DIG Eliud Lagat Says Courts Have No Power to Order His Prosecution in Albert Ojwang Murder Case
The killing of blogger Albert Omondi Ojwang, a case that has captured national attention, continues to generate public outrage and controversy. At the centre of the storm is Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Eliud Lagat, who has been accused of involvement in Ojwang’s murder. In a dramatic courtroom turn, Lagat has publicly refuted these allegations and asserted that the decision to prosecute him lies exclusively with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), not the courts.
This position, articulated by Lagat’s lawyer Cecil Miller, raises fundamental questions about police accountability, the balance of powers within Kenya’s justice system, and the limits of judicial intervention in criminal prosecutions involving high-profile individuals. The case has reopened debates about the immunity that senior officials may enjoy and the challenges victims face in seeking justice.
Albert Omondi Ojwang was a popular Kenyan blogger known for his outspoken views and investigative reporting. His untimely death sent shockwaves across Kenya, with many calling for a transparent investigation and justice. Allegations have since implicated several figures, including DIG Eliud Lagat, one of the highest-ranking officers in the Kenyan Police Service.
Public sentiment has been intense, with demands for accountability and transparency. Many Kenyans feel the case highlights deeper problems related to impunity and the protection that influential officials might enjoy, making it a litmus test for the country’s commitment to rule of law.
Facing intense scrutiny, DIG Lagat has taken a firm legal stance. Through his legal counsel Cecil Miller, he argued that the courts do not have the authority to compel the prosecution of an individual, particularly in criminal matters. According to Miller:
“The decision to prosecute rests solely with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Any court order attempting to direct prosecution undermines the constitutional separation of powers and the independence of the DPP’s office.”
This defense is grounded in Kenya’s constitutional framework, which vests the power to institute and undertake criminal proceedings in the DPP, an independent constitutional office designed to insulate prosecutions from political interference.
The DPP is empowered by Article 157 of the Kenyan Constitution to determine whether to institute or discontinue criminal proceedings. This independence is crucial for maintaining the integrity and impartiality of prosecutions.
However, this autonomy has also been criticized when high-profile cases appear stalled or where the public suspects the DPP’s office may be influenced by political or other pressures.
The DIG Lagat - Ojwang murder case serves as a critical moment for Kenya’s justice system, raising vital questions about how the country balances power, protects rights, and pursues justice especially when those implicated hold significant authority. As this story unfolds, it will remain a focal point for Kenyans demanding transparency and rule of law.
What's Your Reaction?
