Milimani High Court Judge Alexander Muteti has summoned three key witnesses who are said to have witnessed the arrest of the missing Michael Oloo Osoro by three men from a barber shop.

The summons comes after the lawyers representing the families of the three missing men made an application noting that their testimonies will expose the men who took Osoro away in a black car.

In a ruling delivered on Thursday, July 23, 2024, Judge Muteti noted the importance of calling the key witness to help the families get answers of their missing kin.

Justice Muteti avers that the Constitution requires that justice be done to all irrespective of status, adding that habeas corpus proceedings are strictly meant to remedy wrongful detention and are not meant to act as a form of punishment.

“The interest of the court in proceedings of this nature is to ensure that the truth is laid bare so that the grieving families who are anxiously out to establish the fate of their kin can walk out of this court shoulders high satisfied that justice has not only been done but has been seen to be done,” Judge Muteti ruled.

“The application therefore succeeds, and the court hereby summons Brenda Akoth Opondo, Waceke Macharia, and Jane Nyambura Njoroge,” Justice Muteti ordered.

Further, the court has also allowed the application by the applicants who sought to have the CCTV footage that captured the alleged arrests of the missing men be availed and played in court.

The first witness summoned, Brenda Akoth, is a Facebook user who commented on a post stating that she had witnessed the arrest of one Michael Oloo Osoro from a barber shop.

Waceke Macharia, the second witness summoned, is said to be the owner of the barber shop where Oloo was arrested from.

And the third witness summoned Jane Nyambura Njoroge; the court heard she was the one shaving Oloo that day, as the alleged plainclothes officers arrested her even before she was done attending to him.

The ruling is a blow to Inspector General of Police (IG) Douglas Kanja and Director of the Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI) Mohamed Amin, who, through their lawyer Senior Counsel Paul Nyamodi, opposed the applicants’ applications.

They argued that what the applicants were attempting to do was to hijack the case for the respondents (IG and DCI) by citing persons named in paragraph eight of the affidavit of Humphrey Kaimenyi sworn in opposition to the application.

Further, SC Nyamodi contended that if the three witnesses were to be summoned to give evidence, such action would be prejudicial to their case; thus, the court should decline to grant the request by the applicants.