NAIROBI, Kenya- Nairobi court will on August 19 determine whether Mukurwe-ini MP John Philip Gichohi Kaguchia will be required to take a plea in a criminal case in which he is accused of offensive conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Milimani Senior Principal Magistrate Teresiah Nyangena scheduled the ruling after hearing preliminary objections raised by the defence challenging both the validity of the charge sheet and the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) urged the court to dismiss the objections, arguing that the issues raised by Kaguchia’s legal team should be determined during the trial rather than at the preliminary stage.
According to the prosecution, the charges were approved after investigators submitted sufficient evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
“The validity of the charges should be tested during the hearing of the case and not at the preliminary stage,” the prosecution submitted.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the State argued that although criminal cases are ordinarily heard where the alleged offence occurred, the circumstances of the case justify the matter being heard in Nairobi because Kaguchia is a serving Member of Parliament and a State officer.
The prosecution further contended that trying the case in Nairobi would protect witnesses from possible intimidation or undue influence while ensuring a fair hearing for all parties.
State prosecutors also dismissed claims that the charge sheet is fundamentally defective, arguing that any errors—including the translation of the name “Kasongo” from Kikuyu into English—can be corrected through amendment without prejudicing the proceedings.
Additionally, the prosecution maintained that Kaguchia’s constitutional rights had not been violated and that the objections raised by the defence do not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
However, Kaguchia’s lawyers urged the court to reject the charge sheet, arguing that it fails to disclose a legally recognisable offence.
The defence submitted that the charge sheet does not identify the alleged complainants or victims and is too vague to allow the legislator to adequately prepare his defence.
They argued that the charge sheet falls short of the requirements of Section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly regarding the particulars of the alleged offence and references to “Kasongo,” which they described as unclear.
The defence also challenged the prosecution’s argument that the case should be heard in Nairobi, insisting that Kaguchia is entitled to equal treatment before the law and should not be presumed capable of influencing witnesses merely because he is an elected leader.
According to the defence, transferring the proceedings away from the location where the alleged offence is said to have occurred would unfairly prejudice the legislator. They further argued that the alleged defects in the charge sheet are substantive and cannot be cured through amendment.
Magistrate Nyangena is expected to deliver her ruling on the preliminary objections on August 19, when the court will also determine whether Kaguchia should be called upon to take plea and whether the criminal proceedings will proceed.
