https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9177

Republic v Sichali & 4 others (Criminal Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9177 (KLR) (22 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9177 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Case E006 of 2025 DR Kavedza, J June 22, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and William Imoli Sichali 1st Accused Edwin Oduor Odhiambo 2nd Accused Ebel Ochieng Alias Dave Calo 3rd Accused Isaack Kuria Alias Kush 4th Accused Allan Omondi Ogolla 5th Accused Ruling 1.The accused persons are jointly charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars of the offence are that on 30th April 2025 at about 7:45pm at City Mortuary Roundabout along Ngong Road, Kilimani Sub-county, Nairobi County, they jointly with others not before Court allegedly murdered Charles Ong’ondo Were. 2.This Court previously declined to grant bail pending trial. 3.The applicants now seek review of that decision, contending that there has been a material change in circumstances. They rely principally on alleged relative calm in Kasipul following the election of a new Member of Parliament, absence of reported hostilities or interference with witnesses, and the assertion that no witness has expressed fear or confrontation. They further argue that the Prosecution has, to date, called only technical witnesses and not vulnerable or protected witnesses, thereby prolonging their pre-trial detention in a manner said to be disproportionate to their right to liberty. 4.The Prosecution opposes the application through replying affidavits sworn by IP Oliver Nabonwe dated 13th March 2026. It is deponed that the witnesses already called are expert witnesses forming the foundation of the prosecution case, while witnesses under the witness protection programme remain yet to testify. It is further averred that protected and vulnerable witnesses have expressed fear for their safety due to their proximity to the accused persons. The Prosecution maintains that the risk of interference persists, that none of the circumstances that informed the earlier denial of bail have materially changed, and that public interest in the administration of justice and witness safety militates against release. It is also stated that the matter is being fast-tracked and that release at this stage risks undermining public peace and order. 5.The Prosecution therefore urges the Court to dismiss the application in its entirety. 6.The issue is whether the applicants have established the existence of changed circumstances to warrant the grant of bail pending trial. 7.The Concept of changed circumstances is also recognised in the International sphere. Article 60 (3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides for review of bail in these terms:“The pre-trial Chamber shall periodically review its ruling on the release or detention of the person, may do so at any time on the request of the Prosecutor or the person. Upon such review, it may modify its ruling as to the detention, release, or conditions of release, if it is satisfied that changed circumstances so require." 8.In Kenya, the decision of my brother E. Mureithi J in the case of R vs Diana Suleiman Said & Another [2014] eKLR brings this concept home. He observed that:“With respect, I do not agree that the review of bail on the ground of changed circumstances, or changes in the circumstances of the case, including circumstances of the accused, witnesses, victims or the society affected by alleged crime is a strange phenomenon. I would say our courts do it every day when we sit to consider renewed applications for bail such as when volatility on the ground is established to have ceased or for the cancellation of bail on account of the accused's refusal to attend court while on bail, when sureties withdraw or for other reasons.The changed circumstances test is one of common sense that where the circumstances of the case are so altered that compelling reasons are disclosed for the refusal of bail or for review of terms thereof, the court as a court of justice must reserve for itself a power to revisit the issue in the interest of justice not only for the accused but also for the complainant and the society at large. In the same way that an unsuccessful applicant for bail may repeat his application if his circumstances changed in such a manner as to favour his release on bail, so may the prosecution urge that the situation has deteriorated to compel a reconsideration of bail granted to the accused.” Interference with Witnesses 9.The accused persons submit that there has been a material change of circumstances since the Court’s earlier ruling denying bail. They argue that seven witnesses have since testified, reducing the likelihood of witness interference. The Prosecution opposes the application, maintaining that the risk remains real and substantial, particularly as several vulnerable and protected witnesses are yet to testify. 10.This Court previously found that compelling reasons existed to deny bail on the basis of a real likelihood of interference with witnesses. The fact that some witnesses have since testified does not, in itself, extinguish that risk. The Court takes judicial notice that a number of vulnerable and protected witnesses under the witness protection programme are yet to give evidence. Their safety, confidence, and ability to testify without fear remain central to the administration of justice. 11.Witnesses constitute the backbone of the criminal trial process. Any conduct capable of intimidating, influencing, or instilling fear in witnesses undermines both the integrity of the trial and the administration of justice. As stated in Republic v Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others [2016] eKLR, where there is a likelihood of interference with witnesses, the Court must consider whether the integrity of the process can be secured through bail conditions or whether continued detention is necessary. 12.In the present case, the proximity of the accused persons to key witnesses, coupled with the fact that vulnerable and protected witnesses are yet to testify, leads the Court to the conclusion that the risk of interference remains neither speculative nor remote. It is real, immediate, and credible. The Court is not persuaded that any bail conditions would sufficiently neutralise that risk. Accordingly, the compelling reason on the risk of witness interference still subsists. Public Interest 13.The applicants further contend that public interest has diminished following the election of a new Member of Parliament to replace the deceased. 14.Public interest in this matter does not arise merely from the existence of a parliamentary vacancy. It arises from the nature and gravity of the offence, namely the killing of a sitting Member of Parliament, an event that attracted substantial public attention and legitimate concern regarding security, accountability, and the rule of law. 15.The election of a new Member of Parliament does not diminish the public’s interest in the fair, transparent, and effective prosecution of those charged. Nor does it constitute a material change of circumstances capable of displacing the Court’s earlier findings. The issues arising from the death of the deceased remain unresolved and continue to command significant public interest. The Court therefore finds that public interest has not waned merely because the electoral vacancy has been filled. 16.While public interest cannot, on its own, justify denial of bail, it remains a relevant factor when considered alongside the need to protect witnesses and preserve public confidence in the administration of justice. In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the basis of its earlier decision remains intact and no material change of circumstances has been demonstrated. 17.Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, the Court finds that the applicants have failed to establish any change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the previous bail orders. The compelling reasons earlier identified continue to exist and justify the continued denial of bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution. 18.Accordingly, the applications for bail review are declined. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2026.D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Maina & Ms. Timoi for the ProsecutionMr. Swaka for the 1st AccusedMr. Omanga for the 2nd AccusedMr. Wanyanga for the 3rd AccusedMr. Ogola for the 4th AccusedMr. Chacha for the 5th Accused.