Shukri Adan Case: Firearms Discrepancies Delay Murder Plea

The High Court has temporarily halted the prosecution of a Nairobi police officer charged with the murder of 20-year-old Shukri Adan, citing concerns over procedural fairness and discrepancies in official firearms records.

Justice granted Officer Patrick Mutunga Titus permission to challenge the decisions of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), both of which had authorised the charges against him. As a result, the planned plea-taking at the Makadara High Court, where Mutunga and fellow officer Godwin Mwashuke Mujomba were set to appear, will be delayed until the judicial review is heard.

The dispute centres on the police firearms register, which tracks the issuance and return of ammunition. Mutunga claims he was issued 30 rounds of ammunition and returned them all unused, pointing to a post-mortem report that confirms Adan was killed by a single gunshot to the head. In contrast, Mujomba received 25 rounds of a different calibre and returned his weapon with 19 rounds, raising questions about the records and who may have fired the fatal shot.

IPOA maintains that its investigation, which included witness statements and scene analysis, provided sufficient grounds to recommend charges. The DPP has argued that both officers were on duty during the shooting and gave conflicting accounts, with independent witnesses identifying them as suspects. Prosecutors accuse Mutunga of filing the judicial review in bad faith to delay the trial.

In response, Mutunga’s defence team insists that the firearms register and autopsy report are uncontested, and that proceeding with the case without credible evidence would violate his constitutional right to a fair trial. 

“The decision to charge him is unreasonable… there is no legal evidence to prove the charge of murder,” his lawyer argued.

The court ruled that Mutunga’s claims were not frivolous and that suspending the prosecution was necessary to prevent potential prejudice should the judicial review succeed. However, the court emphasised that this does not amount to an acquittal, and prosecution could resume if the review fails. 

The judge also noted that the DPP’s decisions must adhere to constitutional protections under Articles 47 and 50, which guarantee fair administrative action and a fair hearing.