DPP Renson Ingonga got reprieve on Friday after the high court barred thePublic Service Commission (PSC) from considering a petition filed against him seeking for his removal from office.
In the case, lobby group Sheria Mtaani na Shadrack Wambui had challenged the petition before PSC saying it’s malicious.
In the petition before PSC filed by a businessman, Hussein Aila Amaro accused Ingonga of misconduct over his decision to withdraw a criminal case involving alleged threats to kill. The petitioner argued that the DPP’s actions constituted abuse of office and warranted disciplinary action.
However, Sheria Mtaani defended his decision, asserting that he was acting within his constitutional mandate under Article 157 of the Kenyan Constitution. He emphasized that the power to withdraw or discontinue criminal cases falls within his legal authority, exercised based on an analysis of facts, public interest, and the availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
They argued that the petition before the PSC was a deliberate attempt to intimidate, embarrass, and interfere with his ability to discharge his duties independently.
He has maintained that prosecutorial decisions must remain free from undue influence or external pressure.
Through lawyers Danstan Omari and Shadrach Wambui, they argue that a 2019 dispute between Hussein Ali Amaro and Farida Idriss Mohammed led to multiple civil cases after their business fallout.
Court documents indicate that on March 11, 2023, mediation efforts involving elders and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) resulted in a consent agreement. Under the agreement, the 2nd Interested Party was to pay the 2nd Respondent Kshs. 17,000,000.
A key term of the consent agreement was that any pending criminal case arising from the dispute would be withdrawn unconditionally.
However, on March 17, 2023, Farida reneged on the agreement, adding a condition that if the 2nd Interested Party failed to meet the mediation terms, prosecution against him would proceed.
“it behooves proper judgment to discern that indeed, the Petition by the 2nd Respondent for the removal from office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is extremely vexatious, increasingly malicious and informed by an aggravated negative attitude towards the role the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions plays towards the resolution of criminal cases and the active role in seeing into the significant reduction of backlog in criminal cases,” reads court papers.
According to them, there is a just, legally-backed and sound reason for Ingonga to employ his discretionary powers when and in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him to ensure he performs his mandate and executes his duties as an officer of the state and the Honourable court.
“The Director of Public Prosecutions has the discretion to, with legal backing and pursuant to the permission of the Court, discontinue any criminal proceedings at whatever stage they are, before judgement is rendered on the subject suit,” reads court papers
Wambui says they have witnessed the diligence and verve exuded by the DPP in the discharge of his duties and mandate for the past two years within which he has headed the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions as per the law set out.
