyance/location could not be made in 24 cases.
Searches/arrests were made in, or immediately outside, the residence of accused persons in 11 cases. These searches were deemed legal but not judicially authorised. The lack of search warrant has been raised on occasion by defence advocates but to no avail. The author has never seen a search warrant in court on a wildlife crime case.
CRIME SCENE PHOTOS
Witness testimony indicated that it was SOP within KWS to take what are referred to as crime scene photos upon arrest and seizure. The name, ‘crime scene photos’ is a bit of a misnomer as more often than not, the photos are not taken at the crime scene, the crime scene being the location at point of arrest. These photos will always depict the seized ivory, often the vehicle/conveyance used, and generally the arrested parties. The photos may be taken by a designated crime scene officer or the case IO, normally with a regular mobile phone, and typically at the police or field station. The photos are processed, printed out and included in an exhibit report for the court. When and where exactly these photos are taken is often a contentious point in trial and can be a vulnerability to the prosecution’s case for the following reasons:
The accused need to distance themselves from the arrest in any manner possible. Their typical lines of defence are:
- I was not involved in anyway and was randomly picked up by a vehicle with armed men while walking to ……
- The first time I ever saw the ivory or the other accused was when I arrived at the police or field station after my arrest.
- I was arrested but not at this location or time, or with that ivory.
Regrettably, there are occasions when these claims are valid.
When KWS investigators do not take the crime scene photos at the point of arrest, they leave the above lines of defence open to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the magistrate. On a regular basis, during cross examination, KWS witnesses are asked about the photos, when they were taken, why were they not taken at time of arrest, or why they did not include the accused. In E767/23 Malindi – R. vs. John Katana Ndoro and Micheal Kea Mwayele, the two accused, found with 21.8 kg of ivory, told the court that there had been two others who owned the ivory but escaped capture and that the crime scene photos had been taken at the KWS station in Malindi. The KWS witnesses contradicted each other on the reason the photos were not taken at the scene, creating a reasonable doubt in the presiding magistrate who acquitted both.
Officer safety is the reason oft cited by KWS for the delay, telling the court that a crowd was gathering and it was unsafe to remain. This concern is legitimate reason, especially in the current environment where day time abductions by persons/agencies unknown are not uncommon. The general population is keen on this and any cry of alarm from persons being arrested is likely to produce a mob in very short order.
In this project, through testimony, it was reconciled that crime scene photos were taken at least 40 times but it is unquestionably a much higher number than that. On 22 occasions, the crime scene photos were not taken until sometime after the arrest. In one case, the photos were taken two years after arrest.
ESCAPEES
This sub-set was put on focus after observing what could be seen as an inordinately high number of arrest incidents characterised by escaping suspects. Seventeen cases had at least one escapee with a total number of escapees being at least 30. Five escapees were re-captured, one of them two months after the incident.
Of the 17 cases with escapees, 12 were during the hours of darkness which would clearly be a factor. Planning an undercover buy or intercept at night presents a host of issues. Understandably there will be complications with arrests during nighttime hours and particularly in the bush. But are there other factors at play in the escapee statistics? The teams operating in the Meru area had 3 incidents involving escapees between 2018 and 2023. The Voi investigative team had four incidents featuring escapees within a one year period.
This information came through courtroom testimony. It was noted that there were seven other cases where it was indicated, primarily through charge sheet wording, that there were involved “others not before the court”. There is no information available to discern if related arrests were ever made.
PHONE DATA
From an evidentiary perspective, phone data falls into two categories. The more easily obtained is a record of calls, texts, Mpesa (mobile phone banking) transactions, and the locations of the accused when the calls were made or received on a certain phone. The actual phone is not required for this analysis, just the number. The second category refers to the data that can be ‘mined’ from the actual phone or SIM card. This will encompass all the data on a seized phone including texts, WhatsApp messages, emails, and photos, etc.
In 12 cases, it was observed that a report on phone data usage between accused persons or between accused and the KWS undercover buyer were submitted to court. Often that testimony was no more than the KWS/police witness stating he/she was requested on a certain date to analyse a phone with the subject analysis presented in the submitted report. No details as to the contents of the report were revealed in open court unless the witness was asked specific questions on cross-examination. Mobile phones were seized and data searched on many more than 12 occasions but it was not possible to ascertain if the phone data was used in evidence.
Judicial authorisation is not required for the police or KWS to analyse the contents of a phone or to search phone data. That access was typically not contested by defence counsel. The NPS/DCI have seconded liaison officers attached to Safaricom to facilitate searches on the strength of a requesting letter.
In one of the major TOC cases that was being followed, 1649/2017 Kibera – R. vs. Julius Abluu Adika & Abdinur Ibrahim Ali & 4 others, a KWS officer from the Cyber Crimes Forensic Unit and a DCI Liaison officer with Safaricom both testified, presenting evidence that was similar. This was perhaps due the KWS officer’s unpreparedness for the intense cross-examination she faced from three seasoned defence advocates, with the credibility of her testimony significantly damaged. She did state in her testimony that at the time of her report in 2017, KWS did not have the capability of extracting data from seized phones, a capability she stated was not available until 2018. Regardless as to the veracity of that statement, her testimony and that of the DCI liaison officer left the court with more questions than answers and did not strengthen the prosecutions case.
ENTRAPMENT
The use of entrapment was not on the radar when this project began. It is clear now, that from a justice perspective, this should be a concern.
As far as the author is aware, that tactic had never came out in a wildlife crime court judgement until August 2024 in 1313/19 Kibera – R. vs. Jackline Mueni Mulonzi and Emma Ndunge Mutua, when Chief Magistrate Ann Mwangi ruled in an acquittal stating that “they (the accused) were not guided appropriately and in the process got entrapped, ending up in conflict with the law.”
The use of entrapment tactics is not a subject regularly discussed in conservation justice circles. Indicators have been seen in threads of comments made in court by defendants and perhaps the number of ‘escapes’ speaks to that.
In the recent study, “You walk on glass if you are in that space”: Risks and harms of corruption in wildlife justice pathways in Uganda”, it is referenced that “multiple respondents criticised the reliance of entrapment as an enforcement strategy”, that “entrapment was used to up the numbers” and that “entrapment is widely normalised and lacks any regulatory control.” In that study, most respondents were connected to the Uganda criminal justice system.
There is no reason to believe that there is any difference on the Kenyan side of the border. It is a fact that KWS informants are paid and if there is a way for informants and corruptible law enforcement agents to share in those payments, motivation is surely provided for collusion, entrapment, and the use of an agent provocateur in a manner not approved in law.
