At least 63 youths arrested during the protests in the county will now remain in police custody for a period of 10 days, following a ruling by Machakos Senior Principal Magistrate Betty Koech on Tuesday. This decision highlights the ongoing tension between state efforts to investigate alleged criminal activity during protests and the defense's push to uphold the constitutional rights of the accused.
Magistrate Koech granted the prosecution's application to detain the respondents at Machakos Police Station, allowing law enforcement to conclude investigations into the demonstrations that, according to the prosecution, left dozens injured and property of unknown value destroyed. The court, however, showed leniency towards a vulnerable group, freeing five minors aged between 11 and 17 years who had also been arrested during the skirmishes that paralyzed operations in Machakos town on Monday.
In their plea to extend the detention, the prosecution presented several arguments. They alleged that key witnesses, including 10 police officers, were nursing serious injuries inflicted by the protesters, necessitating sufficient time to meticulously piece together evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution informed the court that investigators were yet to retrieve crucial CCTV footage that would be relied upon to build a robust case against the suspects. Citing numerous police reports contained in the Occurrence Book (OB) from the day of the protests, the prosecution claimed to be investigating incidents of assault, grievous harm, and arson, all reportedly reported at the Machakos Police Station.
However, lawyer Jackson Kala, representing the respondents, fiercely countered the prosecution's application, accusing the police of deliberately dragging their feet in processing the prosecution of the protesters. Kala argued that the state's miscellaneous application was vague, asserting that the youths had not been promptly informed of the specific reasons for their arrest, a direct violation of their constitutional rights. "An accused person must be informed promptly of the reason for their arrest," Kala emphasized. He contended that police had a duty to "apportion blame on every individual respondent and not a blanket accusation," highlighting concerns about generalized charges.
Kala powerfully argued that the miscellaneous application was nothing more than a "ploy by the police to continue detaining the respondents," which he maintained was a clear infringement on their constitutional rights. His assertion that the police's failure to produce concrete charges up to that point demonstrated they were on a "fishing expedition" resonated with concerns often raised by human rights advocates regarding prolonged detentions without specific charges.
The lawyer also appealed to the court to consider the personal circumstances of the suspects. He pointed out that the majority of those arrested were university and college students whose physical addresses were verifiable, and therefore, they posed no flight risk if released. This argument aimed to demonstrate that alternative measures, such as bail, would suffice without compromising the investigation. The magistrate set the mention date for July 15, 2025, at which point the court will review the progress of the investigations and hear further arguments regarding the detention.
