Four bus companies suspected of aiding terror activities have said the move by the Government to freeze their bank accounts and cancel licences was done without following the right procedure required by law.

The High Court heard yesterday that the companies named in the suspected Al Shabaab funding entities’ list had not been recorded in the United Nation Security Council’s website and that the move taken by the State was in breach of laws laid out to fight terrorism, both in the country and the world.

The lawyers for Sabrin, G-Coach, City to City and E-Coach bus companies questioned the powers of the Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinett to issue alerts and gazette entities suspected of aiding or perpetrating terror activities.

Lawyers Wanjiru Muigai and Omolo Omondi argued that the law does not vest him with such powers, saying the act was illegal.

“The Inspector General therefore acted in excess of his powers in conferring upon himself gazettement powers, under the aforesaid Act which he did not have. Be that as it may, even if one was to suppose that the Inspector General did have the statutory powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 30 of 2012 to gazette the said list, he still acted in contravention of the said Act,” justice Weldon Korir heard yesterday.

 COMPENSATE FIRMS

They argued that the IG ought to have summoned them to show why they should not have been declared as specified entities before making recommendations to the Interior Cabinet Secretary Joseph Nkaiserry on whether to gazette them or not.

“The Government is jumping the gun. The investigations have not been concluded and our clients have not run away. They are operating legitimate businesses. How can actions be taken before investigations are concluded?” posed the lawyers.

Mentioned in the damning report after the Garissa University College terror attack, the companies say they were never given an opportunity to defend themselves before the Government arrived at the decision.

“With no prior written communication and considering the nature of the offence, the 24-hours notice given by the second respondent (Boinett) in the said Gazette Notice No. 2326 was insufficient under the circumstances to enable the ex parte applicant mount a sufficient response,” argued Wanjiru.

They urged the court to order the State to compensate them in case it finds that the Act was illegal.

Korir will issue his verdict on whether the Act was illegal or not on July 8 and 10.