The defence in the case involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju on Tuesday challenged the credibility of police evidence after two officers gave what appeared to be conflicting accounts on who reported key incidents and how the matters were recorded in the Occurrence Book (OB) at Karen Police Station.
Lawyer Edward Oonge questioned the officers on the circumstances surrounding the recording of reports relating to alleged trailing of Tuju, his reported disappearance, and the recovery of an abandoned vehicle.
During cross-examination, one of the officers told the court that the first OB entry was made after Tuju reported that he was being followed. The officer initially indicated that Tuju had personally approached police officers outside a Restaurant, where he narrated his concerns before the information was recorded.
However, when pressed further, the witness gave a different account, stating that Tuju had contacted the police by phone through the Officer Commanding Station (OCS. The officer later maintained that Tuju eventually met officers outside the restaurant, where they sat at a gazebo and discussed the matter. He told the court that he personally took notes of the report and later recorded it in the OB at Karen Police Station, despite Tuju not physically visiting the station. The witness defended the procedure, saying it was normal for officers to record reports received outside the station, especially where officers had been approached while carrying out their duties.
The defence also questioned the second OB entry, which related to allegations that Tuju had gone missing and the discovery of an abandoned vehicle. The officer initially told the court that Tuju’s son was the person who reported his father’s alleged abduction at Karen Police Station. However, under further questioning, he admitted that the OB entry was triggered after a security guard from Western Nairobi School reported an abandoned vehicle.
According to the officer, police later contacted Tuju’s son after receiving information about the vehicle, leading to the matter being treated as a missing person case and recorded under the same OB entry.
The witness admitted that he could not remember the name of the security guard who made the initial report about the abandoned vehicle.
He nevertheless maintained that only two OB entries were made in relation to the matter — one concerning allegations that Tuju was being trailed and another relating to the abandoned vehicle and missing person report.
The matter was adjourned to 10th September, 2026 for further hearing.