SENTENCING
In a report by Andrew Halliday et al, ‘Process and outcomes of ivory-related trials in Kenya, 2016–2019’, the issue of inconsistent sentencing by the courts in wildlife cases was discussed, describing the present status as ‘anything goes’. SEEJ-AFRICA found that nothing has changed since that report.
72 cases concluded over the course of this project. 21 cases registered acquittals (a further five cases combined with convictions) and a further seven cases registered withdrawals or by what was defined as ‘terminated’. One of the ‘terminated’ cases was due to the passing of the accused, reportedly through mob justice, although that was never confirmed.
44 cases registered convictions and the sentencing ran the gamut. The harshest sentences both came from Kibera Law Courts. Principal Magistrate Monicah Maroro, in 3412/2015 Kibera – R. vs. Paul Maranu Mwangi, Lawrence Kinoti and 1 other, sentenced two prison warders to pay a 20 million shilling fine (USD $155,000) or in default serve life imprisonment for possession and trafficking five pieces of ivory weighing 5 kg in 2015. This decision was promptly appealed with the decision and sentence upheld by Judge Diana Kavedza-Mochache. In a second case, 1541/19 Kibera – R. vs. Antony Ngila Masaku , Senior Principal Magistrate Samson Temu sentenced the accused who was found dealing 5 kg of ivory, to a 20 million shilling fine (USD $155,000) or in default serve 30 years in prison. One wonders if those who drafted the penalty section of the WCMA had intended for individuals found with such small amounts of ivory to spend the rest of their lives imprisoned. Perhaps such sentences speak more to the sense of justice exhibited by Principal Magistrate Monicah Maroro, Judge Diana Kavedza-Mochache, and Senior Principal Magistrate Samson Temu. Or perhaps they were aware that the sentences were for show only and the accused would be released at a suitable date prior.
The most lenient sentence came from Chief Magistrate Ann Obura in Voi Law Courts. In E756/23 Voi – R. vs. Dishon Mwangondi Mwangongo she sentenced the accused to two years community service at a local health centre for being in possession of one tusk piece weighing 4.6 kg of ivory. He had been arrested on informant information that he was attempting to sell a tusk to patrons at a bar. Six weeks after that sentencing, Chief Magistrate Obura sentenced two traffickers each to seven years imprisonment. They had been found with 33 kg of ivory.
In three cases, the presiding magistrates handed down one year jail terms, two cases with a fine option and one without. The third case involved a plea arrangement where two accused were given a 300,000 shilling fine (USD $2,300) or in default 12 months in prison. They had been found with 39 kg of ivory. That was the only plea arrangement of the 72 concluded cases. Considering the leniency, more of these arrangements may be seen in the future.
In 11 cases, the accused were sentenced to seven years imprisonment without a fine option. In the two JKIA transit cases, the two accused, were both given fine options by Senior Resident Magistrate Renee M. Kitagwa; one of six million Kenya shillings (USD $46,000) and the second for three million Kenya shillings. In both cases, the fines were paid within 24 hours.
In seven cases, five year sentences were handed down with fine options of varying amounts. There was only one five year jail sentence without a fine option. In three cases, 10 year jail sentences were rendered without a fine option. In two of those cases, the accused were atypically sentenced in absentia, having previously absconded. In the past, if an accused had failed to appear for court on judgement, the charge would be withdrawn until his re-capture with an arrest warrant in affect.
There were no sentences with fine only and no sentences with a fine plus prison time although that has been observed in the past. The fines ranged between 20 million shillings (USD $155,000) as noted above, with one case of eight million shillings (USD $62,000), one of five million (USD $38,700), two of three million (USD $23,000), and six of 1 million (USD $7,750). There is no information to ascertain if fines were paid on any of the sentences except for the two JKIA air transit prosecutions.
Court File | Magistrate | Ivory Weight | Sentence |
E018/21_NAR | Nyaberi H.M (CM) | 29.6 kg | U/K sentence on one accused but matter still ongoing. |
663/20_KBR | Murage M.W.. (PM) | 2.8 kg | U/K sentence for first 3 accused who are in prison. The 4th accused absconded but was later arrested and is presently awaiting judgment. |
E015/22_VOI | Obura A.M. (CM) | 10.6 kg | U/K sentence |
173/20_MAR | Kimani M.S. (PM) | 11 kg | U/K sentence |
E041/21_KBR | Mwangi A. (CM) | 2.2 kg | U/K sentence |
E121/22_KAH | Ombewa B.M. (SRM) | 39 kg | Plea Arrangement: A#1 and A#2 – 300,000 fine or 12 months A#3: Not yet ascertained |
985/20_MBA | Orora R. (SRM) | 9.85 kg | Acquittal: A#2. Warrant still outstanding for A#1 |
412/20_NAN | Masivo V. (SRM) | 43 kg | 8 million fine I/d 12 months jail – A#1; Acquittal – A#2 +A#3 |
E2393/21_NYA | Muhoro C. M. (SRM) | 41 kg | 7 years imprisonment. A#3 still absent and warrant in effect. |
E563/22_VOI | Obura A.M. (CM) | 48 kg | 7 years imprisonment- A#1; 5 years jail A#3 and A#4. A#2 still on trial but in custody for Taveta bush meat conviction |
E859/23_VOI | Obura A.M. (CM) | 33 kg | 7 years imprisonment for both |
E029/21_KAH | Ombewa B.M. (SPM) | 1.545 kg | 7 years imprisonment for both |
E434/21_KBR | Kahuya I.K. (PM) | 6 kg | 7 years imprisonment for all three |
E926/21_SHA | Odhiambo D.O. (SRM) | 3.05 kg | 7 years imprisonment Ct 1; 5 years jail Ct 2 and Ct 3, concurrent. Reduced on appeal to 5 years Ct1 and 1 year Ct 2 concurrent. |
E348/22_VOI | Obura A.M. (CM) | 7.7 kg | 7 years imprisonment |
E346/23_VOI | Obura A.M. (CM) | 10.8 kg | 7 years imprisonment |
E717/23_VOI | Kithinji C.K. (PM) | 21 kg | 7 years imprisonment |
E050/23_KAH | Ombewa B.M. (SPM) | 38 kg | 7 years imprisonment |
E812/22_VOI | Kithinji C.K. (PM) | 209 kg | 7 years imprisonment for DWT and A#1 2 yrs for assault/weapon |
