High Court rules police have case to answer over missing lawyer Abshir Abdi

Lawyer Abshir Ahmedsadak Abdi was allegedly bundled into a vehicle by armed men in Nairobi on November 1, 2026. [Nancy Gitonga, Standard]

Nine days after lawyer Abshir Ahmedsadak Abdi went missing, the High Court has ruled that security agencies have questions to answer over his whereabouts, ordering a full hearing of an application seeking to establish the circumstances surrounding his disappearance.

Justice Alexander Muteti directed that the habeas corpus application filed by Abdi's brother, Zachary Abshir, proceeds to a substantive hearing after State agencies denied holding the advocate in custody.

The judge said the disappearance of a Kenyan citizen cannot be left unresolved merely because security agencies deny having the person in their custody.

"The institutions that are charged with the responsibility of securing Kenyans and their property cannot escape responsibility whenever a person is missing, and they return to say we do not have him in our custody," Justice Muteti ruled.

The court directed that the applicant be allowed to take the witness stand and present evidence against the respondents, who will then have an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

"The matter cannot therefore be put to a hold simply because the subject has not been produced. It is only fair that the applicant be heard on his application without any further delay and the respondents be called to answer," the judge said.

The ruling followed an earlier appearance by State representatives, who presented four witnesses to explain why they could not produce Abdi in court as directed.

Through their lawyer, Senior Counsel Paul Nyamodi, the respondents maintained that Abdi was not in their custody and argued that they could not produce a person they were not holding.

They also questioned the procedure adopted by the court, arguing that the applicant should first have been heard to establish a case against them before they were required to show cause.

However, Justice Muteti clarified that issuing summons to State agencies in habeas corpus proceedings does not amount to condemning them before the matter is heard.

He explained that the procedure is intended to require authorities to account for an individual's detention where allegations of unlawful custody have been raised.

The judge said habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy protected under Article 25 of the Constitution and must be handled expeditiously because it concerns personal liberty.

He further observed that the applicant had a duty to establish that the respondents were either in actual or constructive custody of Abdi, while the State had a corresponding responsibility to justify any detention.

Justice Muteti noted that evidence presented by the State during the preliminary proceedings had established that Abdi was a person of interest to security agencies and had been under investigation over, among other matters, an alleged abduction.

"The evidence tendered by the state through its witnesses in answer to the summons left no doubt in my mind that the subject was a person of interest to the state," he said.

The judge questioned whether security agencies could have pursued Abdi after failing to obtain court orders authorising his detention.

"The question that lingers in the mind of this court is whether it could be possible that out of frustration the respondents may have chosen to pursue the subject next to a condition," he observed.

He, however, said the question could only be answered after hearing evidence from the parties.

Abdi's disappearance was reported after he allegedly went missing on November 1, 2026.

According to an affidavit sworn by his brother, the advocate had informed him on October 31 that he would attend a friend's wedding in the Kilimani area.

That was the last time the family communicated with him.

The family told the court that attempts to reach Abdi the following morning were unsuccessful, with his mobile phone switched off.

His younger brother later received a telephone call from a DCI officer attached to Kilimani Police Station informing him that Abdi's vehicle, registration number KDL 356C, had been recovered abandoned in a ditch along Muchai Road near the Association of Kenya Insurers offices.

The family further claimed that members of the public witnessed the vehicle being pursued by a black Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX and a black double-cabin vehicle.

According to the affidavit, the occupants of the two vehicles were dressed in tactical combat uniforms, bulletproof vests and were openly armed with firearms.

The witnesses allegedly informed investigators that the occupants arrested the driver of the white vehicle and possibly dragged him into the Land Cruiser.

The family also informed the court that Abdi had previously been arrested on October 9, 2025, by officers from the Counter-Terrorism Police Unit, who were later joined by officers from the National Intelligence Service and military intelligence.

He was, however, released unconditionally after the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions declined to approve an application for custodial orders.

The applicant further alleged that Abdi had complained about intimidation following the earlier arrest, which he linked to his role as a witness in a criminal case at Makadara Law Courts.

Senior Counsel Eric Theuri led the legal team representing the applicant, with the Law Society of Kenya also participating in the proceedings.

The court declined to make a final finding on whether the State had satisfactorily explained its failure to produce Abdi, saying doing so before hearing the substantive application could prejudice the outcome.

"I deliberately elect not to deal with the question as to whether or not the explanation offered by the state so far for failing to produce the subject is satisfactory unless I be accused of prejudicing the outcome of the matter before the same is substantively heard. That shall await final determination of this matter," Justice Muteti said.

He emphasised that the purpose of the proceedings was to establish the legality of any detention and determine whether the missing advocate's constitutional rights had been violated.

"The applicant is now at liberty to take the witness stand and lay out his case against the respondents. It is so ordered," the judge ruled.