Kajiado Court quashes arrest warrants issued against prosecutor in land fraud case

A High Court in Kajiado has stopped subordinate courts from summoning prosecutors to justify decisions made by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, ruling that such actions go beyond their mandate and interfere with prosecutorial independence.

Justice C. Meoli annulled summons and arrest warrants that had been issued against a senior prosecutor in a land fraud case, saying the move by the lower court amounted to an improper inquiry into decisions that are constitutionally protected. The judge stated that any challenge to prosecutorial decisions must follow the correct legal route and be brought before a court with the proper jurisdiction.

The case before the High Court arose after a senior prosecutor was ordered to appear before the Kajiado Law Courts to explain why suspects in a land fraud case had been charged. When the prosecutor did not appear, the subordinate court issued arrest warrants against her, prompting the matter to be taken up for revision at the High Court.

Justice Meoli found that the summons and warrants were irregular and could not stand. The court quashed both the summons and the arrest warrants, saying the subordinate court had acted outside its authority.

In the ruling, the judge emphasized that subordinate courts do not have the power to interrogate or test the legality of prosecutorial decisions by compelling prosecutors to give evidence in court on why charges were preferred.

“The propriety or otherwise of a prosecutorial decision cannot be canvassed through the testimony of a prosecuting counsel before a trial court,” the judge ruled, adding that such matters should be handled “through the appropriate legal process before a court of competent jurisdiction.”

The court further held that what had taken place amounted to “judicial overreach” and an indirect attempt to supervise or control an independent constitutional office, which is not allowed under the law.

Justice Meoli also pointed out that the prosecutor involved was not a witness or investigator in the land fraud case and had not filed any affidavit linking her personally to the facts of the matter. The court noted that she had been summoned purely to be questioned on the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to charge the suspects.

According to the court, the testimony of the prosecutor was not necessary for the determination of the case before the trial court, making the summons unjustified and procedurally improper.

The revision application at the High Court was presented by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Vivian Kambaga.

The ruling is expected to reinforce the independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and provide clearer boundaries on the powers of subordinate courts when dealing with matters involving prosecutorial discretion.