E043/23_JKIA | Thuku N. (SPM) | 21.4 kg | 5 years imprisonment – no fine option on both counts concurrent. |
E041/22_KAH | Kiage G. (PM) | 10.5 kg | 5 million fine in/d 5 years imprisonment |
1381/19_NYA | Keago E.H. (CM) | 88 kg | 3 million I/d 5 years imprisonment on each count consecutive for A#1. Acquittal for A#2 |
E118/23_JKIA | Kitagwa R.M. (SRM) | 0.6 kg | 3 million fine I/d 7 years imprisonment [fine paid] |
E113/23_JKIA | Kitagwa R.M. (SRM) | 38.4 kg | 3 million fine I/d 7 years imprisonment – Ct 1; 3 million fine I/d 5 yrs imprisonment Ct 2 [fine paid] |
1541/19_KBR | Temu S.O. (SPM) | 5 kg | 20 million fine i/d 30 years imprisonment |
E756/23_VOI | Obura A.M. (CM) | 4.6 kg | 2 years community service |
565/20_KBR | Kitagwa R.M. (SRM) | 3 kg | 10 years imprisonment. A#3 had absconded so sentenced in absentia and wrt. in effect. A#2 acquitted on appeal by Mochache-Kavedza D. (Judge) |
E034/23_JKIA | Thuku N. (SPM) | 110.5 kg | 10 years imprisonment in absentia |
4789/14_KBR | Murage m.w. (PM) | 143 kg | 10 years imprisonment for PWT and DWT to run consecutively for both accused in absentia. Arrest warrant in effect. |
780/18_KBR | Njagi C. (PM) | 1.5 kg | 1.5 million fine I/d 5 years for both accused |
1444/18_KBR | Mwaniki C. K. (SPM) | 7 kg | 1 year imprisonment for two accused. A#3 discharged due to age. |
3412/15_KBR | Maroro Monicah (PM) | 5 kg | 1 million I/d 5 years imprisonment (Ct1); 20 million fine I/d life imprisonment A#3 – Acquittal |
780/19_KWA | Lewa L. (PM) | 0.5 kg + 0.5 kg | 1 million i/d 5 year imprisonment for both accused |
3045/17_KBR | Mwangi A. (CM) | 34 kg | 1 million i/d 1 year imprisonment. |
1673/14_KBR | Kamau J. (SRM) | 784 kg | 1 million fine I/d 5 years imprisonment: A#1. Deported: A#2. No charges: Amara Cherif |
1229/18_KBR | Temu S.O. (SPM) | 15 kg | 1 million fine I/d 5 years imprisonment – A#1. Acquittal – A#1 |
3202/17_KBR | Murage M.W. (PM) | 25 kg | 1 million fine I/d 5 years imprisonment |
347/18_NAN | Mararo B. (PM) | 6 kg | 1 million fine i/d 5 year jail on count 1; 4 years for count 2, 3 years count 3 concurrent |
IVORY WEIGHT DISCREPANCIES
Prior to this study, discrepancies between initial seizure weight and that documented on charge sheets has been observed in a few major ivory cases. In a December 2011 Mombasa seizure, KWS reported to the Elephant Trade Information System a seizure of 1899 kg with the charge sheet reading 1500 kg. In a 2013 ivory seizure made in Singapore and repatriated to Mombasa, the seizure weight dropped from 1848.5 kg to 1833 kg with a hippo tooth, not seen in Singapore, also added to the charge sheet.
In this project it was noted that in nine cases, there was a discrepancy in the initial reported ivory weight and what was later detailed on the charge sheet before the courts. In two of those cases, the weight discrepancy was between what was reported publicly in the media and the charge documents. In E2189/2022 Nanyuki – R. vs. David Ndiritu Nduma, Jackson Mbugua Burugu and two others, a KWS officer stated publicly that the seized ivory weighed 76 kg with the charge sheet later reading 69.2 kg. In E049/23 Machakos – R. Vs. Lazarus Kinyumu Mativo, the media and Big Life both reported a seizure of 81.7 kg of worked ivory and the charge sheet indicated a value for 81.7 kg of ivory but the documented weight of the ivory on the charge sheet reads 87.1 kg.
Two cases were found where it appeared that after an ivory seizure had been made, a part of that seizure was tampered with and ivory replaced with another type of trophy. In 1382/2018 Kibera – R. vs. Abdirahman Mohamed and Muithya Kisiru, the initial charge sheet read two elephants tusks weighing 4kg and two hippo teeth weighing 4kg. One year later, KWS informed the prosecutor that the ivory tusks were now hippo teeth and the charge sheet was amended. In E115/22 Kahawa – R. vs. Joseph Nyangondi Joel and two others, the charge sheet indicated a seizure of 15 pieces of elephant tusks weighing 30.5 kg. It was later identified through the NMK witness that one of the 15 tusk pieces was elephant hip bone. Do experienced KWS investigators mis-identify hippo teeth or hip bone for elephant ivory?
In three cases involving the KWTF, charge sheet amendment’s had to be made from the initial documented ivory weight as follows: 25 kg to 21.4 kg, 113.75 kg to 110.5 kg, and 10 kg to 8.9 kg. At the time, the KWS was not part of the KWTF so a possible explanation could be that the KWTF initially weighed the ivory and when it was handed over to a KWS officer for exhibit control, it was re-weighed resulting in the discrepancy. The other possibility is that a few kilos of ivory were hived off.
In two of the cases, the court permitted the weight amendments on the charge sheet as the request was made early in the proceedings. The third request for amendment was not submitted to the court until after all witnesses had testified and was initially not permitted by the presiding magistrate, an action that would have resulted in the matter being withdrawn. The ODPP appealed the decision, the decision was reversed, and the two accused were convicted.
The matter of a few kilogrammes of ivory may seem inconsequential, the argument being that the difference of a few kilogrammes of ivory does not impact the substance in issue. As has been noted, ivory seizure weight does not impact on sentence. But the difference of a few kilogrammes speaks to the integrity of process, particularly relating to chain of custody. In only one of the nine cases where ivory weight discrepancies were noted, did the court attempt to take action, a ruling that was overturned on appeal. But would the courts take a similar laissez-faire position in circumstances where the contraband substance was heroine and 3.25 kg went missing, allegedly through weighing discrepancies.
INTEGRITY
Prior to the commencement of this report, SEEJ-AFRICA had already observed corruptive influences playing out in a number of major ivory prosecutions, many of them with links to the West African TCO.
