This case is symptomatic of a greater malaise, not only within the Kenyan criminal justice system relating to wildlife crime, but within the conservation justice sector as a whole.
MCCR/E005/2022 – The Republic vs Assad Mohammed Ahmed and Abdi Mohamed Ali
December 12th, 2025: It was a headline of a style not uncommon, a man convicted of trafficking ivory and going to jail for many years. It read: “Mombasa man jailed 10 years for trafficking ivory worth Ksh.2.4 million”. The story made a couple of major Kenyan news outlets and the ‘Save the Elephants’ news feed, the articles apparently based on a ‘X’ post by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).
The case was hailed with praises such as: “secured a significant victory”, “a well-presented and comprehensive case”, “a watertight case”, the court ruling that “prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and dismissing the defence as an afterthought”.
Anyone reading the headline and/or perhaps the first few paragraphs would think, from an ivory trafficking enforcement perspective, that this was a good news story; another ivory trafficker going to jail where he belonged, and the criminal justice system working as intended.
Contrary to the report, however, if Abdi Mohamed Ali had the resources to appeal, he would likely be set free.
The first problem, having nothing to do with the case outcome, is the headline itself. There are two mistakes. First of all, the accused is not going to jail for 10 years. He was sentenced concurrently on charges of possession and dealing in wildlife trophies. He will serve seven years in jail at best (if not released sooner) and he will not be paying any fine, also due to the concurrent sentencing.
The second misrepresentation is the value of the ivory. The media cannot shoulder the blame on this one. The value of the 24.5 kg of ivory, as set by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and detailed on the charge sheet, was 2.4 million shillings (USD $18,000). The present value to a Kenyan with that amount of ivory is closer to 240,000 shillings ((USD $1800), still a considerable amount to the average Kenyan. To the credit of ‘Save the Elephants’, their newsfeed consistently adds a post script to the story relating to the inaccuracy of the cited ivory value.
It is baffling as to why the KWS has been inflating the price of the contraband ivory for over 10 years. Perhaps it was decided to list the value at the very approximate black market price but that value has fluctuated considerably over the years. The incorrect value as documented by KWS has not. Also perplexing, the sentence handed down by the courts for those convicted has nothing to do with that documented and incorrect value. One might have thought that with considerable NGO presence in Kenya on all matters wildlife related, that somebody would not have offered that publicly inflated ivory prices may be counter intuitive.
The more serious concern is how this prosecution and conviction were presented to the public, including the international donor public, as “a significant victory”, “a well-presented and comprehensive case”, and “water tight case.”
The basic facts of the arrest and seizure are that on January 1st, 2022, KWS received intelligence that two persons were going to sell ivory to a known buyer in the area of Memon Villa in Mombasa. The suspects were to be in a small black Toyota vehicle. Subsequently that afternoon, three KWS officers, with two National Police Service (NPS) officers in support, found the stationary black Toyota and arrested the two occupants. Inside the boot of the vehicle were found seven pieces of ivory weighing 24.5 kg and digital weigh scales, concealed in two cloth bags. Assad Mohamed Ahmed (A#1) was the driver and Abdi Mohammed Ali (A#2) was the passenger. SEEJ-AFRICA, an NGO that monitors wildlife cases in the Kenyan courts, attended this prosecution on 14 occasions and heard testimony from five of the six witnesses.
The trial began without Assad Mohamed Ahmed, the driver, who absconded after arraignment, never to be seen again. The testimony from three of the five involved KWS and NPS officers was benchmark and followed the above synopsis. It was stated that the two accused were the only vehicle occupants, the driver was in possession of the keys and he unlocked the boot on request of the arresting officers, the ivory and weigh scales were found hidden in a couple of cloth bags. Besides the vehicle description, the officers had no idea as to the identity or description of the suspects. The only contradiction came from how the accused persons and their vehicle were transported from the point of arrest to the police station.
Testimony from the remaining NPS and KWS witness, however, threw that version into some doubt. The NPS officer, in his initial testimony testified that there were not two occupants in the vehicle but three and presented an alternate description to the bags found containing the ivory. The talk amongst KWS officers at the time was that the police officer had deliberately lied to compromise the case.
The prosecutor made an application requesting the court to rely on the witness’s earlier written statement as evidence in chief but Principal Magistrate Martin Rabera ordered the subject police officer to testify again. This did happen, almost one year later, and before Senior Resident Magistrate David Odhiambo. This time, the NPS officer followed the party line and recalled that the suspect vehicle had only two occupants.
The last witness was the KWS investigating officer (IO) who was also one of the five involved in the arrest. His testimony was similar to his counterparts with the exception that he stated that the previous day, December 31st, he had been surveilling the two accused in the same black Toyota within the Mombasa area and observed the two accused in that vehicle. The vehicle, however, had not been stopped.
There were two problems with this. Firstly, this was not in the evidence of the previous KWS witnesses, evidence that would have been of relevance. Those witnesses would surely have been part of that operation, the Mombasa KWS investigative team being small. Secondly, the IO’s evidence contradicted his colleague’s evidence when stated that they had no information or description on the suspects on the day of arrest.
Abdi Mohammed Ali, the now lone accused, testified in his own defence that he had been at work on December 31st and that he was the third occupant of the vehicle on the day of the arrest and had no knowledge of the ivory.
The picture painted at trial conclusion? The driver (and primary accused) still not found, contradictions in evidence on the number of occupants, contradictions on how the accused and their vehicle were transported to the police station, uncorroborated testimony of an apparent sighting of the accused the day previous with no evidence that there was ivory in the vehicle at the time, and contradictions on the intelligence provided on the day of the arrest relating to the description of the two accused.
On November 27th, 2025, Senior Resident Magistrate David Odhiambo, in a judgement made in chambers, found both guilty, one in absentia. He stated that “it was safe to conclude that the second accused too was dealing in wildlife trophies together with the first accused”, that the second accused’s “defence was a mere denial and the alibi raised came in so late as an after thought”.
One has to wonder how the learned magistrate overlooked the Kenyan constitution guaranteeing an accused person’s right to silence. And even if one was to agree that the alibi came late in the trial, how was Abdi Mohammed Ali to foresee that the prosecution would enter what it called trafficking evidence relating to activity the day prior to the arrest.
It is possible that KWS had intelligence that both accused were trafficking ivory. It is possible that Abdi Mohammed Ali, as a passenger, was aware of the ivory in the boot. It is possible that there was a third occupant in the vehicle. It is possible that the third occupant was an informant or agent provocateur of KWS. It is possible that the second accused had no knowledge of the contents of the boot. It is possible, as stated by defence counsel during the trial, “Your honour, we have always said this was a framed case and a coached statement.”
The rule of law does not allow for conviction based on the most likely possibility. It does not allow for conviction based on arbitrary intelligence without evidence.
This is one case. If it ever meets main stream news or an appeal court, it will be chalked up to an error in law by the presiding magistrate or perhaps an overzealousness motivated by one bent on protecting wildlife. The words corruption or compromise will not enter the picture.
But this is not one case. This case is symptomatic of a greater malaise, not only within the Kenyan criminal justice system relating to wildlife crime, but within the conservation justice sector as a whole.
What happens in the courtroom is not of serious consequence and the end often justifies the means.
