Freed Iranians sue IG Joseph Boinnet for contempt of court

Wednesday March 14 2018

Sayed Mansour Mousavi and Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed

Iranians Sayed Mansour Mousavi (left) and Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed in court in 2013. The two who were acquitted of terrorism charges have filed contempt of court proceedings against Inspector-General of Police Joseph Boinnet at the Supreme Court. 

More by this Author

Two Iranians acquitted of terrorism charges have filed contempt of court proceedings against Inspector-General of Police Joseph Boinnet at the Supreme Court.

Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed and Sayed Mansour Mousavi, whose 15- year jail term was quashed by the Appeal Court, claim they were held in police cells against orders of the highest court on the land.

They were initially jailed for 15 years after being convicted of concealing 15kg of RDX explosives they allegedly planned to use to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Nairobi six years ago.


The Supreme Court judges led by Chief Justice David Maraga had ordered that the two be held in custody in a manner that is in accordance with the law without violation of their rights pending an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking to quash their release.

Ahmad and Sayed filed the contempt-of-court proceedings against Mr Boinnet alleging that they were held in a police cell in a deplorable condition in contempt of their rights enshrined in the Constitution.


The two have also challenged their continued detention in custody since January 26 without any charges being levelled against them.

Justices Maraga, Njoki Ndung’u, Mohamed Ibrahim, Jackton Ojwang and Smokin Wanjala Tuesday directed that they will hear the application on Wednesday next week.

This is after the two Iranians, through lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi, asked the five judges to determine their application before the one filed by the DPP. 

The hearing of the DPP’s application was adjourned after lawyer Waweru Gatonye informed them of his appointment to lead in prosecuting the case alongside Senior Assistant DPP Edwin Okello and Principal Prosecution Counsel Duncan Ondimu.


Earlier, Mr Waweru sought an adjournment, indicating that he needs time to deal with written submissions and list of authorities filed by Mr Abdullahi.

“It is necessary for me to review all these documents and do research in order to respond to arguments raised by my learned friend. Without making a lot of emphasis, this case is of great public interest and I do humbly pray that you allow my application for adjournment,” Mr Gatonye pleaded.

Mr Abdullahi opposed the application stating that the State cannot seek an adjournment when it has refused to obey a court order directing it to respect his clients’ rights.

“The State has this pleasure of choosing which court orders to obey and which ones to disobey. They cannot seek adjournment when they have refused to obey court orders. I oppose this application,” he said.

The Judges criticised the office of DPP for appointing Mr Waweru just a day into the scheduled hearing of the case.

In the ruling read by Mr Justice Maraga, the Judges said the DPP had ample time to engage Mr Waweru in the case.

However, they allowed his application for adjournment with strict orders that he peruses the pleadings and prepare to prosecute the DPP’s application on Wednesday next week.