In light of that fact, integrity issues were one of the key parameters of this study. Unpalatable to realize, the criminal justice system, and particularly from a wildlife crime perspective, is plagued with fragility, porousness, susceptibility to compromise, corruption, or by whatever term one wishes to use.
In the recently released Kenya Bribery Index 2025 by Transparency International, it is evident that the criminal justice system is challenged systemically with corruption. The report ranks the police at a score of 72%, meaning that “out of every ten Kenyans who interacted with the police in the study period, seven found themselves in a bribery situation.” In the size of average bribe paid, the judiciary came in at number one with an average bribe payment of Ksh 18,800 (USD $150). The report concluded that “it can be noted that the most bribery prone institutions remain the same across the last three surveys. These are the police, judiciary and the land services.”
While bribery is seen to be typically of a financial nature, it can encompass quid pro quo incentives, coercion, threats of transfer, or just phone calls from superiors at any level, that can result in persons being arrested who should not be, persons not being charged who should, any manner of investigative or prosecutorial malpractices, improper bail release or remand incarceration, prosecutors acting as financial intermediaries, magistrates and judges providing favourable decisions to the highest bidder or on instruction from a higher authority, persons sentenced to custody who never see the inside of a prison cell or who are released prematurely.
It is recognised that there are many within KWS who are answering a calling, dedicating their lives to protecting wildlife and investigating those who wish to threaten Kenya’s heritage. The numbers of police officers arrested by KWS and charged with wildlife trafficking offences speaks to the fine work and integrity of many KWS investigators. It would be naïve to believe, however, that there are not elements within the organisation, including management, who operate outside the rule of law for whatever reason.
Recently, the Director of Public Prosecutions recommended charges be laid against six KWS rangers from Lake Nakuru National Park relating to the disappearance of a local fisherman whom they had arrested. Another KWS officer, Michael Kiplangat Bett, who was once under assignment with the KWS HQ investigative unit, was charged alongside 14 Special Service Unit (SSU) officers over the July 2022 abduction and murder of two Indian nationals. Some of this corruptive or extrajudicial behaviour is certainly that referred to as ‘noble cause’ corruption, rangers frustrated and inhibited by easily corruptible courts.
Compromise is surreptitious in nature and ordinarily not readily identifiable. Through resolute observation and familiarity of process, however, there are indicators that can point to a corrupted court case or reveal characteristics of such. Listening to courtroom testimony assisted this study in ascertaining the existence of integrity concerns in 59 cases.
While looking at the entire process including investigation, prosecution, bail, and adjudication, SEEJ-AFRICA found that 18 of the 125 cases were, on a balance of probabilities, compromised in some manner. Ten of those 18 cases involved TCO’s, with five definitely linked to the West African crime group. The table below details all cases where corruption was indicated.
File | TCO | Reason Compromised |
E049/23_MAC | Y | Designated ‘MCPCR” (petty criminal case), vehicle occupants turned prosecution witnesses, produced testimony not credible or relevant, contraband was worked ivory going to JKIA. |
E115/22_KAH | Ivory tusk piece amended to elephant hip bone. There was over one month between seizure and submission to NMK. | |
418/17_SHA | WCG | Charges should have been under the WMCA, classified as petty criminal case, seizure investigated initially in 2014 but not prosecuted, appointed IO unaware of ivory destroyed prior to prosecution, judgement still pending after 18 months. |
1382/18_KBR | Ivory tusks were swopped out for hippo teeth post arrest, 5 years before first witness testified. | |
E005/22_MBA | Significant contradictions in trial testimony relating to method of concealment, accused transportation post arrest, weighing machine. A#1 has yet to be arrested. | |
4789/14_KBR | WCG | Court file altered to cover release or escape of accused; charges against the 3rd and 4th accused were withdrawn early in the prosecution after controlled delivery arrest. Phone data identifying TCO connection not utilised. |
E812/22_VOI | Testimony from KWS witnesses significantly contradictory, two escapees, this should not have been a conviction. | |
1673/14_KBR | WCG | Amara Cherif, deputy of the West African TCO released. A#2, a Guinean, deported mid-trial on signed order of CS of Interior. DCI investigator alleged to have stolen ksh 300,000 seized from A#2. Safaricom LO did not testify. |
985/20_MBA | A#1 was not seen in court after his testimony. It is believed that NPS is protecting. A#1 forged bond documents. | |
5425/15_KBR | Y | The court returned the passport to A#1 late in trial and he absconded out of the country shortly thereafter.. Title deed and surety were fake. |
E113/22_KAH | Y | Irregular bail release, preferential treatment of A#1, questionable release of A#2 based on evidence, bogus lawyer, pro bono lawyers, accelerated trial, etc. Crime scene photos, with the exception of two bags of ivory, taken after all other exhibits moved from original location. No phone data. |
E1042/22_KAJ | Several significant procedural omissions from the 2 KWS officers who made the arrest. | |
E016/22_KAH | Y | Neither KWS witness actually seized the ivory and they do not know who did. Significant contradictions in testimony. The likelihood of tusk being planted is high. |
E027/21_KAH | Significant integrity issues starting with 100 kg or 62 kg seized, 3rd party contact, broker, no record of communications, U/K vehicle ownership | |
1313/19_KBR | Testimony revealed the presence of a broker who was working directly with KWS. The court brought up the issue of entrapment. Accused presented credible involvement of 3rd party. | |
664/18_KBR | No ivory exhibit produced during trial, only 2 witnesses, 1 KWS officer and NMK expert. | |
1649/17_KBR | WCG | Ahmed Mohamed Salah corrupted bail release, crime scene photos not admitted for reasons not clear, Salah and A#2 linked to West Africa TCO, seized vehicle ‘stolen’ from police custody |
1132/15_MBA | WCG | Despite MLA negotiations with Thailand failing, NO admissible evidence was tendered in the over 8 year trial, including no phone data. Conclusive indictions of outside interference in a trial |
Forty one cases were found with characteristics that could be symptomatic of a compromised case and designated on the data set as ‘II’. This included the nine cases with ivory weight discrepancies and the nine cases where law enforcement officers were charged. Cases that involved either extremely lenient or harsh sentencing were also designated as ‘II’. In one particular case, on two occasions, scheduled hearings did not proceed on the realisation by KWS investigators that SEEJ-AFRICA was in attendance. It was designated ‘II’.
