Why was Moses Kutia at Jacque Maribe's hearing

 Two weeks ago, I mentioned on this channel that the Monica Kimani investigation is one of the most unusual cases I've encountered. I said this because there has been significant information leakage from the investigators. In other words, details about the case were being deliberately shared with the media by the investigators. Naturally, when you receive such information directly from an investigator during an active investigation, you have no reason to doubt its validity.

However, three days ago, I began questioning the reliability of this information due to emerging contradictions. Initially, I speculated that investigators were being unusually open, possibly because both suspects, Jacque Maribe and Joseph Irungu (Jowie), had allegedly threatened them. Reports indicated that when a senior investigator expressed doubt about the case progressing, they faced similar pushback.

Today, the two suspects appeared in court again, and Judge James Oganyo issued a stern warning to the media, including social media platforms. The judge emphasized the importance of observing the law regarding sub judice, which prohibits public commentary on matters before the court. The judge humorously referred to the term "sub judice" without explicitly naming it, letting someone else provide the term, but his message was clear: any breach of this law could result in severe consequences.

The principle behind this law is critical—it ensures a fair trial for all. Imagine if Jacque Maribe were your sister or Jowie your brother. If you knew they were innocent, how would you feel seeing the public and media prematurely judge their guilt based on incomplete or misrepresented evidence? A fair trial is a right everyone deserves, and public speculation undermines this process.

Before the case was formally brought to court, a significant amount of information had already been shared. This momentum carried over even after charges were filed last week. However, Judge Oganyo has made it clear that any commentary, particularly on social media, analyzing or forming opinions about the evidence is a violation of the law. The penalties for contempt of court are steep: a fine of 200,000 Kenyan shillings, six months in jail, or both.

Moving forward, we must refrain from making statements that imply the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is now up to the court to determine the truth based on the evidence presented. Similar issues with social media commentary have arisen in other countries, such as the UK, where individuals have been convicted for discussing ongoing cases. Unlike casual conversations with neighbors in the past, social media amplifies opinions to thousands or even millions, potentially swaying public perception and jeopardizing a fair trial.

Today in court, Judge Oganyo sought the lead investigator to address reports of leaked information, but the investigator was absent. The judge expressed frustration, particularly over a recently published media report suggesting a possible motive for the murder, linked to an incident at the airport. However, as the case is now sub judice, discussing such matters is prohibited.

Notably, Dennis Itumbi was in court again today, supporting his friend Jacque Maribe. Also present was Gatundu South legislator Moses Kuria, raising questions about who he was supporting—Maribe, Jowie, or both. Kuria’s presence has fueled speculation, given his connections to both the Deputy President and State House, but this remains unclear.

Finally, Maribe and Jowie are set to return to court on October 24 for their bail hearing. Judge Oganyo has requested a pre-bail report from the probation office to aid in the decision-making process. The prosecution must demonstrate compelling reasons to keep the suspects in custody. Until then, let’s avoid speculation and allow the court to handle the matter.