Man in poll chaos killing case challenges life term
What you need to know:
- Ruto said the first three prosecution witnesses told the court that they were together during the attack in which Mr Kamau Kimani Thiong’o was killed yet their testimonies varied.
- While delivering her judgment on June 12, 2012, Lady Justice Roselyn Wendoh said the accused was well identified by the prosecution witnesses since the attack happened in broad daylight.
- Lady Justice Wendoh said four of the witnesses clearly identified Ruto and two others, who are still at large, because they were well known to them and had lived together as neighbours for many years.
A 26-year-old man sentenced to a life jail term for killing his neighbour during the post-election violence Tuesday asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the conviction and release him.
Peter Kipkemboi Ruto, alias Saitoti, told appellate judges Roselyn Nambuye, Philomena Mwilu and Gatembu Kairu that the evidence against him was inconsistent and contradictory.
Ruto said the first three prosecution witnesses told the court that they were together during the attack in which Mr Kamau Kimani Thiong’o was killed yet their testimonies varied.
He is represented by lawyer Bernard Ng’etich.
Ruto was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of the 67-year-old Thiong’o on January 1, 2008 at the height of the post-election violence.
The crime was committed at Kamura Village in Timboroa, Uasin Gishu. During the incident, Ruto, together with others not before court, stole seven cows and three goats. They also burnt eight houses at the elderly man’s home.
The value of property stolen and destroyed was Sh850,000.
While delivering her judgment on June 12, 2012, Lady Justice Roselyn Wendoh said the accused was well identified by the prosecution witnesses since the attack happened in broad daylight.
Lady Justice Wendoh said four of the witnesses clearly identified Ruto and two others, who are still at large, because they were well known to them and had lived together as neighbours for many years.
She said the witnesses narrated how there had been tension between the Kikuyu and Kalenjin communities following the announcement of the presidential election results.
However, lawyer Ng’etich challenged the evidence, identification and conviction. He said given the circumstances surrounding the attack, the witnesses could not have clearly identified his client.
“It is natural for the witnesses to be running for their lives or hiding rather than looking at the attackers and even identifying them,” he said.
Judgment will be delivered on February 20.