In two cases, house searches were conducted at midnight and at 5:00am respectively for small amounts of ivory under circumstances that registered as a possible concern. In one case, a rifle and ammunition were seized but of different calibre’s and not indicated on the charge sheet. In a Voi acquittal (it was the only Voi acquittal with 8 other cases registering convictions) even the magistrate made mention of a possible ivory plant which was again registered as ‘II’. In a Kajiado case, 737/2020 – R. vs. Denis Maheli Alima, it was reported in the media at the time of the arrest that the accused was transporting the 7.5 kg of worked ivory for a government official. Two months later, his bail was posted by MP, Babu Owino. That merited the ‘II’ classification.
In total, 59 cases out of 127 under study were either compromised are presented characteristics that could indicate compromise. In the remaining 66 cases, there was not sufficient information available to to ascertain the existence of integrity issues or not.
VULNERABILITIES AND CHALLENGES
- Judicial Oversight: In light of the fragility of the criminal justice system, arrests based on intelligence, house searches without warrants, and personal phone data searches on the strength of a letter, without some process for oversight makes abuse a certainty. There are unquestionably persons in prison for possession and/or dealing in wildlife trophies who are not guilty as well as persons found guilty but not as per rule of law.
2. Informants: The use of informants by KWS may well be vulnerable to impropriety and should be re-evaluated from an integrity perspective. Greater attention needs to be paid as to how the funds are dispersed, utilised, and documented.
3. Local Ivory Stockpiling and Security: The present court exhibit protocol requiring the ivory exhibits being in court on multiple occasions during an extended trial is problematic for ivory storage and security while opening a door to ivory re-cycling.
4. Multi-Agency Operations: Not unlike law enforcement agencies around the world, evidence suggests that relations between KWS and other agencies can be a challenge. This appeared to play out specifically in relation to cases where ivory weight discrepancies were noted. Three cases where the KWTF was the lead had ivory weight discrepancies as did three other cases involving multi-agency involvement.
5. Court Room Testimony: Again, something of a challenge to police officers/rangers globally is presenting evidence in court. Not surprisingly, this study found that the standard of giving testimony amongst law enforcement personnel ran the gamut. It was observed that a lack of preparedness was not uncommon, especially with the more seasoned investigators. In one case, it was observed that an experienced investigator had to be given a copy of their statement from defence counsel. Testimony relating to cyber crimes or phone data was particularly vulnerable to this aspect, and while it is notable that more of this evidence is being used, it has to be presented in a manner that strengthens the prosecutions case instead of muddying the waters.
6. Brokers: There are an untold number of Law Courts around the country that have ‘brokers’. Typically, ’brokers’ arrange for cases to go before certain magistrates who will facilitate a favourable decision for that accused. Brokers do not exist for the benefit of rule of law. A recent media story, No more middlemen: CJ Koome calls out brokers, spoke to that aspect of judiciary corruption.
Recommendations
The following are recommendations for process changes that can increase the conviction rate, decrease trial length, minimise ivory handling and ‘re-circulation’, plus mitigate against compromise/corruption in wildlife crime prosecutions.
A. Designate one courtroom per Law Court to handle wildlife trophy cases.
As identified, the 125 cases monitored involved 91 magistrates in 55 different courtrooms. At Kibera Law Courts, of the 10 magistrates courtrooms, nine were found to have wildlife trophy prosecutions, each court with a different magistrate and different prosecutor. While wildlife cases are essentially dealing with possession law, the arrest and investigative aspects are more complex and would be better served if these cases were consistently assigned the same courtroom with the same magistrate and same prosecutor. To international acclaim, Uganda has a specialised wildlife law court for the entire country. That would not be viable in Kenya, but one specialised courtroom for wildlife cases within a specific law court could be a welcome alternative.
B. Re-assessment of prosecution witness protocols
While the typical ivory trial has only 3 – 5 witnesses, one witness less can reduce a trial by a considerable number of months. There are two areas where this can be achieved.
i) National Museum of Kenya expert witnesses
The NMK expert witness should not be required to testify at trial if the substance is not in dispute. It is recommended that consideration be given to NMK providing a certified report to the court indicating the ivory is ivory and and dispensing with their requirement for court attendance unless requested by the accused. In addition, consideration should also be given to having their testimony presented virtually as was observed in a recent Voi trial.
ii) The Investigating Officer
DCI investigators are occasionally assigned as IO’s to KWS cases, particularly in rural areas. Typically, he is not involved in the arrest and can provide no direct evidence for the court but he is still required to testify. In a Kwale matter, prior to trial conclusion, the assigned DCI IO passed away and another investigator replaced him. The replacement IO was required to testify and more worryingly, the final judgement indicated that weight had been given to his hearsay evidence. There should be no requirement for an IO to testify if he has no direct or relevant evidence to present.
C. Singular presentation of ivory exhibits to court
At present, ivory exhibits are produced for the court on each occasion that a prosecution witness who had a part to play in the arrest is to testify. At this point in the trial, the ivory has already been driven to Nairobi for expert examination and returned in a second trip. Factoring in trial hearing adjournments, that could equate to KWS having to transport and secure ivory in court in excess of 10 times per trial. In 1649/2017 Kibera – R. vs. Julius Abluu Adika & Abdinur Ibrahim Ali & 4 others, SEEJ-AFRICA observed 216.76 kg of ivory in court on four occasions. In E812/22_VOI – R. vs Salim Chibonja Myala and Chivoro Ndamau Chivoro, 209.5 kg of ivory was observed In court on six occasions. This practice is onerous on KWS from a manpower, transportation, and security perspective. Ivory should only be required in court as an exhibit once. It should then be forwarded to KWS Nairobi for more secure storage and accountability. This practice has not changed in over 10 years.
D. Clear Policy in Law as to Evidentiary Requirements Relating to Major Ivory Prosecutions
There have been significant contradictions in past major ivory prosecutions relating to the purported requirement for entire ivory shipments to be presented as evidence to the court. While many legal purists have advocated that the ivory is required for the court regardless from where it was seized, past practice has been inconsistent and muddled. Chief Magistrate Mutuku’s ruling relating to the absence of ivory in 1132/2015 Mombasa – R. vs. Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh et al, did not provide any direction on that requirement in her ruling. In fact, the ruling was somewhat ambiguous regarding the ivory, suggesting that it was not an essential element for conviction. In 418/2017 Shanzu – R. vs James Kinyua Njagi, Falah Manzu Yusuf @ Mohamed Faki and 4 others, the ivory that had been seized in Singapore had already been destroyed prior to charges being laid. While that matter is pending judgement, it is not expected to add any clarity on the question regardless of verdict. Besides the obvious confusion for investigators and prosecutors, this lack of clear policy or regulation plays into the hands of organised crime.
