Blogger Ndiangui Kinyagia asks for more court protection as he expresses fear for his life
Justice Mwita emphasised that should any lawful investigation reveal that Ndiang’ui has committed a crime, he will be subject to due process and possible arrest
Blogger Ndiangui Kinyagia has requested the court to protect him, claiming that his life is in danger.
Appearing before Justice Chacha Mwita on Thursday, Ndiangui pleaded with the court to extend the protection it had previously granted him, adding that he fears for his life.
“I request the court to extend the orders barring my arrest by the police,” he said, drawing the court’s attention to what he described as genuine fears for his safety if police officers apprehend him.
However, Justice Mwita was quick to temper his expectations as he reminded him that while the court had issued temporary conservatory orders to protect the integrity of the petition, the protection is not absolute.
The judge emphasised that should any lawful investigation reveal that Ndiang’ui has committed a crime, he will be subject to due process and possible arrest.
“You are reminded that the orders in place do not shield you from lawful arrest should there be valid grounds. The rule of law still applies,” Justice Mwita said.
This even as Justice Mwita gave him 14 days to appoint an advocate of his choice and file an affidavit explaining what he knows, noting that both the court and the public deserve to know the truth.
The matter took a twist after the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), which had previously represented Ndiang’ui, formally withdrew from the case, leaving him unrepresented during the court session.
LSK cited contradictory facts provided by Ndiangui and his family that risk its credibility.
The request came in the wake of his reappearance after weeks of alleged disappearance.
Ndiangui’s plea came shortly after he requested to testify on what transpired during his absence, and the court issued fresh directions requiring him to file an affidavit within 14 days detailing the events.
The respondents and prosecution had opposed any adjournment, urging that the petition proceed without delay.
The case will be mentioned in mid-September, when the court will assess compliance with its directions and chart the next steps
