BY WILFRED AYAGA
The prosecution in a case where six officers of the General Service Unit are accused of torturing an 18 year old Pokot herdsman and causing him grievous bodily harm yesterday asked the court to put the accused on their defence.
Senior Prosecution Counsel Mary Wange’le closed her case by asking the court to find that the six officers have a case to answer after they allegedly subjected Joseph Kakuko Rippo to torture at Korita GSU camp in Trans-Nzoia district in 2009.
Those accused are Francis Maina Mwangi, Joseph Kipyegon, Edward Nzioka, Calister Charo and Daniel Nderitu Maina. They have denied the charges.
If found guilty, they face life in prison.
The victim was allegedly found grazing his animals in a restricted area.
Wang’ele told the court that the prosecution had an arguable case and that witnesses who had appeared in the case had proved that the alleged torture took place.
During yesterday’s proceedings, defence lawyer Ian Mbuthia objected to the production of photographs which allegedly captured the incident.
The photographs which were produced by the investigating officer in the case Gilbert Kitalia allegedly show the officers in the act of torturing the victim
In his objections, Mbuthia said that the investigating office could not authoritatively speak on the photographs as he was not the one who captured the images. Mbuthia argued that that admitting the photographs would be a violation of the rules of evidence.
“The investigating officers did not take the photographs, neither is he an expert. Under the evidence Act, an expert or the person who took the photographs should speak on them. He court should know who captures the images. And who else had access to them,” Mbuthia told the court.
He further argued that the photographs were unclear and could therefore not be relied on as evidence.
Senior Principal Magistrate Elena Nderitu upheld the objections and ruled that the photographs were inadmissible as evidence in court.
The investigating officer narrated to the court how he conducted investigations that eventually led to the arrest of the officers. He said that part of the complaints raised by the torture victim was that he had been rendered impotent after the torture ordeal.
The officer was however hard-pressed to explain to the court the authenticity of the statements he had produced in court, and which he admitted had been recorded by his fellow officers. The defence lawyer said that the statements could only be defended by the officers who had recorded them.
The case was adjourned to January 24 when the defence will make its submissions
