Kenya

Evidence Rooms Secure Stronger Cases Against Wildlife Crime in Kenya | African Wildlife Foundation – A Review

SEEJ-AFRICA
SEEJ-AFRICA
KWS exhibit storage locker at Tsavo East provided through a AWF/KWS initiative and commissioned with five others in March 2023. (photo by AWF)

A SEEJ-AFRICA Review - Evidence Rooms Secure Stronger Cases Against Wildlife Crime in Kenya | African Wildlife Foundation

It is probably considered a bit caddish in the conservation world for one NGO to comment on the work of another NGO.  After all, we are all supposed to be on the same team.

Indeed, the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and SEEJ-AFRICA do share a common court monitoring interest but after that? Well, the AWF operates in nine different African countries, has a headquarters on beautiful grounds located in the affluent burbs of Karen in Nairobi, received over USD $17 million in donations in 2025, and has a CEO that jets around the world espousing on the benefits of supporting conservation efforts in Africa.  On the other hand, SEEJ-AFRICA presently has a staff of one (me), zero budget, and now operates more as a hobby.  We are talking Loxodonta africana compared to the elephant louse Haematomyzus elephantis (size analogy only).

But, believe it or not, SEEJ-AFRICA, does have one advantage. It can tell it like it is and that includes the ugly. AWF will not do ugly.  It may impact on their donors contributions. It may affect their work/trust with the Kenya Wildlife Service, the Judiciary, or other wildlife authorities, or their ability to work in a particular country.  And sometimes they have to look like they are making a significant impact when perhaps they are not. 

Which brings me to a recent article posted on their website regarding a 2021 to 2023 initiative to provide evidence rooms and the associated training and applicable processes for the KWS relating to the handling of exhibits. (the article is re-printed below).

The report begins with a sentence that I whole heartedly endorse and a theme essentially absent from counter wildlife trafficking initiatives: Protecting Africa’s wildlife doesn’t end with an arrest; it depends on what happens next. 

For those not familiar with the context, the ‘next’ refers to the judicial process after the arrest. The ‘next’ is a significant weakness in combatting wildlife crime, particularly in cases involving transnational organized crime. In Kenya, most such cases end in acquittal or at best, a guilty finding with a paltry sentence. If there is jail time involved, and with the state of corruption in the prison service (as with all players in the justice system), there is no way of verifying that periods of incarceration were served.  This is the ‘ugly’.  You will not find this on the AWF website. However, I digress.

In a nutshell, the AWF report details how “AWF, KWS, and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) came together to strengthen evidence management within Kenya’s wildlife law enforcement system.”  It continued that “they introduced systems and procedures that are designed to make evidence management more consistent, transparent, and accountable, helping strengthen the link between investigation and prosecution.”

The KWS/AWF assessment of the project “found that the six KWS stations (it included Nairobi) had established strong foundational systems for evidence management. Exhibit labelling, controlled access, structured storage, regular inventories, and designated custodians had strengthened accountability and helped reinforce the chain of custody” and concluded  “the collaboration between AWF, KWS, and INL shows what targeted investment in evidence systems can look like in practice……..protecting wildlife means investing not only in the people who detect and investigate crime but also in the systems that help ensure those cases can stand up in court.”

That is all correct in principal. But perhaps some context is required.  There are 47 counties in Kenya. Over the last several years, elephant ivory seizures have been made in 38 of those counties.  Related wildlife court cases were found in over 70 different law courts across the country. There are over 125 KWS field stations.  Are  five new evidence storage facilities the best that can be done?  And how about the rest of the ivory, chain of custody process?

Once an arrest/seizure has been made, KWS officers transport the ivory by vehicle, from wherever in the country the seizure has been made, to the National Museum of Kenya for scientific analysis. While many of these seizures are made within a 2-4 hour drive from Nairobi, a significant number involve a full day’s drive or longer in vehicle’s not known for their fuel efficiency, vehicles that would be better utilized for their intended purpose. Yes, on occasion, for seizures in the area of Tsavo National Park, the required scientific examination is conducted by a KWS veterinarian. Needless to say, the submitted ivory exhibit has to again be retrieved and returned to the KWS station of seizure. The ivory will remain at the station of seizure, and in the evidence lock up, until the conclusion of the trial. That could be for a period of one to four years. 

In addition, the ivory has to be produced for court for every hearing where a KWS officer who was involved in the seizure is testifying.  There are typically 4-5 prosecution witnesses, including the expert, so ivory is being transported from secure lockup to court on multiple occasions.  In 1649/2017 Kibera R. vs. Julius Abluu Adika & Abdinur Ibrahim Ali & 4 others, 216.76 kg of ivory had to be transported and carried into court on at least 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. Should an exhibit be required for the court on more than even one occasion? 

