Ex-KAF soldiers detained over 1982 coup lose torture case

Eldoret High Court Judge George Kimondo. FILE PHOTO |

What you need to know:

  • They also alleged that they were forced to board military trucks while naked and in full view of the public.
  • They were dismissed from the Kenya Air Force or declared redundant after being arraigned in the Court Martial.

The Eldoret High Court has dismissed a petition filed by 10 former military officers accused of participating in the foiled 1982 coup

The former Kenya Air Force officers were seeking compensation for alleged torture.

Justice George Kanyi Kimondo found that the petition lacked evidential and legal basis.

“I would have awarded general damages not exceeding Sh2 [million] for each petitioner had the petition succeeded,” Justice Kimondo ruled while dismissing the petition.

In their petition, Daniel Mutai, Stephen Vodembeke, Joseph Amudabi, Aggrey Mukalani, Eilson Toweet, Simon Talam, Moses Yego, Eliud Sang, John Sumei, and John Birgen had sued the Attorney-General for being subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by officers of the Kenya Army and prisons.

They had claimed that they were stripped naked in public, made to walk on their knees on concrete floors, whipped and insulted that they were “educated rubbish”.

They also alleged that they were forced to board a military trucks while naked and in full view of the public.

They said they were placed in military, police and prison custody while naked, sometimes in solitary confinement or in complete darkness or in permanently lit and waterlogged cells.

They further claimed they were beaten with batons, gun butts and whips all over their bodies, saying they were deprived of sleep, rest, food, drinking water or use of toilet facilities.

The former soldiers claimed the detention ranged between two and eight months and they were denied access to their families, doctors, legal counsel or friends.

They were dismissed from the Kenya Air Force or declared redundant after being arraigned in the Court Martial.

However, the State contested the petition, saying the Department of Defence was entitled, under the Armed Forces Act, to take certain disciplinary measures against the officers.

(Editing by Beatrice Obwocha)