The lawyers expressed outrage at the agency’s decision to publish photos of those arrested across its digital platforms before presenting evidence, calling the action unlawful, unethical and a violation of constitutional rights.
The submissions were made on Monday, December 9, during court proceedings where suspects arrested in a fake IDs investigation were seeking release.
Speaking before Magistrate Kiage at the Milimani Law Courts, lawyer Danstan Omari said the investigative body had rushed to parade suspects without showing any proof linking them to the alleged offence.
He argued that the DCI appeared to have relied solely on the fact that the respondents accessed government systems and printed documents—acts he described as legal activities.
“Filling forms on eCitizen and printing several copies does not suddenly make one a criminal,” Omari submitted.
He insisted that if there was credible evidence, it should have been presented in the initial application seeking detention.
Omari further demanded that the DCI apologise to those affected, claiming reputations had already been ruined publicly without evidence.
The defence team also accused the State of engineering arrests on a Friday so that suspects remain detained for the weekend, before prosecutors could seek more time on Monday.
One lawyer said this tactic ensured longer exposure of suspects online, despite the fact that some had no formal charges yet.
The team also raised human-rights concerns after it emerged that one suspect—a nursing mother—appeared in court while unwell and unable to breastfeed.
Another suspect was alleged to have been held while sick, without adequate medical assistance.
Harun Ndubi, another defence lawyer, insisted that nothing presented so far linked the suspects to terrorism-related activity, contrary to insinuations made by investigators.
He added that one of the arrested immigration officers had been apprehended with only his personal phone, claiming that investigators lacked a basis for associating him with any syndicate.
Photos of the arrested individuals appeared on official government accounts shortly after their arrest, triggering backlash from lawyers and rights advocates.
Legal representatives argued that publishing identities before arraignment or disclosure of evidence risks permanent reputational damage, even when suspects are eventually cleared.
One advocate noted that if the suspects are found innocent, taxpayers will fund compensation—costs that could have been avoided had due process been observed.
“If tomorrow they do not find my client culpable, the State will be forced to compensate him. This humiliation must have consequences,” counsel submitted.
The State has requested extended detention to allow more time for investigations. However, lawyers opposed the motion, arguing that holding suspects without formal charges violates their rights to liberty and presumption of innocence.
Magistrate Kiage will rule on the matter on Thursday, December 11, determining whether the suspects will remain in custody or be freed pending investigations.
The case has sparked debate on:
how investigative agencies use online platforms,
when identity disclosure is legally acceptable, and
whether public exposure violates dignity and privacy rights.
Human-rights analysts say the outcome could influence future digital enforcement practices in Kenya, especially at a time when government services are increasingly integrated into online systems.
Harun Ndubi, another defence lawyer, insisted that nothing presented so far linked the suspects to terrorism-related activity, contrary to insinuations made by investigators.
He added that one of the arrested immigration officers had been apprehended with only his personal phone, claiming that investigators lacked a basis for associating him with any syndicate.
Photos of the arrested individuals appeared on official government accounts shortly after their arrest, triggering backlash from lawyers and rights advocates.
Legal representatives argued that publishing identities before arraignment or disclosure of evidence risks permanent reputational damage, even when suspects are eventually cleared.
One advocate noted that if the suspects are found innocent, taxpayers will fund compensation—costs that could have been avoided had due process been observed.
“If tomorrow they do not find my client culpable, the State will be forced to compensate him. This humiliation must have consequences,” counsel submitted.
The State has requested extended detention to allow more time for investigations. However, lawyers opposed the motion, arguing that holding suspects without formal charges violates their rights to liberty and presumption of innocence.
Magistrate Kiage will rule on the matter on Thursday, December 11, determining whether the suspects will remain in custody or be freed pending investigations.
The case has sparked debate on:
how investigative agencies use online platforms,
when identity disclosure is legally acceptable, and
whether public exposure violates dignity and privacy rights.
Human-rights analysts say the outcome could influence future digital enforcement practices in Kenya, especially at a time when government services are increasingly integrated into online systems.
0 Comments