Could not an attempt have been made to somehow streamline this costly, cumbersome, and insecure process?  And at minimal cost.

AWF does recognize, and is 100% correct,  that there is a need to “close the gaps between seizure and prosecution.”

Unfortunately, the primary cause of that gap, and recognized by all within the of conservation justice realm, is institutional corruption within government and criminal justice systems. 
 
That is gap that by its very nature, AWF and other similarly sized NGO’s, will never address in anything but general terms. 
 
Between 2015 and early 2018, I did volunteer, investigative support work with Wildlife Direct. During that time, Wildlife Direct was essentially, all in, in their courtroom monitoring. They were not shy about addressing publicly, the corruption found in the various trials they were monitoring.  Their targets included the DPP, NPS, and KWS management.  One KWS Deputy Director even referred to Wildlife Direct as being of “ignoble purpose”.
 
At the time, Space for Giants was the only other NGO in Kenya conducting courtroom monitoring activities in the Nanyuki area but conducted their work in an opposite style.  They conducted themselves in a more diplomatic fashion, and would never publicly call out anyone. They wanted the trust of the criminal justice actors and even though they certainly observed magistrates, prosecutors, defence lawyers, police, and KWS rangers exhibit behaviours not in line with rule of law, they did not make that available to the public. 
 
I thought at the time, that if Space for Giants and Wildlife Direct had a surreptitious alliance, great things could have been achieved. The diplomat and the junk yard dog quietly working together to combat high end corruption involved in transnational wildlife crime. 
 
Ironically, at present, it seems that the conservation justice NGO’s with the most resources, are the least likely to tackle the most pressing problem, the high level corruption driving the trafficking of wildlife products.
 
P.S. Wildlife Direct, Space for Giants, and AWF, due to changing priorities, are no longer carrying out courtroom monitoring in a substantive manner.
KWS officers carrying seized tusks from their Landcruiser to be presented in court 2 (background) as exhibits. This was done at least six times during the course of the trial.

Evidence Rooms Secure Stronger Cases Against Wildlife Crime in Kenya | African Wildlife Foundation

Evidence storage - before and after (photo by Noella Mumba)
African Wildlife Foundation September 10, 2026
 
Protecting Africa’s wildlife doesn’t end with an arrest; it depends on what happens next. As part of its work strengthening wildlife law enforcement systems across the continent, AWF works with institutions like the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) to close the gaps between seizure and prosecution, investing in the often-overlooked infrastructure and procedures that turn evidence into accountability. This is the story of one such investment: a network of evidence rooms now reshaping how wildlife crime cases are built and won in Kenya.
 
Six evidence rooms. Six Kenya Wildlife Service stations. And an intervention that has strengthened one of the most critical and often overlooked links in the wildlife law enforcement chain: What happens to evidence after it is seized?
 
When a wildlife crime investigation leads to an arrest, the case is far from over. The evidence gathered must remain secure, traceable, and properly accounted for throughout the investigation and prosecution. The strength of a case can depend not only on the work of rangers and investigators in the field but also on the systems that safeguard the evidence collected.
 
Several years after dedicated evidence rooms were established at six KWS stations, an assessment by AWF and KWS found that these facilities had built strong foundational systems for evidence management, reinforcing accountability, and procedural integrity across the network.
 
Exhibit labelling, controlled access, structured storage, strengthened chain of custody, regular inventories, and designated evidence custodians have helped reinforce accountability and procedural integrity.
 
There have also been tangible gains for KWS, including increasing conviction rates and growing confidence among judicial officers in the institution’s evidence management practices. The improvements have also strengthened collaboration with other enforcement agencies, including the Kenya Forest Service and the National Police Service, and KWS has become a benchmark for evidence management.
 
These results point to a broader lesson: The most important investments in wildlife protection don’t always happen on patrol or even at an arrest. Strengthening the systems behind enforcement can determine whether a case moves from seizure to prosecution and ultimately whether wildlife criminals are held accountable.
 

From a Pilot to a Six-Room Network

The story began with a simple but critical question: What happens to the evidence after a wildlife crime investigation leads to a seizure?
 
An arrest may be the most visible moment in a wildlife crime case, but it marks the beginning of another critical phase. For evidence to support a successful prosecution, it must be properly collected, documented, secured, and accounted for from the moment it enters custody until it is presented in court.
 
If that chain is broken, even a strong investigation can be weakened. Evidence can be misplaced, damaged, compromised, or challenged, creating opportunities for cases to falter and perpetrators to escape accountability.
 
