Republic v Wanje (Criminal Case E150 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 735 (KLR) (25 August 2026) (Judgment)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATES COURT AT MANDERA** **CRIMINAL CASE NO. MCCR E.150 OF 2026** REPUBLIC VERSUS KARISA KENGA WANJE………………………..………………………………...ACCUSED **JUDGMENT** 1. Mr. Karisa Kenga Wanje was charged in Count 1 with the offence of travelling to a terror designated country without passing through a designated immigration exit point contrary to Section 30(B)(1)(a) and 30B(2)(a) as read with Section 30C(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The particulars are that on diverse dates between February 2026 and 15th May 2026 at Mandera East border in Mandera East Sub County within Mandera County he was intercepted while travelling to Somalia a terror designated Country. 2. In Count 2 Count 2 was exiting and entering Kenya through a place not designated as a place of entry/exit contrary to Section 15(2)(a) as read with Section 57 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Regulations, 2012. The Particulars are that on diverse dates between February 2026 and 15th May 2026 at Mandera East border within Mandera County the accused person exited Kenya at Bulla Hawa through Border Point 3 which is not a designated point of exit. 3. The accused person was arraigned for plea taking on the 19th May 2026 where he denied Count 1 and admitted Count 2. Sentencing in Count 2 was held in abeyance pending the determination of Count 1. The Prosecution in support of the case called 2 witnesses. 4. PW 1 was a male adult force number 246067 PC Paul Muchomba. He stated that on the 15th May 2026 he was at Mandera Police Station when the DCIO Mandera East asked him to accompany him to the Border Post as he had received a signal from the multi-agency team from Somalia who were to hand over a suspect. The accused person was brought by the Somalia officers and they were informed that the accused person was arrested in February 2026 and has been at Bulla Hawa. 5. PW 1 echoed that the accused person had no connection to terror matters and he was handed over at the Somalia border. PW 1 took photographs showing the accused being handed over at the border. He marked; * PMFI 1A,B and C - Photographs 1. It was his testimony that they booked the accused person and he was later charged. 2. Cross examined PW 1 revealed that the accused was handed over to the Kenya Police by the Somalia counterparts and he produced photos to this effect. He admitted he never investigated the accused phone and he never arrested him in Somalia. The accused person was arrested by the Somalia team and handed over to Kenya. 3. In reexamination PW 1 revealed that PW 1 was arrested in Somalia at Bulla Hawa area. 4. PW 2 was a male adult PC Josephat Kitur of force number 11294 from ATPU Mandera. He narrated he was the investigating officer and on the 15th May 2026 he was at the station and he was directed by the OCS to go to Border Post Station. He received the accused person from Somalia having been arrested by a multi-agency group and they took photographs to this effect. 5. The accused person was handed over at the border post having been at Bulla Hawa from February 2026. PW 2 produced PMFI 1A,B and C as PEXB 1A,B and C. 6. It was his position that he never knew the accused person before the arrest and Somalia is a terror designated Country. 7. In cross examination PW 2 confirmed that he was called on the 15th May 2026 at 2:00pm and they were around 7 police officers who proceeded to border post. He clarified the accused person was handed over at border post by the Somalia forces and he was in handcuffs. PW 2 admitted he took his phone however they never found any terror related matters and the accused had no Alshaabab roots. 8. It was his position that the accused was handed over at Bulla Hawa and he had photos of the hand over. Reexamined PW 2 stated that Somali forces do not have the power to arrest in Kenya. 9. On the 30th June 2026 the prosecution closed its case and as per the dictates of Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code the court delivered a ruling where the court found that the accused had a case to answer. 10. The accused person gave a sworn statement in his defence. He stated the case is a fabrication and there is no evidence. He was suspected of being a terror suspect however he was cleared of the charges. The phone was analyses and no terror links were established. 11. The accused testified that he was looking for employment and he has a sick child. He did not intend to go to Somalia and he comes from a poor background. Cross examined the accused person revealed he comes from Kilifi County and he came to seek employment in Mandera County. 12. He admitted his friends had informed him there was employment opportunity in Somalia and he had no know relations in Mandera. The accused testified that he had a friend in Mandera called Suleiman who worked at a shop however he was not a witness in this case. He was arrested at the Somalia Kenya border. He admitted to travelling to Somalia. 13. In brief reexamination the accused admitted he never knew Somalia is a terror designated Country and he was looking for a job. 14. The Court having looked at the evidence. The court considers the following issue for determination; 15. Whether the accused person is guilty of travelling to a terrorist designated country without passing through designated immigration exit point contrary to Section 30(B)(1) and 30B (2) as read with section 30C (1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2012 **Analysis and Determination** **Whether the accused person is guilty of travelling to a terrorist designated country without passing through designated immigration exit point contrary to Section 30(B)(1) and 30B (2) as read with section 30C (1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2012** 1. Section 30(C)(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2012 provides that *Presumption of travelling to a country for purposes of being trained as a terrorist* *(1)A person who travels to a country designated by the Cabinet Secretary to be a terrorist training country without passing through designated immigration entry or exit points shall be presumed to have travelled to that country to receive training in terrorism.* 1. Section 30(C)(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2012 provides for one to be liable for an offence committed under this Section the Prosecution has to prove firstly that the accused person travelled to a country designated by the Cabinet Secretary to be a terrorist training area. 2. Secondly, he never passed through the designated immigration exit points. The foregoing was echoed in **Garissa Criminal Appeal No E016 of 2022, Mwangi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E016 of 2022)** the Court held that; *From the onset, the onerous duty imposed upon the prosecution was to prove that the appellant had travelled to Somalia which had been designated by the cabinet secretary interior as a terrorist training country.* 1. PW 1 in this case testified that on the 15th May 2026 they received a signal that a suspect was to be handed over at the Border post police station by the Somalia Forces. He confirmed that he went to the border post and indeed together with PW 2 they received the accused person from the Somali forces as the Prosecution produced as exhibits PEXB 1A,B and C that reveal the exchange at the Border Post. 2. In his Defence the accused person indicated that he was arrested at the Somalia Kenya border however the Court disputes this line of Defence as the accused in cross examination admitted that he had no known relations in Mandera town and he had travelled from Kilifi County that is quite a distance from Mandera County. The accused admitted to have been arrested in Somalia in February 2026 and he was in custody since then before being handed over to the Kenya Police at Border post 1. 3. Under Kenyan law, traveling to a country designated by the government as a terrorist training country without using official immigration posts creates a legal presumption that the individual is traveling to receive terrorist training. PW 1 in this case stated that indeed they carried out a forensic audit of the accused phone and he had no terror links. In [Wangechi & another v Republic [2023] KEHC 2178 (KLR)](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2023/2178/eng%402023-03-21) It was held that; *The Law is clear that if one travels to a country such as Somalia which according to Legal Notice 200/15 has been designated as a terrorist training country without passing through a designated area then such person is presumed to have travelled to that country to receive training in terrorism* 1. The accused person in this case admitted having entered Kenya through a place not designated that indeed supported the contents of Count 1.The Court is convinced that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in both Count 1. 2. Consequently, the accused person is found to be guilty in Count 1 of the offence of travelling to a terror designated country without passing through a designated immigration exit point contrary to Section 30(B)(1)(a) and 30B(2)(a) as read with Section 30C(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as provided under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure. Judgment delivered in open court on the 25th August 2026. …………………………………………. **HON. CORNEL.O. OMONDI** **RESIDENT MAGISTRATE** In the presence of; Mr. Namiti for the State Accused in person C/A – Abdullahi/Shamsa