How principal tried to scuttle case

Former Icaciri Secondary School principal Jane Muthoni, who is awaiting sentencing after the High Court convicted her of planning and executing a cold-blooded murder against her husband Solomon Mwangi, used several tricks to stall the trial.

Lawyers and legal experts say this was one of the cases in the country that had so many intrigues at play and bottlenecks placed on its way.

Among other tricks, Muthoni unsuccessfully tried to have the Judge who found her guilty to disqualify himself from the case.

The prosecution which was led by Prosecutor Catherine Mwaniki, viewed this as deliberate efforts by Muthoni and her co-accused Isaac Ng’ang’a alias Gikuyu, who have been in custody since the matter started, to frustrate and drag their case. 

“It was the toughest case I have ever prosecuted in my life because of the intrigues involved,” Mwaniki told the People Daily when the judgment was finally read out.

From seeking to have Justice Prof Joel Ngugi recuse himself on grounds of impartiality, transfer of the matter to Nairobi to seeking to have the case started afresh by Ngugi’s successor in Kiambu Justice Christine Meoli, the former principal used all tricks available to try to frustrate the hearing.

Transfer of the matter

The two suspects had even in 2017 launched a spirited campaign to have the case heard by another judge.

The two claimed that Ngugi, having denied them bail and jailed their co-accused turned state witness Joseph Kariuki alias Karis after he gave chilling confession of how he was hired by Muthoni to commit the murder alongside Ng’ang’a, their trial was just a formality because they would eventually get convicted.

Muthoni was on Thursday last week found guilty of assembling a killer gang, drugging Mwangi, a former principal at Kiru Boys’ High School in Murang’a using Xylazine, a strong sedative drug normally used on animals before delivering him to the gang who terminated his life him through strangulation in a thicket at Karakuta Coffee Estate in Juja off Thika Superhighway.

In their first onslaught against Ngugi, the duo, on October 17, 2017 argued the judge should not hear the case, “for reasons that this Honorable Court has heard and determined a prior case namely Criminal Case No 95 of 2016 (High Court R Kiambu vs Joseph Kariuki Njuguna) based on the same facts and mentioning (of) the accused in this case”

They also argued that the Court made a finding in that prior case that Karis was jailed for seven years after he was found guilty of manslaughter and that he executed a crime of murder in cahoots with Muthoni and Ng’ang’a”.

“Clearly, having determined the prior case, this Honorable court is unable to independently, (and) impartially render a fair hearing to the accused herein without constantly putting itself in its finding of the prior case ….no matter how strong and good a defence that the accused may have, the same would be met by the same partial and made-up mind on the part of the trial court, thus making this trial sham in the eyes of the law,” read the motion in part.

Strong sedative drug

Further, Muthoni argued that during a ruling in which she was denied bail on September 6, 2017, the tone and the wording of the ruling by the judge “clearly and equivocally showed prejudice and impartiality” against them, and requested the matter  to be referred to a Nairobi High Court to  start afresh.  

But Mwaniki, successfully asked the court to dismiss the application, arguing that its filing was an “afterthought or an avenue to go and seek redress for the bail review”.

Ngugi ruled: “There is no legitimate reason to hear that in this particular criminal case, I lack impartiality and that I have a predisposition not permitted by facts and law to decide the case in a certain way which does not live to the judicial mind perfectly opened to be persuaded otherwise by law and evidence. Consequently, the application is dismissed.” 

Further, the judge said doing so could bring public disfavour to the court and him, saying a judge cannot use recusal or disqualification to avoid cases that present difficulties, controversial or unpopular issues.

The efforts were renewed in May 2018 before Meoli after Ngugi was moved to Nakuru, as they sought to have the matter  either  moved to Nairobi or be heard by her.

They also insisted that it should start afresh despite nearly all State witnesses having testified.

 But their hopes were again dashed after Meoli not only threw out their application to have the matter heard afresh or transferred to Nairobi, but also directed that her predecessor hears it to the end.

According to Meoli, the case was almost complete since majority of the witnesses had testified, and therefore, allowing its fresh hearing would lead to unnecessary delay and also be a waste of public resources.

The prosecution had opposed the defence’s applications, arguing that only five technical witnesses, from Safaricom, Airtel, cybercrime, scenes of crime and investigating officers were remaining before the matter was finalised.

But still, they were not about to give up and they launched what the prosecution said were deliberate efforts to frustrate the case by giving excuses to have the matter adjourned despite Ngugi having to travel from Nakuru to hear it. 

Ngugi said it was no longer possible for him to continue travelling to Kiambu to hear the matter which  had to be adjourned several times  due to issues on the defence side.  

More Articles

---