Acting Inspector General of Police Gilbert Masengeli is in a difficult position after the Court of Appeal postponed the hearing of his application to suspend a six-month jail sentence to next week.
With the sentence set to take effect this Friday, Masengeli must utilize the seven-day grace period granted by Justice Lawrence Mugambi to address the situation.
Last Friday, Justice Mugambi convicted him and stated that the IG could redeem himself by appearing in court to address the issues he has been avoiding. “Failure to do so will result in the immediate enforcement of the sentence,” the judge warned.
Since his conviction, Masengeli has opted to appeal. An appeal was initially filed by the Attorney General challenging his conviction before he submitted his own appeal following sentencing.
Both appeals were scheduled for a hearing today, but the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), involved in the case, indicated they were unprepared to proceed due to receiving Masengeli’s appeal late and needing additional time to respond.
LSK is the organization that took Masengeli and others to court regarding the disappearance of three Kenyans in Kitengela last month.
Advocates Cecil Miller and Steve Ogolla, representing Masengeli, argued that the two appeals were similar, differing only in timing—one filed before sentencing and the other afterward.
Ogolla informed Justices Gatembu Kairu, Weldon Korir, and Aggrey Muchelule that they had served LSK within the court’s timeline, but had not received a response.
After considering all arguments, the judges decided to grant LSK’s request for an adjournment to allow time for their response, stating, “This is a reasonable request. They have two days to file their responses, and both applications will be heard together next week.”
In his appeal, Masengeli claims he was unfairly targeted and that the court exceeded its authority by sentencing him without a proper hearing. He seeks to suspend his conviction, arguing that he was condemned without being heard.
Masengeli contends that the court made its decision without a formal contempt application and asserts that the judge erred by stating he could not send representatives to explain non-compliance with an order regarding the missing persons.
He emphasized that the judge’s summons did not necessitate his personal attendance, referencing Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules (2010), which allows court appearances to be made by legal representatives. Additionally, he criticized the judge for disregarding his affidavit, which provided evidence that the missing individuals were not in police custody.
