Court suspends trial of seven in Karen land case

Controversy surrounding the controversial 134-acre land in Karen deepened last week after the Environment and Land Court suspended a criminal trial of seven people charged with dealing with the land.

This came as focus shifted to the constitutional court on November 12 where three judges will start hearing applications by the accused persons seeking to quash the criminal trial.

Lady Justice Lucy Gacheru’s ruling was a relief to the seven as she questioned Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Keriako Tobiko’s hurry in bringing the charges yet she had not yet determined who among the three people claiming ownership of the land is its owner.

The application to suspend the trial was filed by former National Social Security Fund boss Jos Konzolo.

The judge said that allowing it to continue would mean interfering with her independence to determine the dispute.

“It is evident that the dispute over ownership was brought earlier than the criminal case. In order to protect integrity of the proceedings, I find that it is fair and just to issue an order staying the criminal proceedings,” ruled Justice Gacheru.

The judge’s reasoning is one of the grounds being used by Mr Konzolo, suspended Land, Housing and Urban Development Cabinet Secretary Charity Ngilu, Sara Mwenda, Pauline Gatimu, Mark Wanderi, Macmillan Mutiso and James Mbaluka in the petitions questioning the DPP’s rationality in preferring the charges.

Mr Konzolo, through his company Telesource, is battling for the land’s ownership with businessman Horatius Da Gama Rose and Ms Carmelina Mburu, widow of former Provincial Commissioner John Mburu.

ABUSE OF POWER
According to the petitioners, the DPP acted with an ulterior motive when charging them before the dispute had been resolved before the Environment and Land Court and his act was an abuse of power, irrational and an attempt to predetermine who owned the land.

“The DPP showed clear conflict and double-standards because he had refused to recommend charges in some cases on the basis that the disputes were in court. How then did he decide to prosecute when the ownership dispute of the land is in another court,” argued Senior Counsel Paul Muite.

The petitioners have also filed in the constitutional court contradicting decisions from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), Parliament, and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, which they claim the DPP did not consider before reaching his decision to charge.

Mr Konzolo attached DCI and parliamentary committee reports, which concluded that his title was issued by the Ministry of Land, and that there was need for further investigations on Mr Rose’s title.