Reprieve for DPP Renson Ingonga as court bars PSC from considering petition for his removal

The petition, filed by a businessman Hussein Aila Amaro accused Ingonga of misconduct over his decision to withdraw a criminal case involving alleged threats to kill. The petitioner argued that the DPP’s actions constituted abuse of office and warranted disciplinary action.  

However, in his application before the Milimani Law Courts, Ingonga defended his decision, asserting that he was acting within his constitutional mandate under Article 157 of the Kenyan Constitution.

He emphasized that the power to withdraw or discontinue criminal cases falls within his legal authority, exercised based on an analysis of facts, public interest, and the availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.  

The DPP further argued that the petition before the PSC was a deliberate attempt to intimidate, embarrass, and interfere with his ability to discharge his duties independently.

He has maintained that prosecutorial decisions must remain free from undue influence or external pressure.  

The High Court's ruling provides a temporary reprieve for Ingonga as the case unfolds, reinforcing the principle of prosecutorial independence.  

In the petition, the DPP wants the court to quash proceedings before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).  

Through lawyers Danstan Omari and Shadrack Wambui, he argues that a 2019 dispute between Hussein Ali Amaro and Farida Idriss Mohammed led to multiple civil cases after their business fallout.  

Court documents indicate that on March 11, 2023, mediation efforts involving elders and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) resulted in a consent agreement. Under the agreement, the 2nd Interested Party was to pay the 2nd Respondent Kshs.17,000,000.  

A key term of the consent agreement was that any pending criminal case arising from the dispute would be withdrawn unconditionally.  

However, on March 17, 2023, Farida reneged on the agreement, adding a condition that if the 2nd Interested Party failed to meet the mediation terms, prosecution against him would proceed.  

".....it behoves proper judgment to discern that indeed, the Petition by the 2nd Respondent for the removal from office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is extremely vexatious, increasingly malicious and informed by an aggravated negative attitude towards the role the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions plays towards the resolution of criminal cases and the active role in seeing into the significant reduction of backlog in criminal cases," the DPP argues.