Officers in Kwekwe murder case put on their defence

Ms Umazi Zani, the mother of Kwekwe Mwandazi, a Standard Four pupil shot dead by police, leaves the High Court in Mombasa in 2014. Two police officers charged with Kwekwe's murder have a case to answer, the High Court in Mombasa ruled on Tuesday, November 10. PHOTO | KEVIN ODIT | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • Some relatives of the deceased expressed confidence that justice would be delivered at the end of the trial.
  • During their submissions last week, the accused had urged the court not to put them on their defence.
  • A ruling on whether the accused will disclose its witnesses is expected to be delivered on Wednesday while the defence hearing has been fixed for November 23.

Two police officers charged with the murder of 14-year-old schoolgirl Kwekwe Mwandaza have a case to answer, the High Court in Mombasa has ruled.

Justice Martin Muya said upon careful analysis of evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses, a (prima facie) case has been established to put the accused on their defence.

Inspector Veronicah Gitahi and Police Constable Issa Mzee, who are alleged to have jointly murdered the schoolgirl on August 22 last year in Kinango, Kwale County, sat calmly as the judge delivered his ruling.

Emotions overcame the deceased's mother, Ms Umazi Zani, who broke down as the judge concluded delivering his ruling.

Some relatives of the deceased expressed confidence that justice would be delivered at the end of the trial.

Immediately after the judge issued his ruling, the officers, through their lawyer Jared Magolo, said they would give their evidence on oath.

The two officers also said they intend to call two witnesses to testify during their defence hearing.

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Alexander Muteti applied to have the accused disclose their witnesses and the nature of evidence they want to give.

“We seek for orders that seven days prior to the hearing, the defence should furnish us with evidential material of the witnesses,” said Mr Muteti.

Mr Muteti said victims have a right to information and hence the need for the disclosure to determine whether there is a need for a victim impact assessment to be conducted.

ILLEGAL REQUEST

He further added accused would not suffer any prejudice should they disclose their witnesses to the prosecution.

Mr Magolo, however, opposed the application by the prosecution, saying what the court was being requested to do was illegal.

“There is nowhere in law are we allowed to disclose our witnesses, reject the application,” Mr Magolo told the judge.

He added that should they decide to disclose their witnesses, they will do so as has been the practice but it is not a right to the defence.

During their submissions last week, the accused had urged the court not to put them on their defence.

Through lawyers Cliff Ombeta and Mr Magolo, the officers said putting them on the defence would help the prosecution to fill in gaps in its evidence and shall serve no purpose.

Mr Ombeta told the court that the officers did not attempt to cover up the incident and that they acted properly

On his part, Mr Muteti said the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused.

Mr Muteti submitted that the officers do not deny having been at the scene of the incident and that a report from a pathologist confirmed the deceased died of gunshot wounds.

A ruling on whether the accused will disclose their witnesses is expected on Wednesday while the defence hearing has been fixed for November 23.