https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10041

Republic v Ramogi (Criminal Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10041 (KLR) (8 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10041 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Case E001 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J July 8, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Melvin Auma Ramogi Accused Ruling 1.The accused is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap. 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars are that on 4th December 2025 at Masukuma Area, Raila Slums, Kibera, Lang'ata Sub-County within Nairobi County, she unlawfully murdered Silas Salasya Wafula alias Ras. 2.The accused has applied to be released on bail pending trial. 3.The application is opposed by the prosecution through the replying affidavit of Police Constable Francis Muchai sworn on 10th April 2026. The prosecution contends that the accused has no fixed place of abode and is not gainfully employed, thereby presenting a flight risk and making it difficult to trace her should she abscond. It is further deposed that immediately after the alleged offence, the accused was subjected to mob violence and that members of the Masukuma community remain hostile towards her, exposing her to a real risk if released. 4.The prosecution further avers that the principal prosecution witnesses are personally known to the accused, being her neighbours, friends and former drinking companions. It is therefore contended that there is a real likelihood of witness interference through intimidation or influence. The prosecution acknowledges that the right to bail is constitutionally guaranteed but maintains that compelling reasons exist to justify its denial. 5.In response, the accused denies that she lacks a fixed place of abode. She states that before her arrest she resided at Masukuma Area, Raila Slums, Kibera and is willing to provide a suitable and traceable surety. She further states that, if necessary, she will reside at her rural home throughout the trial. 6.The accused also deposes that she earns her livelihood through a small and medium enterprise and contends that lack of formal employment cannot constitute a ground for denying bail. She argues that the State cannot rely on its inability to maintain law and order or protect her from mob justice as a basis for depriving her of her liberty. 7.She further denies any intention to interfere with witnesses and submits that the allegations are speculative and unsupported by evidence. She undertakes to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court, including refraining from contacting prosecution witnesses or returning to Masukuma Area during the pendency of the trial. She further states that she is a first offender, maintains her innocence and is ready to attend court whenever required. 8.I have considered the application, the affidavits filed by the parties, the pre-bail report and the applicable law. The issue for determination is whether the prosecution has established compelling reasons to warrant the continued detention of the accused pending trial. 9.Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution provides:“An arrested person has the right -(h)to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released." 10.The constitutional right to bail is therefore not absolute. Once the prosecution demonstrates compelling reasons, the Court is entitled to decline bail where the interests of justice so demand. 11.The prosecution contends that the accused has no fixed place of abode. Although the accused disputes this assertion and states that she is willing to relocate to her rural home, no independent material has been placed before the Court to verify the proposed residence or demonstrate that it offers a stable and enforceable means of securing her attendance throughout the trial. While this factor alone may not justify denial of bail, it remains relevant in assessing the likelihood of the accused attending court. 12.The prosecution has further deposed that immediately after the alleged offence the accused was subjected to mob violence and that hostility from members of the local community persists. Although the State bears the constitutional obligation to protect every person within its jurisdiction, the Court cannot ignore the prevailing security concerns. The safety of the accused, preservation of public order and the proper administration of justice are legitimate considerations in determining whether release on bail is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. 13.The most significant consideration, however, is the likelihood of interference with witnesses. The prosecution has deposed that the principal witnesses are neighbours, friends and former drinking companions of the accused. Their close relationship places the accused in a position where direct or indirect influence cannot be discounted. Although the accused has undertaken not to contact the witnesses, such an undertaking does not sufficiently eliminate the risk in the circumstances of this case. 14.The Court is required to safeguard not only the rights of the accused but also the integrity of the criminal process. In Republic v Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others [2016] eKLR, the Court held that where there exists a real likelihood of witness interference, it must consider whether appropriate bail conditions would adequately safeguard the integrity of the trial or whether continued detention is necessary. 15.This Court has previously found that compelling reasons existed to deny the accused bail on account of the likelihood of witness interference. Although some witnesses have since testified, that fact does not extinguish the risk. The Court takes judicial notice that several vulnerable witnesses, including witnesses under the Witness Protection Programme, are yet to testify. Their security, confidence and ability to testify freely remain central to the fair administration of justice. 16.Witnesses are indispensable to the criminal justice system. Any conduct capable of intimidating, influencing or instilling fear in witnesses undermines both the search for truth and the integrity of the trial. Having considered the nature of the relationships between the accused and the remaining witnesses, I am satisfied that the apprehension of interference is neither speculative nor remote. It is real, credible and subsisting. I am not persuaded that any bail conditions would sufficiently mitigate that risk. 17.I have also considered the pre-bail report prepared by the Probation Officer. The report is unfavourable and does not recommend the release of the accused on bail. Its findings reinforce the concerns raised by the prosecution regarding the accused's security, community hostility and the likelihood of interference with witnesses. 18.Upon considering the totality of the material before the Court, I am satisfied that the prosecution has discharged its constitutional burden of demonstrating compelling reasons within the meaning of Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution. Those reasons continue to exist and justify the continued denial of bail pending the testimony of the remaining prosecution witnesses. 19.Accordingly, the application for bail is declined. The accused shall remain in custody pending further orders of the Court. She shall, however, be at liberty to renew the application should there be a material change in circumstances, particularly after the vulnerable and protected witnesses have testified. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2026.____________________D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Timoi for the ProsecutionMr. Omanga for the AccusedKarimi Court Assistant.