KAJIADO, Kenya — The High Court has nullified arrest warrants issued against a senior prosecutor, affirming that subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to question or interrogate prosecutorial decisions made by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).
In a ruling delivered by Justice C. Meoli, the court found that a Kajiado trial court had acted irregularly by summoning and issuing warrants of arrest against the prosecutor over a decision to charge in a land fraud case.
The matter was brought before the High Court through a revision application by the ODPP.
The court faulted the lower court action
The court held that the subordinate court’s decision amounted to judicial overreach and an improper attempt to scrutinise the legality of prosecutorial discretion.
It ruled that the propriety of a decision to charge cannot be examined through oral testimony or cross-examination of a prosecuting counsel in ongoing proceedings.
Instead, such concerns must be raised through proper legal channels before a court of competent jurisdiction.
The prosecutor is not a witness in the case
Justice Meoli noted that the prosecutor at the centre of the matter was neither an investigator nor a witness in the case and had not sworn any affidavit requiring her participation in the trial proceedings.
The court further observed that the prosecutor had been summoned solely to explain the basis of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to prefer charges.
Warrants declared irregular
The High Court declared the summons and subsequent warrants of arrest issued against the prosecutor as irregular and unlawful, setting them aside.
The ruling reinforces the constitutional independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is mandated to make charging decisions without interference from other arms of the justice system.
Affirmation of prosecutorial independence
The judgment underscores the principle that prosecutorial discretion is insulated from judicial micromanagement, except through appropriate legal review mechanisms.
The ODPP welcomed the decision, terming it a win for institutional independence and the rule of law.
The case also highlights ongoing tensions between trial courts and prosecutorial offices over the boundaries of judicial oversight in criminal proceedings.
