DCJ Philomena Mwilu's Prosecution Pushed to October

The Anti-corruption court in Nairobi on Thursday granted temporary stay orders halting the prosecution of Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu.

Milimani Law Courts Chief Magistrate Lawrence Mugambi on Friday afternoon admitted Justice Chacha Mwita's order suspending the prosecution until further guidance is issued by the High Court.

First, Mugambi ruled that the matter had been put to rest until October 9, 2018, when the High Court will be expected to give guidance on how the charges shall be preferred.

He further directed that the case will be mentioned again on October 22 in accordance with the guidance to be given by the High Court

"The court is now satisfied that the amended order has clearly and precisely granted the first accused person (Justice Mwilu) hearing a conservatory order,

"The court in compliance with the High Court order the court directs that the proceedings shall now rest at the point at which they had reached," ruled Mugambi.

On Wednesday, the defence team was sent back to the High Court after presenting an erroneous order that was not specific to the matter before the Chief Magistrate. 

Mwilu's team comprising of 34 lawyers and FIDA picked on October 22, 2018, for mentioning the matter after submission of directions on the matter.

Mwilu's co-accused Stanely Muluvi had sought to have the stay orders applied in his prosecution.

Through his nine-lawyer defence team lead by Kimuli, he moved to the High Court seeking Mwita's clarification on whether the orders would apply to Mwulu's co-accused.

The state, through Deputy DPP Dorcus Oduor, opposed the move stating that the two would be separately dealt with by the court insisting on proceeding with his separate charges.

The court granted Oduor's application but allowed Muluvi's lawyers to present any orders on Wednesday, September 5, 2018, when he is expected to appear for mentioning.

In a communication to the court, the Director of Public Prosecutions Noordin Haji expressed concern after the case was deemed as an attack on the Judiciary.

Haji stated the matter should not be perceived or treated as an attack on the Judiciary noting that his office respects the institution and individual rights while acting in the interest of the public.

"We respect the court, individual rights and any action we take should not be taken to mean the prosecution demeans the judges or the judiciary," stated Haji in a communication by his deputy before the court.

  • .