A Nairobi High Court has declined an application by blogger and IT expert Ndiangui Kinyagia seeking to compel the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to release his travel documents for an emergency that has arisen.
Appearing before Justice Lawrence Mugambi on Monday, November 10, 2025, Ndiangui, through his lawyers, told the court that he needed his yellow fever vaccination card and passports—currently held by the DCI—to travel to India.
Lawyer Mola informed the court that Ndiangui was expected to accompany his sister, who is scheduled to seek medical treatment in India, adding that the travel could not happen as long as his client’s documents remain in DCI custody.
He argued that health emergencies cannot wait and that the trip to India was urgent; therefore, the client’s travel documents should be released without delay.
“Our client is required to accompany his sister to India for treatment, and, my lord, that will be impossible if the passport and the yellow fever card are being held by the first and second respondents (IG and DCI) for no apparent reason, and no explanation has been provided in the replying affidavit,” lawyer Mola told the court.
“My lord, even as we wait for them to file their submissions and for the court to issue a ruling on the conservatory orders, we humbly plead with this honourable court—for the sake of the patient—that the travel documents be released at this interim stage, pending the hearing and determination of our application,” Mola added.
However, the court heard that Ndiangui’s application for the release of the documents was not accompanied by any proof of the claimed emergency.
Justice Mugambi subsequently dismissed the application and directed the DCI, IG, DPP, and AG to file their submissions within seven days.
“It has not been proved by way of affidavit, which amounts to a submission from the bar. The court declines to act on that information and instead directs the respondents to file their submissions on the application within the next seven days,” Justice Mugambi ruled.
Ndiangui moved to court on September 18, 2025, seeking conservatory orders compelling the DCI to release several items seized from him, including a Dell laptop, an HP laptop, an Infinix mobile phone, a black Tecno phone, a Kenyan passport, an expired passport, and an international vaccination card.
Appearing before Justice Mugambi again on Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Ndiangui, through his lawyers, stated that the seized items—phones, two laptops, and two passports—were his work tools.
He reiterated the need for their release to enable him to continue working and earning a living, noting that the laptops contained critical information necessary for his professional duties.
He also argued that his movements had been restricted, making it impossible to travel outside the country for business purposes since the DCI continues to hold his passport and vaccination card.
“My lord, the reason we are seeking specific orders is because my client’s items seized from his house are being held illegally. As an IT professional, these are the tools he uses to earn a living. Additionally, he cannot travel for business abroad since his passports and vaccination card are still with the DCI,” Kinyagia’s lawyer told the court.
In his application, Ndiangui further asked the court to bar the DCI, the Inspector General of Police (IG), the DPP, and the Attorney General (AG)—or their agents—from trailing, surveilling, harassing, intimidating, threatening, arresting, detaining, or in any way interfering with his safety, security, or liberty.
He is also seeking conservatory orders blocking the DPP from preferring any charges against him based on a post allegedly made from his compromised X account until the matter is heard and determined.
Ndiangui’s legal action followed Justice Chacha Mwita’s earlier decision on September 16, 2025, declining to issue orders barring the DCI from taking further steps against him.
In his ruling, Justice Mwita said he saw no need to issue the order sought by Senior Counsel Martha Karua, who represented Kinyagia.
He noted that Kinyagia had been cooperating with investigating officers and may have already recorded a statement relevant to the case.
The judge further emphasised that, constitutionally, the police have no authority or justification to frustrate or torture any citizen.
“The police have no reason or authority to frustrate or torture anyone, including the second petitioner (Kinyagia), and should be reminded of the constitutional command requiring them to uphold the highest standards of human rights, as stipulated in Article 244 of the Constitution and the Police Service Act,” Justice Mwita ruled.
He added that if the IT expert faces any threats in the future, the court will handle such matters as they arise.
“Any threats against the second petitioner (Kinyagia) can be dealt with as and when they arise. This court does not act in anticipation only,” Justice Mwita ruled.
A ruling on the matter will be delivered on January 15, 2026.
