Why Court Rejected Use of Video Evidence in Willy Kimani’s Murder Case

Peter Ngugi Kamau 
Police informer Peter Ngugi Kamau testifies at a Milimani court on the murder of lawyer Willy Kimani, his client Josephat Mwenda and taxi driver Joseph Muiruri. Photo/File

Director of Public Prosecution has suffered its first blow after the high court declined the use of video evidence in the ongoing murder case of lawyer Willie Kimani, his client, a bodaboda operator Josephat Mwendwa and taxi driver Joseph Muiruri, were kidnapped and killed.

While giving his rulling on Monday, Justice Jessie Lessit ruled that the forensic officer who recoded the said video did not follow out of court evidence rules.

Image result for Video evidence to be used in Willy Kimani's case
Some of the suspects implicated in Willy Kimani’s murder

According to the judge, the forensic officer should not have been involved in the scene but ought to have taken another qualified person to do the recording.

“The law requires that when the officer decides to have the suspect take him to the scene and record, he has to take another qualified officer. He cannot be involved during the exercise,” ruled the judge.

“Being the one interviewing and taking the recording was a blunder. It was an action that required to be subjected to the rules of law. I note there was no compliance to the evidence taken out of court,” she continued.

Image result for lawyer Willy Kimani murdered
Murdered lawyer Willy Kimani

In the video reconstruction scene, police informant who confessed to having assisted administration police officers to brutally kill the three explained how the said murders were hatched and executed in 2016.

The DVD containing 47 minutes 48 seconds video footage was shown to court on Tuesday last week by the forensic officer, Joseph Muindi who recorded it from Peter Ngugi.

Earlier on, the informer, Peter Ngugi, through his lawyer Kevin Michuki, had declined the use of the video saying the video is self-incriminating evidence and therefore should not be allowed.

“The scene reconstruction evidence which prosecution intends to use is inadmissible and it is, therefore, attempted illegality by the prosecution,” Peter Ngugi’s lawyer Michuki told the court five days ago.

Michuki argued that the accused person, Peter Ngugi, was not cautioned and his rights to a fair hearing will be violated if the said video is accepted and played in court.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *