Kenyan Man Sought by Britain Over Murder Allegations Denied Bail

A Kenyan court has refused to grant bail to a man wanted by British authorities on charges including murder, ruling that he poses a significant flight risk while extradition proceedings continue.

The decision was delivered in Nairobi after prosecutors argued that the respondent should remain in custody because of the seriousness of the allegations and the likelihood that he could evade justice. They told the court that British authorities want him to face charges of murder, manslaughter, perverting the course of justice and fraud. 

According to the prosecution, he left the United Kingdom shortly after the alleged offences and later travelled to Kenya. Prosecutors relied heavily on the circumstances of his arrest on 10 June at the Namanga border post. 

They said he was attempting to leave Kenya using a temporary travel permit despite holding a valid Kenyan passport. They also argued that he possessed multiple passports and had no fixed place of residence, increasing the risk that he would abscond even if his travel documents were surrendered.

The defence argued that the Constitution guarantees the right to bail unless compelling reasons are presented to justify detention. Lawyers pointed to his Kenyan citizenship, family ties in Eldoret and willingness to comply with strict bail conditions, including regular reporting to the police. 

They maintained that surrendering his travel documents would have been enough to ensure his attendance in court. The judge rejected those arguments. 

The court held that confiscating passports would not prevent the respondent from crossing the border unlawfully. It found that the seriousness of the charges, particularly murder, gave him a strong incentive to flee. 

The judge also cited his alleged departure from the United Kingdom after the offences, his arrest while attempting to leave Kenya and his possession of multiple travel documents as compelling reasons to deny bail. Although the court acknowledged his family connections, it ruled that they did not outweigh the risk of absconding. 

The judge also made clear that the decision concerned only the bail application and did not amount to a finding of guilt or a decision on the extradition request. To protect the respondent's constitutional rights while preserving the integrity of the extradition process, the court directed that the case should be heard without unnecessary delay.