Bar proprietor appeals court ruling on Alcoblow

A bar owner has moved to the Court of Appeal challenging the decision of a lower court to allow the implementation of the rules on breathalyser (Alcoblow).

Kariuki Ruitha of Reminisce Sports Bar wants the appellate court to bar the police, Ministry of Transport, National Transport and Safety Authority and the Director of Public Prosecutions from using the Alcoblow, arguing that the lower court had erred in its judgment.

Through lawyer Kibe Mungai, Ruitha submitted that alcohol consumption was only a crime when it intoxicates a motorist to an extent that he or she is unable to maintain proper control of the vehicle.

The businessman submitted that the police have been enforcing the breathalyser rules using oppressive, extortionist and discriminatory methods in violation of the motorists’ rights to human dignity.

“Pending the hearing and determination of this appeal, an order of injunction be issued to restrain the National Transport and Safety Authority and police from prosecuting motorists for the purported offence of consuming alcohol beyond the prescribed limit under traffic rules,” he submitted.

The use of the gadget on a motorist who has not been arrested for a traffic offence on suspicion of drunkenness, argued the lawyer, was a violation of the right to privacy of an individual.

“It is oppressive and unreasonable for the police to enforce laws enacted to target intoxicated drivers who cannot maintain proper control of motor vehicles on any motorist suspected to have consumed alcohol irrespective of whether or not he or she has committed a traffic offence,” submitted Mungai.

The lawyer added that there was no legal obligation for a motorist, who is not under arrest on suspicion of having committed a traffic offence, to submit himself to a breath test.

The lawyer argued that the lower court had erred in finding and holding that the use of Alcoblow does not contravene the Constitution despite the bar owner having demonstrated that the rules actually contravened the supreme law of the land.

“The judge erred in finding and holding that the minister’s exercise of the power under sections of the Traffic Act and ordering the use of Alcoblow did not violate the Constitution,” submitted Mungai.

The counsel argued that the minister had exceeded his powers and violated the Constitution when he directed the use of Alcoblow.