MPs' pay activists to face animal cruelty charge
What you need to know:
- The activists were protesting against the removal of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) Commissioners.
Seventeen activists who protested with pigs in front of Parliament buildings last year will be prosecuted for causing cruelty to animals.
High Court judge Isaac Lenaola ruled that the 17 would face prosecution after dismissing their case on the grounds that they were attempting to evade trial.
The activists were protesting against the removal of commissioners from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC).
Even though they had successfully secured a halt to their prosecution in a pending criminal case, where they also face charges of causing breach of peace and taking part in a riot, Justice Lenaola said that their arrest and charges were not unconstitutional as alleged.
CASE DISMISSED
“I believe that from the matters placed before me the petitioners’ argument that their right to be informed of the charge, with sufficient detail to answer it, is invalid because they were indeed informed of all the charges with sufficient detail to answer them and they even objected to the said charges. This case has no merit and is hereby dismissed,” said Justice Lenaola.
The judge warned that a violation of the Bill of Rights should be taken seriously.
Mr Hussein Khalid, an executive director of Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI), and 16 others are charged with allegedly blocking a section of Harambee Avenue, causing fear on motorists and confining a pig with several piglets at the gate of Parliament.
In their defence, the accused claimed that it is the police who illegally stopped their peaceful demonstration.
POLICE AWARE
They claimed that Inspector-General of Police David Kimaiyo was aware of their planned demonstration, whose final destination was to be at the Parliament buildings as required by the law.
They blamed the police of violently disrupting and stopping their demonstrations, as well as arresting and detaining them without informing them of the reasons for their arrest.
They were to be charged on May 20, 2013, but they declined to plead to the charges, arguing that the allegations lacked sufficient content to help them prepare for the case against them as well prepare and present a defence.
They alleged that their rights had been violated considering the manner and time of arrest and detention by the police.
They demanded that their case be moved to the High Court, arguing that their constitutional rights had been prejudiced, or their charges be declared invalid.
