Court denies eight Utumishi girls bail over safety, witness fears

Eight students from Utumishi Girls High School appearing before the High Court this morning on the dock during the mention of their case where they are charged over the deaths of 16 fellow students. The case mention is before Justice Diana Kavedza at the Kibera law courts , Nairobi on 1st July 2026 [David Gichuru, Standard]

Kibera High Court  yesterday denied bail to eight minors charged with murdering 16 students in the Utumishi Girls Academy dormitory fire.

In a detailed ruling rendered by Justice Diana Kavedza ordered the minors to remain in custody after finding that releasing them at this stage would pose a real risk of witness interference and harm to the children themselves.

“The gravity of the charges combined with these close relationships significantly heightens the risk of witness interference.... the application for bail is hereby dismissed,” Justice Kavedza ruled.

“As I have said before, interference with prosecution witnesses, in my view, is a compelling reason not to admit an accused to bail, as such interference goes to the root of the trial and is a knackpoint to the administration of justice.”

The judge, however, stressed that the seriousness of the murder charges alone could not justify continued detention, noting that the prosecution had to establish compelling reasons for limiting their constitutional right to liberty.

“The gravity of the charges remains material, but it must be evaluated strictly within the charge-centric framework,” Justice Kavedza said.

“Ultimately, the burden rests upon the prosecution to demonstrate a real ground of risk that cannot reasonably be managed through stringent bail conditions.”

The ruling also brought to the fore disturbing accounts of bullying, physical assaults and exposure of the minors’ identities while they were held at Nairobi Children’s Remand Home.

Justice Kavedza directed that the eight children be transferred to Kamae Postal Institution, where they are to be provided with individual sleeping spaces, security, medical care and continued psychological and counselling support.

The court was told that some of the minors had been bullied and physically assaulted by other children at the remand facility, while their identities and details of the serious charges they faced became known despite orders protecting their privacy.

A social inquiry report commissioned by the court after parents raised concerns about the welfare of the children documented allegations of persistent bullying and physical abuse involving other minors at the facility.

The report was prepared following concerns raised by the parents on August 20 over the treatment of their children at the remand home.

A children’s officer from Kibera sub-county subsequently interviewed the eight minors, other children sharing their dormitory, the facility’s deputy manager, relatives, school representatives and other relevant persons.

The inquiry found that the eight had been subjected to bullying and physical assaults by some other minors.

Some of the children accused of assaulting them denied the allegations, while others made partial admissions.

The inquiry also uncovered allegations and counter-allegations concerning same-sex sexual activity at the remand facility.

However, Justice Kavedza said the eight minors firmly denied engaging in lesbianism or sexual activity, while some of the other children claimed they had witnessed such conduct.

The judge said five other minors at the facility facing separate charges made allegations of sexual misconduct against the eight, with some claiming they had personally witnessed the alleged conduct.

One of the minors facing separate criminal charges at the remand home admitted assaulting three of the Utumishi accused with sleepers.

According to the judge, the girl said she was attempting to deter the three from engaging in sexual activities “in an open and shared dormitory.”

Another minor admitted fighting with two of the accused, while a third acknowledged assaulting the same two girls.

The allegations became particularly concerning because the children were supposed to be protected through strict anonymity orders.

The court heard that despite the use of pseudonyms, the eight minors’ actual identities and the murder charges they faced had become known among other children at the facility.

One of the minors reportedly told the social inquiry team that exposure occurred during sleeping arrangements where actual names were used instead of the pseudonyms ordered by the court.

The report indicated that after their identities became known, some children allegedly pressured the eight to disclose what had happened at Utumishi Girls Academy.

Justice Kavedza said the loss of anonymity had heightened the safety concerns surrounding the minors.

The judge said the reports showed that the minors were themselves vulnerable and had experienced distress, anxiety and difficulties adjusting to their detention.

Some had reportedly been moved between sleeping quarters because of conflicts and concerns within the facility.

The court was also told that the children had been exposed to online harassment after accessing phones, further increasing concerns over their safety.

Justice Kavedza said the court could not ignore the possibility that releasing the minors into the community could expose them to retaliation or harm, particularly given the emotions surrounding the deaths of the 16 students.

“The question, therefore, is not whether the public is angry with the subjects. It is whether the evidence before the court demonstrates a sufficiently real and continuing risk to the safety of the children, witnesses, property or the administration of justice to warrant the restriction of their liberty at this stage.”

The eight minors face 16 counts of murder contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. They have denied the charges.

The prosecution opposed their release through an affidavit sworn by Chief Inspector Kamau, relying on witness statements, CCTV footage, scene reconstruction, digital evidence and forensic exhibits.

The State argued that the evidence placed each of the minors at the centre of events preceding and during the fire.

Prosecutors also told the court that several potential witnesses were fellow students who had been classmates, dormitory mates, cubemates and close acquaintances of the accused.

The prosecution argued that the minors therefore knew the witnesses closely, including their relationships and living arrangements, creating an opportunity for intimidation or interference.

Justice Kavedza acknowledged that though the State had not presented evidence of actual interference with witnesses, the circumstances established a sufficiently real risk.

“While the prosecution has not adduced evidence of actual interference at this stage, the court is satisfied that the risk is not merely speculative, but real and substantiated,” she ruled.

She said the prosecution did not have to wait for interference to occur before the court could act to protect the integrity of the trial.

“The court is persuaded that the risk to witness interference is both immediate and credible, and that no conditions of bail would adequately neutralize it,” the judge said.

The court also considered the position of families of the deceased and injured children, who opposed the release of the eight minors.

The families cited continuing fear of retaliation and re-victimisation, with the judge noting that some affected children remained vulnerable and required psychological support.

“While a victim's opposition cannot, by itself, override an accused person's constitutional presumption of innocence and right to liberty, the court is duty-bound to perform a delicate balancing act,” Justice Kavedza said.

She emphasised that the decision was not based simply on public anger over the deaths.

Instead, the court considered the safety of victims and witnesses, the welfare of the accused children, public order and the need to preserve the integrity of the criminal proceedings.

The judge further rejected the argument that detention amounted to punishment, stressing that the eight remained children in conflict with the law and were entitled to the special protections guaranteed to children.

She cited constitutional and statutory safeguards requiring detention of children to be used only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period.

“Detention is not enforced as punishment, but as a necessary measure to protect the subjects, victims, and witnesses, and to preserve the integrity of the trial,” she said.

The court further found that the children’s identities had been compromised despite orders requiring the use of pseudonyms and prohibiting publication of information that could identify them.

Justice Kavedza ordered that their names, photographs and other identifying information should not be published or disclosed except as permitted by law.

She also directed that the minors continue receiving uninterrupted access to qualified counsellors and psychologists.

Their education is to continue while they remain in custody, with reading materials supplied by their parents or guardians subject to vetting

The eight are also to receive regular medical care and continuous psychosocial support.

The Juris Officer was directed to monitor their welfare and safety and prepare individual welfare and counselling reports every three months.

Parents and guardians will have structured contact with the children, ordinarily once a month, subject to directions by the Juris Officer and the institution.

Justice Kavedza ordered that each minor be given an individual sleeping cubicle and bed at Kamae Postal Institution, together with adequate necessities, security and supervision.

If the institution lacks sufficient capacity, the Cabinet Secretary and Accounting Officer in the Ministry of Correctional Services must arrange eight individual sleeping spaces and report back to court within 30 days.

The judge said the transfer was necessary to protect the children while also ensuring that the criminal case proceeds without compromising the safety of witnesses and the integrity of the trial.