Recognizing this gap, AWF, KWS, and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) came together to strengthen evidence management within Kenya’s wildlife law enforcement system. The first step was understanding where the greatest needs lay. AWF and KWS conducted a baseline survey of evidence storage facilities across the country, examining existing systems and identifying stations that would benefit most from improved evidence storage.
 
The survey identified five KWS stations for investment: Tsavo-East, Isiolo, Nanyuki, Narok, and Kajiado. Before these facilities were constructed, a pilot evidence room was established at KWS Headquarters in Nairobi. The pilot demonstrated that dedicated infrastructure could provide a more structured, secure, and accountable approach to evidence management. It also provided lessons that informed the subsequent construction of five additional evidence rooms, creating a network of facilities across key wildlife landscapes.
 
But the value of these rooms lies in more than the physical infrastructure itself. They introduced systems and procedures that are designed to make evidence management more consistent, transparent, and accountable, helping strengthen the link between investigation and prosecution.
 

The Overlooked Piece of Wildlife Law Enforcement

When we think about wildlife conservation, we often picture rangers on patrol, intelligence-led investigations, or the seizure of illegal wildlife products. We usually picture the moment a suspected wildlife trafficker is identified and then arrested.
 
But that is not where wildlife law enforcement ends.
 
As wildlife crime becomes increasingly sophisticated in scale, methods, and value, the systems supporting enforcement must evolve alongside it. Organized networks can operate across borders, commodities can move through complex supply chains, and investigations may involve evidence that is sensitive, valuable, hazardous, or difficult to store.
 
In this environment, evidence management is not an administrative afterthought; it is part of the enforcement chain.
 
A dedicated evidence room may appear to be a relatively simple piece of infrastructure. But the systems within it can determine whether an exhibit remains secure and traceable throughout an investigation and prosecution. In turn, those systems can influence the ability of investigators and prosecutors to build credible cases and secure justice.
 
This is why the assessment undertaken several years after the establishment of the six evidence rooms is significant. AWF and KWS examined their functionality, sustainability, and effectiveness, providing an opportunity to understand not only what had changed, but also what was needed to sustain those gains.
 
The assessment found that the six KWS stations had established strong foundational systems for evidence management. Exhibit labelling, controlled access, structured storage, regular inventories, and designated custodians had strengthened accountability and helped reinforce the chain of custody.
 
The benefits also extend beyond the evidence rooms themselves. Improved systems have contributed to greater confidence among judicial officers and strengthened collaboration between KWS and other enforcement agencies, including the Kenya Forest Service and the National Police Service.
 
In this way, an investment in evidence storage has become an investment in the wider wildlife justice system.
 

Building Systems That Keep Pace With Wildlife Crime

Progress has been significant, but it also highlights where further work is needed. The assessment identified challenges, including the need to streamline evidence disposal processes, provide specialized storage for hazardous exhibits, and address limited capacity for large volumes of bulky evidence.
 
These are not simply operational details. They reflect a wider reality: Wildlife crime is changing, and the systems used to respond to it must change too.
 
As investigations become more complex and the volume and variety of seized materials grow, evidence management requires continued investment, specialized infrastructure, clear procedures, and institutional capacity. The objective is not simply to build more evidence rooms, but to build a system capable of supporting wildlife law enforcement from the first seizure  to the final outcome in court.
 
That is where the experience of the six KWS stations offers a broader lesson.
 
Effective conservation depends on more than protecting wildlife in the field; it also depends on the institutions, people, and systems that make protection possible. An investigation is only as strong as the systems that support it. An arrest only becomes meaningful when the justice system has the evidence and processes needed to pursue accountability.
 
The collaboration between AWF, KWS, and INL shows what targeted investment in evidence systems can look like in practice. For Kenya, as wildlife crime continues to evolve, the lesson is clear: Protecting wildlife means investing not only in the people who detect and investigate crime but also in the systems that help ensure those cases can stand up in court.
 
Because justice for wildlife does not begin and end with an arrest, it sometimes begins with something far less visible: a secure room, a documented exhibit, and a chain of evidence that remains intact. 
Exterior view of the Laikipia Evidence Room. (photo by AWF)
Saving Endangered Species through Education and Justice

You Might Also Like

Machakos – Two Arrested with 12 kg Ivory

Kenya’s Ten Most Corrupted Wildlife Cases

Kenya Wildlife Service Cannot Account for 400 Rhino Calves and Other Not So Good News

Five Years Jail for Taveta Ivory Trafficker

Courtroom Monitoring – Countering Corruption in Wildlife Crime

Share This Article
Previous Article Courtroom Monitoring – Countering Corruption in Wildlife Crime
Next Article Five Years Jail for Taveta Ivory Trafficker
Popular News