The National Police Service has filed an urgent application at the Milimani Law Courts challenging a ruling that compelled the production of arms movement registers in the ongoing inquest into the death of Rex Kanyike Massai.
Through G&A Advocates LLP, the police argue that the ruling delivered on September 3, 2025, by the Chief Magistrate’s Court was irregular and violated both statutory and constitutional safeguards. The ex tempore decision directed that the arms movement register be produced and marked as exhibits upon an oral application by prosecution counsel.
“The order contravenes the principle that official and sensitive documents must be produced only with the sanction of their lawful custodian under part III of the evidence act,” reads court documents
In a supporting affidavit, Police Corporal Fredrick Okapesi, the armorer at Central Police Station, told the court that the registers had been under the custody of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) since the commencement of the inquest, pursuant to an earlier court order. He said he objected to the release of the registers, citing fears of tampering or alteration while in IPOA’s custody, but the court overruled his objection.
“The ruling was made notwithstanding that I did not consent to such production, thereby compelling the release of evidence outside the lawful scope of the custodian’s authority and statutory protection,” Okapesi stated, adding that the omission of his objection from the court’s official record undermined transparency.
The application further argues that the order contravened Sections 80, 81, and 82 of the Evidence Act, which set out procedures for producing public records in evidence. It also faults the ruling for disregarding statutory confidentiality and chain-of-custody obligations binding on police armorers, thereby compromising sensitive security records.
According to the police, the court’s ruling amounts to a breach of due process, prejudices the applicant, and threatens the integrity of the inquest. They are now seeking to have the ruling reviewed, set aside, or vacated in the interest of justice.
The matter, filed under Section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is expected to test the balance between prosecutorial powers, judicial discretion, and the statutory protections governing sensitive state security documents.
“The ruling has caused grave prejudice to the applicant, compromised sensitive security records and undermined the integrity of the inquest,” reads the application
