Suspects in Hindi terror attack have case to answer, court rules

politics and policy

Suspects Swaleh Shebe Auni (left) with Joseph Chege Kimani alias Hashim Noor at a past court appearance. PHOTO | FILE 

By PHILIP MUYANGA, pmuyanga@ke.nationmedia.com

Two people who have been charged with 12 counts of murder in relation to terrorist attacks in Hindi, Lamu County in 2014 have a case to answer.

Justice Martin Muya on Friday ruled that a prima facie case has been established to put Mr Swaleh Shebe Auni and Mr Joseph Chege on their defence.

“On the close of the prosecution case and upon evaluation of evidence and submissions am satisfied a prima facie case has been made to put the accused on their defence,”said Justice Muya while delivering the ruling in Mombasa.

The Judge said the accused have a right to defend themselves or to do so through their lawyers and can call witnesses if they have any.

Through his lawyer Jared Magolo, Mr Auni said he would give evidence on oath and call 16 witnesses.

On his part, Mr Chege - through his lawyer AB Olaba - said he would give unsworn evidence and call two witnesses.

The court also issued summons to two administrators (a chief and a DO) following an application by the defence which want the two public officers to be their witnesses.

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Alexander Muteti sought to have the defence supply witness statements to the prosecution three days before defence hearing begins.

In their submissions, the two accused wanted the court to acquit them saying the prosecution had not established a prima facie case to put them on their defence.

Through Mr Magolo and Mr Olaba, the accused said none of the prosecution witnesses apart from one whose evidence they termed as unreliable, placed them on the scene of the attacks.

Mr Magolo further told the court that the prosecution had failed to connect his client (Mr Auni) to the deaths and prosecution witness evidence did not place the accused on the scene.

“Witnesses said the attackers were Somalis while some spoke English, victims were unable to recognise attackers,” said Mr Magolo.

Mr Magolo said the prosecution availed only a single witness (he was protected) with a view to connect the accused to the offence.

He said the witness admitted to be a terrorist and was convicted on the same charges facing the two accused.

“There are several reasons that make the witness unreliable, although he faced the same charges, one question to ask is why was it necessary to separate them (from the two accused),” said Mr Magolo.