Court Blocks DCI Move in Tuju Case, Raises Questions Over Evidence

A new twist has emerged in the case involving Raphael Tuju after a Nairobi court rejected a key request by investigators. The decision has shifted focus from the investigation itself to the strength of the evidence presented in court.

The Directorate of Criminal Investigations had sought permission to access CCTV footage and conduct searches at Tuju’s Karen residence. Investigators wanted “un-truncated and unedited CCTV footages” covering dates linked to his reported disappearance. However, the court found the request fell short of legal standards.

Delivering the ruling, Senior Principal Magistrate Daisy Mutai pointed to inconsistencies in the application. “On a balance of probabilities, the application does not disclose an offence on the part of the respondent,” she ruled. The court also questioned how the report was presented, noting gaps in how the case was framed.

The ruling effectively blocks the DCI from accessing the footage, at least for now. It also raises concerns about the direction of the investigation. Under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, search warrants require clear proof that evidence linked to a crime exists in a specific location. The court determined that threshold had not been met.

Tuju’s legal team welcomed the decision. His lawyer argued that the application was “disingenuous” and an abuse of the court process. He also pointed out that a related matter is already active in another court, making the new request unnecessary and potentially misleading.

The case itself stems from a missing person report filed by Tuju’s son. Police had earlier linked the matter to an abandoned vehicle, triggering further investigation. However, Tuju later resurfaced, complicating the narrative and raising fresh questions about what really happened.

This ruling now places pressure on investigators to strengthen their case. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring due process is followed, even in high-profile matters.

As the situation unfolds, the focus shifts to what comes next. Will the DCI regroup with stronger evidence or will the case take a different direction altogether?