E. Crime scene photos taken at the arrest/seizure site
One of the most contentious issues in an ivory trial involves the crime scene photos as described in page 34. Officer safety is the reason most cited for the delay, arresting officers preferring to wait until reaching the secure environs of a police or field station. While the argument is clearly valid on occasion, how long does it take to snap a picture of the accused with the ivory at the arrest site? There is no requirement for the photo to be award winning. The photos will automatically include time and location, provide strong evidence for the court, shut down multiple lines of defence from the accused, and mitigates against possible injustices. It is understood that there will be circumstances whereby it will not be possible to exercise this process at the arrest site.
F. Charge Sheet wordings to no longer include the street value of the seized ivory
The street value of the ivory seized and documented on a charge sheet is commonly inaccurate. Typically pegged at 100,000 Kenya shillings per one kg of ivory, that valuation has not been revised in over 10 years. It is certainly not the amount that the local pastoralist trafficker would receive which is more in the range of 1,500 shillings (USD $120) per 1 kg of ivory. The street value assigned by KWS is rarely challenged by the court and has no bearing on sentence. This practise is therefore misleading and redundant.
Conclusion
This report has refrained from making recommendations that do not specifically impact wildlife crime prosecutions. It is clear that the practice of magistrates taking handwritten notes of witness testimony, the transfer policy for magistrates and prosecutors, and the poor case management by the courts, impacts all Kenyans across the board and not just wildlife crime prosecutions.
The six recommendations submitted by this study have no financial cost. They could, in fact, save on resources while mitigating against integrity concerns in the specific areas as referred. Some recommendations have already been employed in a singular fashion in some courts. A Voi court, in a recent trial, had the NMK expert testify virtually, thereby eliminating the requirement of travel and accommodation costs. In a Mariakani trial, the magistrate had all prosecution witnesses testify in one sitting, eliminating the necessity of ivory being presented to the court on multiple occasions and shortening trial time considerably.
As reported, the criminal justice system is vulnerable in wildlife crime cases, particularly post-arrest, and particularly involving TCO’s, due to lack of independent oversight. It should be remembered that organizations such as the Environmental Investigation Agency, the Wildlife Justice Commission, the Eagle Network, or Focused Conservation, exist in part due to integrity gaps within enforcement agencies in the areas in which they operate. There are no like minded agency’s operating to cover what happens in the courtroom.
SEEJ-AFRICA advocates for an independent and public presence in the courtroom, for that is where all aspects of the criminal justice system come together. A presence is required in court to observe and report on the successes and challenges of the investigative process, the prosecution’s presentation of its case, the decisions of the court, the administration of justice in these matters, and in a world where things are not always what they seem, to sometimes keep the actors just a little bit honest. For without a courtroom presence, the chances of justice and deterrence being applied in an ivory prosecution of significance are exactly nil.
Wildlife Direct’s 2014 report, “Scoping study on the prosecution of wildlife related crimes in Kenyan courts 2008-2013”, concluded that there was a “continuing degree of threat to wildlife posed by inadequate investigation, poor file management in courts, and prosecution and adjudication of offences that failed to deter offenders.”
This report concludes that while the cosmetics may have changed since 2014, the personality has not.
Based on 10 years analysis of wildlife crime cases, buttressed by the findings of this report, it is concluded that without an independent, active presence or involvement in the courtroom post-arrest, the expectation of the courts to deliver a conviction or sentence of justice and/or deterrence in a major ivory prosecution is unrealistic and not achievable. ‘Major’ in this instance, is defined as including prosecutions against offenders who are part of a TCO, regardless of the weight of the ivory seized.
Appendix A – Summary of Significant Cases
418/2017 Shanzu – R. vs James Kinyua Njagi, Falah Manzu Yusuf @ Mohamed Faki and 4 others:
These charges relate to a Singapore seizure of 1004 kg of ivory in March 2014 that originated in Kampala and transited Mombasa. An initial Kenyan investigation did not materialise to prosecution but was resurrected in 2016 through an investigation that commenced in West Africa by the NGO, Freeland, in concert with the LATF. This prosecution was compromised from the initial stages with its being classified as a “petty criminal offence” and charges being laid under the EACCMA instead of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. The trial that began in April 2017 is on its 4th magistrate and has been waiting for judgement to be rendered for eighteen months. This type of delay is unprecedented and not seen previously in any proceedings.
(As of December 1, 2025, there has been no movement on this judgement and SEEJ-AFRICA is concluding it ‘terminated’.)
1673/2014 Kibera – R. vs. Kenneth Kamau Maina & N’faly Doukoure (GUI):
Maina was convicted of possession of the 784 kg ivory found in a water tanker lorry and sentenced to pay a ksh 1 million fine (USD$10,000) or in default 5 years imprisonment. Nfaly Doukoure was deported mid-trial. Amara Cherif (GUI), the acknowledged second in command of the West Africa crime group was released without charge. Maina had been acquitted of the 2160 kg ivory seizure (charge sheet read 1332 kg) at JKIA in 2010 (PCR/2305/2011).
1649/2017 Kibera – R. vs. Julius Abluu Adika & Abdinur Ibrahim Ali & 4 others:
Officers of the SCPU raided a Nairobi area home on June 27th, 2017, and found 216.76 kg of cut ivory, much of it being packaged for air freight out of JKIA. Five men were arrested on site, with Abdinur Ibrahim Ali, and Ahmed Mohamud Salah alias Ahmed Mahabub Gedi, arrested later. Both these accused had links to the West African crime group. Salah was given what could only be described as a corrupted bail release considering he had no Kenyan ties, was a Somali national with residence and employment in Mozambique, and was arrested at a border crossing while fleeing the country with fraudulently obtained travel documents. The accused who was renting the home where the ivory was found, passed away mid-trial and was presented in defence testimony as the architect of the offence. On July 23rd, 2025, the five remaining accused were acquitted.
This was a seizure of 143 kg of worked ivory being transported from Kampala in a vehicle registered in Uganda to a male from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The vehicle and occupants (Maseleka and Kamau) were arrested outside of Nairobi and a controlled delivery was affected. Kienyi
and Muthoni were arrested in that process. The charges against them, however, were later withdrawn. This is believed to be the last controlled delivery executed by KWS. The investigation also revealed the involvement of Abdul Malik Shariff (GUI) who was not arrested. Ten years and 4 months after arraignment, Maseleka and Kamau were found guilty in absentia and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for possession and dealing in wildlife trophies to be served consecutively, if ever arrested. There is strong evidence suggesting that they were in custody in December 2022 and were either released or escaped and that court documents were falsified to cover it up.
E049/2023 Machakos – R. vs. Lazurus Kinyumu Mativo, Samwel Muisyo Mutune, and Bashir Kasim (TZA)
This prosecution relates to a May 7th, 2023, arrest and seizure of 81.7 kg (or 87.1 kg) of worked ivory from a vehicle enroute to Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi. It has received a ‘petty criminal case’ designation. The driver and passenger, Mutune and Kasim, have now been turned into witnesses for the prosecution. Kasim has testified and was not credible. The trial is on its 3rd presiding magistrate. This is a compromised trial.
In June 2024, KWS investigators followed a government Subaru Legacy from Eldoret to Kitengela (over 300 kms) before stopping it and finding five tusks weighing 29 kg. The four occupants were arrested, with three found to be serving police officers. One 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. Two loaded handguns were also seized, presumed to be police service weapons.
(On November 20th, 2025, this matter was withdrawn by the prosecution for reasons unknown)
E1697/2024 Molo – R. vs. Maina Gichure:
A policeman arrested for trafficking 10 kg of ivory in Molo had the charges withdrawn within weeks and no explanation provided.
E812/22_VOI – R. vs Salim Chibonja Myala and Chivoro Ndamau Chivoro:
The two accused in this matter were sentenced on December 20th, 2024 to 9 years and 7 years jail for dealing in 209.5 kg of ivory from an incident two years previous. The judgement of the presiding magistrate and SEEJ-AFRICA records of the testimony of witnesses indicates significant contradictions between KWS witnesses. A case review was written . This was a corrupted decision.
E113/22_Kahawa – R. vs Hoang Thi Diu:
On November 16th, 2022, Yang Changgui, a 58 year old Chinese national, was found dead by a roommate in his Lavington (Nairobi) apartment. Hoang Thi Diu, identifying herself as a Chinese national, contacted the police. Police found in the apartment a number of game trophies and other evidence of wildlife trafficking including: 80 cut pieces of ivory weighing 145 kg, 2 worked pieces of ivory, 2 rhino horn weighing 4.2 kg, 116 lion claws, 65 lions teeth and electric saw. Hoang Thi Diu, roommate of the deceased was charged and found not guilty. Compromise was indicated in this investigation/prosecution.
1132/15 Mombasa – R. vs. Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh and 8 others:
See Introduction or read link.
Appendix B – Further Articles and Reports by Chris Morris and SEEJ-AFRICA
Open letter to the new KWS Director General, Brig John Waweru
Kenya on the brink of acquitting ivory trafficker number four
Moazu Kromah and the Case of the West African Ivory Cartel
Self-Censorship, Truth, Corruption and Calling ‘Bullshit’
Kenya Needs to Get the Surur Extradition Right
The ‘Enterprise,’ the Burundi Stockpile, and other Ivory Behind the Extradition
Spectre of Corruption: The ‘Shetani’ Ivory Case
Your Rangers are in the Crosshairs
How Taveta Law Courts and illegal grazing bloated Kenya’s wildlife crime conviction rate
New Evidence Application in Mombasa Ivory Case – Legitimate or Facade?
Blundered Verdict by Kenyan Court Releases Mega tonne Rosewood Seizure Back to Smugglers
Nine-Year Kenyan Ivory Trafficking Case Ends in Acquittal
Wildlife Crime – Recognising Corruption in the Courtroom
After Nine Years, a Kenyan Court Hands Down Guilty Verdict in Ivory Case
Elephant genotypes reveal the size and connectivity of transnational ivory traffickers (co-author)
A Malaysian National and His Ivory Connection to Africa
African Courts Need to Take the Lead in Trying Traffickers
Nothing to do with Wildlife Crime Yet Everything to do with Wildlife Crime
Kenya Still Struggling with Consistency and Deterrence in Ivory Cases
After 8 Years, Kenyan Ivory Case Comes to a Close
Ivory trafficking Conviction for UN Security Officer – More Questions than Answers
Opportunity lost or covered – Nairobi court acquits Chinese national of wildlife trafficking
Inside the Wildlife Crime Courtrooms of Kenya
Appendix C – Project Case List
Key: GJ = Guilty Jail; GFJ = Guilty Fine or in lieu Jail; CS = Community service
Court File | Offence Date | Case Status | Court File | Offence Date | Case Status | |
E984/24_SHA | 2024-11-11 | Ongoing | E073/22_KAH | 2022-08-05 | C/G? | |
E105/24_JKIA | 2024-08-18 | Ongoing | E068/22_KAH | 2022-07-31 | Ongoing | |
E076/24_KAH | 2024-06-24 | Ongoing | E884/22_MER | 2022-07-20 | Ongoing | |
E071/24_KAH | 2024-06-15 | Withdrawn | E827/22_MER | 2022-07-07 | Ongoing | |
E052/24_KAH | 2024-04-21 | Ongoing | E348/22_VOI | 2022-05-27 | C/GJ | |
E345/24_KAJ | 2024-03-26 | Ongoing | E041/22_KAH | 2022-05-07 | C/GFJ | |
E322/24_KAJ | 2024-03-18 | Ongoing | E283/22_KIL | 2022-04-28 | Acquittal (Dismissed) | |
