#FreeBilly: Itumbi claims Crazy Nairobian was arrested for sending threatening messages

Taking to his platform, Itumbi alleged that Billy’s charges involved sending threatening messages to a public servant. 

Itumbi noted that he would reach out to the complainant to withdraw the complaint. 

“I have checked with police why Crazy Nairobian, Billy, is under arrest. I understand he sent threatening message/s. I get hundreds of those myself, and they do not bother me. But well, it is a crime. I am unable to intervene, though I strongly disagree. I will reach out to the complainant to see if he/she can withdraw," he posted on X.

Further, Itumbi urged public servants to develop a thick skin when dealing with some of the insults meted upon them by the public. 

“That said, when they used to arrest me, I used the court platform to argue truth and facts. I am of the view that insults are part of free speech. Insulting and criticising public servants should not be treated as a crime. I will leave the jury to decide if sending threatening messages should be treated as a crime. I would personally not bother report to police, but that I leave to the courts to determine.”

“I also firmly hold that Public Servants should grow a thick skin. Some of these arrests based on your complaints are unnecessary. They may not be illegal, but they are sincerely stupid!” he added.

Itumbi’s response comes following an online forum hosted on the X platform which sought to know the whereabouts of Crazy Nairobian. 

The X Space, which had over 10,000 listeners, questioned why the government was headhunting some of the Gen Zs who publicly voiced their opinion over the harsh economic conditions. 

Politicians allied to the Kenya Kwanza government have been at the sharp end of criticism with Kenyans naming and shaming legislators who voted in support of the Finance Bill. 

Similarly, a blogger was arrested in 2017 for hurling insults at the president but appealed the charges on grounds of freedom of expression. 

The judge agreed that the petition raised a significant question of whether criticising a public officer justifies limiting a constitutional right. 

He said that criminalising such a matter prevents the right to speak about public officers and it diminishes one’s right to hold an opinion.