Embakasi East MP Babu Owino on Tuesday, July 25, took on the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) over the agency's decision to defy a court order directing the agency to return the politician's phone which they confiscated when they apprehended him last week.
In a statement, the furious legislator expressed his frustration with the government's blatant disregard of the law stating that he had personally visited the DCI headquarters on July 25 to collect the phone but detectives told him they had no intention of giving back the handset.
The MP successfully applied to compel the security agency to surrender the phone, and Senior Magistrate Esther Kimilu issued the corresponding orders on July 25.
"Today the court gave an order for my phone to be handed over to me, I went back to DCI headquarters but as usual they refused to obey court orders," the MP lamented.
In the order seen by Kenyans.co.ke, the magistrate ordered the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Industrial Area to be summoned. This directive was given to seek an explanation as to why Tom Odongo's vehicle, who was apprehended alongside Babu Owino, was still being held at the station.
The magistrate also ordered the police to return the mobile phones of all persons apprehended with Babu Owino.
After Azimio mobilizer Calvince 'Gaucho' Okoth filed complaints about being subjected to brutality while in custody, the magistrate granted the self-styled ghetto president the freedom to lodge his grievances at any police station within Kilimani Sub County. This would enable him to provide a detailed account of the assault he experienced at the hands of the police officers.
Babu Owino was apprehended alongside six others last week, hours before the scheduled anti-government protests. The seven were accused of engaging in subversive activities.
After hearing of the case leveled against them, Milimani Chief Magistrate Lukas Onyina gave orders directing that all seven to be released on a cash bail of Sh100,000 each.
The prosecution however, objected the decision to release them on bail. State attorneys argued that the accused persons were likely to interfere with witnesses.
This claim was however not substantiated and the magistrate subsequently dismissed the objection.
The case will be mentioned on August 3, 2023.
