The High Court was left in suspense on Tuesday after the government failed to comply with a directive to present missing activist and blogger Ndiang’ui Kinyagia. The deadline, set for 11 am, came and went without the state producing him or giving a satisfactory explanation for his whereabouts.
This comes after Justice Chacha Mwita ordered Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja to either produce Kinyagia in court or provide a credible account of his absence. Instead, Sergeant Samuel Itegi of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) filed a replying affidavit, stating that Kinyagia was under investigation for his alleged involvement in recent Gen Z protests but was not in police custody.
According to Itegi, officers visited Kinyagia’s residence and, upon not finding him, proceeded to search the house without a warrant under Section 60 of the National Police Service Act. He said the decision was made after the caretaker informed them that Kinyagia had earlier left with two unidentified men and was unreachable by phone.
During the search, officers allegedly seized two laptops, two mobile phones, two passports, and a vaccination certificate. The items were taken as part of an investigation linked to an X (formerly Twitter) account accused of inciting protesters to storm State House. The DCI claims preliminary findings tie the account to Kinyagia.
However, the state’s explanations drew sharp criticism from the family’s legal team. Senior Counsel Martha Karua slammed the government for not taking the court’s directive seriously.
“They are not taking the orders of this court seriously. It’s their business to find him—that’s why we pay them,” Karua told the court.
Family lawyer Wahome Thuku echoed her sentiments, saying the state’s failure amounted to open defiance of the court’s authority.
“We are here because the court ordered that the second petitioner be produced. He has not been produced,” he said.
As pressure mounts on the authorities, the mystery surrounding Kinyagia’s whereabouts continues to raise concerns over enforced disappearances and the state’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights.
