Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police Eliud Lagat argues that the decision on whether to charge him over the death of blogger Albert Omondi Ojwang lies exclusively with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and not the courts.
Through his lawyer Cecil Miller, Lagat submits that compelling the DPP to institute charges against him would amount to an unlawful usurpation of constitutionally mandated powers and a dangerous precedent that undermines prosecutorial independence.
“The petitioners’ prayer to have this court compel the DPP to prosecute the 11th Respondent is an improper attempt to take over the functions of independent institutions. This court cannot declare someone guilty without a trial nor direct the DPP to prosecute absent evidence of constitutional failure,” the submissions read in part.
Lagat, who has denied any involvement in the alleged arrest, torture, and killing of Ojwang, said both the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) and the DPP investigated the matter and found no evidence linking him to the incident.
The DIG in court papers says that IPOA carried out thorough investigations and the DPP, upon reviewing the file, only charged other individuals found culpable.
He submits that he voluntarily stepped aside from his duties to allow unfettered investigations, adding that his continued service does not breach any constitutional provision.
“The blanket allegation that I am a prime suspect is defamatory and unsupported by any investigative finding. The law does not impute liability simply because of rank or office, absent proof of personal involvement,” Lagat submits
“It is important to note that the 11th Respondent was not present at the scene, did not issue any unlawful instructions, and his role as DIG was purely administrative and command-based. He did not engage in operational conduct relevant to the incident,” reads court papers
He argues that the Petitioners allegations that by virtue of his position, he is responsible for the arrest, torture, and death of the teacher lacks direct, circumstantial, or inferential evidence.