E246/24_MKU | 2024-03-12 | Ongoing | E021/22_KAH | 2022-03-04 | Terminated | |
E030/24_JKIA | 2024-02-23 | Ongoing | E016/22_KAH | 2022-02-09 | Acquittal | |
E057/22_VOI | 2024-01-30 | Ongoing | E039/22_KWA | 2022-02-05 | Acquittal | |
E139/24_SHA | 2024-01-29 | Ongoing | E015/22_VOI | 2022-01-05 | C/GJ (confirmation req’d) | |
E009/24_KAH | 2024-01-12 | Ongoing | E005/22_MBA | 2022-01-01 | C/GJ | |
E011/24_MSA | 2024-01-06 | Ongoing | E2393/21_NYA | 2021-11-27 | C/GJ- A#1 A#2; Warrant – A#3 | |
E003/24_VOI | 2023-12-29 | Ongoing | E1730/21_MER | 2021-10-24 | Acquittal | |
E859/23_VOI | 2023-11-22 | C/GJ | E2189/21_NAN | 2021-10-06 | Ongoing | |
E118/23_JKIA | 2023-10-18 | C/GFJ | E1026/21_KIL | 2021-09-30 | Ongoing | |
E1012/23_NAR | 2023-10-16 | Terminated | E2042/21_NAN | 2021-09-05 | Ongoing | |
E113/23_JKIA | 2023-10-09 | C/GFJ | E029/21_KAH | 2021-08-23 | C/GJ | |
E980/23_SHA | 2023-10-05 | Ongoing | E759/21_KAJ | 2021-08-17 | Ongoing – Judgement Pending | |
E1380/23_NAN | 2023-10-03 | Ongoing | E027/21_KAH | 2021-07-30 | Acquittal | |
E767/23_MAL | 2023-09-25 | Acquittal | E926/21_SHA | 2021-07-29 | C/GJ | |
E263/23_MAR | 2023-09-15 | Ongoing | E324/21_MAR | 2021-07-17 | Withdrawn | |
E522/23_KIL | 2023-09-12 | Ongoing | E138/21_KWA | 2021-04-17 | Ongoing | |
E756/23_VOI | 2023-08-31 | C/CS | E434/21_KBR | 2021-03-14 | C/GJ | |
E102/23_KAH | 2023-08-30 | Ongoing | E041/21_KBR | 2021-01-10 | C/G? | |
E097/23_KAH | 2023-08-22 | Ongoing | E021/21_VOI | 2021-01-10 | Acquittal x 3 | |
E1076/23_MER | 2023-08-13 | Ongoing | E018/21_NAR | 2021-01-05 | C/G? – Withdrawn on other accused | |
E717/23_VOI | 2023-08-09 | C/GJ | 1300/20_NAN | 2020-12-03 | Acquittal | |
E1239/23_BUS | 2023-07-28 | Ongoing | 737/20_KAJ | 2020-09-19 | Ongoing | |
E212/23_MAR | 2023-07-25 | C/G? | 214/20_KIL | 2020-07-23 | Ongoing | |
E1040/23_NYE | 2023-07-10 | Ongoing | 663/20_KBR | 2020-07-18 | Conviction: Judgement pending | |
E183/23_MAR | 2023-07-01 | Ongoing | 173/20_MAR | 2020-07-08 | C/G? | |
E043/23_JKIA | 2023-06-23 | C/GJ | 985/20_MBA | 2020-07-07 | C/G: + Acquittal | |
E928/23_NYE | 2023-06-16 | Ongoing | 565/20_KBR | 2020-06-23 | C/GJ + Acquittal | |
E729/23_MBA | 2023-06-03 | Ongoing | 412/20_NAN | 2020-05-09 | C/GFJ – A#1 Acquittal – A#2, A#3 | |
E848/23_NYE | 2023-05-30 | Acquittal | 74/20_KBR | 2020-01-14 | Ongoing | |
E034/23_JKIA | 2023-05-25 | C/GJ (in absentia) | 1313/19_KBR | 2019-10-02 | Acquittal | |
E750/23_NAN | 2023-05-21 | C/G? | 780/19_KWA | 2019-09-20 | C/GFJ | |
E024/23_JKIA | 2023-05-14 | Ongoing | 1381/19_NYA | 2019-08-11 | C/GFJ: A#1 Acquittal: A#2 | |
E049/23_MAC (MCPCR) | 2023-05-07 | Ongoing | 1541/19_KBR | 2019-07-20 | C/GFJ – 20 mil or 30 yrs | |
E050/23_KAH | 2023-04-29 | C/GJ | 60/19_KAJ | 2019-01-14 | Acquittal | |
E577/23_NYE | 2023-04-17 | Ongoing | 33/19_KAJ | 2019-01-08 | Terminated prematurely for reasons U/K | |
E694/23_NYE | 2023-04-15 | Ongoing | 2092/18_MBA | 2018-12-02 | Ongoing | |
E347/23_MKU | 2023-04-13 | Ongoing | 1444/18_KBR | 2018-11-21 | C/GJ | |
E346/23_VOI | 2023-04-04 | C/GJ | 1382/18_KBR | 2018-11-06 | C/G? | |
E272/23_NAR | 2023-04-02 | Ongoing | 1229/18_KBR | 2018-09-30 | C/GFJ – A#1 Acquittal – A#2 | |
E426/23_KBR | 2023-03-12 | Ongoing | 408/18_MAC | 2018-08-05 | Ongoing | |
E021/23_KAH | 2023-02-23 | Acquittal | 780/18_KBR | 2018-06-21 | C/GFJ | |
E064/23_MAR | 2023-02-14 | Ongoing | 664/18_KBR | 2018-05-22 | Acquittal | |
E185/23_NAI | 2023-02-11 | Ongoing | 347/18_NAN | 2018-03-11 | C/GJ | |
E216/23_VOI | 2023-02-08 | C/G? | 187/18_MER | 2018-01-18 | Acquittal | |
E231/23_MER | 2023-01-28 | Ongoing | 3246/17_KBR | 2017-09-26 | Acquittal | |
E039/23_KWA | 2023-01-20 | C/G? | 3202/17_KBR | 2017-09-18 | C/GFJ | |
E023/23_NAR | 2023-01-08 | Ongoing | 3045/17_KBR | 2017-08-26 | C/GFJ | |
E121/22_KAH | 2022-12-26 | C/GFJ – Plea arrangement | 1649/17_KBR | 2017-06-27 | Acquittal | |
E812/22_VOI | 2022-12-14 | C/GJ | 11/17_KAJ | 2017-01-04 | Terminated (unofficially) | |
E115/22_KAH | 2022-12-02 | Ongoing Prosecution | 5425/15_KBR | 2015-09-25 | Acquittal – A#2 and A#3 Warrant for A#1 | |
E113/22_KAH | 2022-11-16 | Acquittal | 3412/15_KBR | 2015-08-11 | C/GFJ: A#1,A#2 Acquittal: A#3 | |
E111/22_SHA (MCPCR) | 2022-11-15 | Ongoing Prosecution | 1132/15_MBA | 2015-04-25 | Acquittal | |
E103/22_KAH | 2022-11-10 | Ongoing Prosecution | 4789/14_KBR | 2014-10-22 | C/GJ (in absentia) | |
E1042/22_KAJ | 2022-10-12 | Acquittal | 1673/14_KBR | 2014-04-17 | C/GFJ: A#1 Deported mid-trial: A#2 | |
E563/22_VOI | 2022-09-10 | C/GJ: A#1,A#3,A#4 Ongoing: A#2 | 418/17_SHA (MCPCR) | 2014-03-28 | Terminated (unofficially) | |
E599/22_NAR | 2022-09-07 | Ongoing – Defence Hearing |
