Why State wants Utumishi Girls arson suspects detained for 30 days

Students linked to the Utumishi Girls High School dormitory fire that claimed the lives of 16 students appear before Chief Magistrate Ramadhan Abdulqadir at the Naivasha Law Courts. [Kipsang Joseph, Standard]

Inside the packed courtroom at Naivasha Law Courts, tension hung heavily in the air as anxious parents and members of the public waited for proceedings involving nine students from Utumishi Girls High School, Gilgil, accused of arson that led to the deaths of nine of their colleagues.

On one side sat parents of the accused, visibly distressed, their faces partially concealed by masks and headscarves, eyes shifting uneasily across the courtroom. Opposite them were parents of the deceased, many in tears, occasionally locking gaze with their perceived counterparts in a scene marked by grief and disbelief.

Outside the courtroom, anti-riot police maintained strict order, dispersing members of the public who had gathered in large numbers hoping to witness the hearing.

The three-hour wait ended when the minors arrived, dressed in hooded sweaters and black face masks, escorted by children’s officers into the courtroom. The atmosphere turned more emotional, with some relatives breaking down in tears while others covered their faces in anguish as journalists jostled for coverage.

The prosecution immediately sought to have the nine held for 30 days to allow investigators to conclude ongoing inquiries into the incident.

State Counsel Emma Bosire told Naivasha Chief Magistrate Abdulqadir Ramathan that investigators had already gathered evidence placing the minors at the centre of the alleged arson attack, including CCTV footage said to have captured their movements.

She said the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) was awaiting key forensic, technical and structural reports from relevant government agencies, which required additional time to complete.

“Following the incident, the school was closed and students sent home. We also need time to reach out to witnesses and record statements,” Bosire said.

She further argued that releasing the minors could compromise the investigation due to heightened emotions surrounding the case.

“The accused have shown a likelihood of interfering with witnesses, including alleged attempts to influence fellow students on what to say,” she added.

Prosecutor Joseck Abwajo supported the application, urging that the minors be held at Nakuru Remand Home for their safety, citing public anger and security concerns. He maintained that the request complied with the Children Act and did not amount to punitive pre-trial detention.

Victims’ advocate Wairegi Kiarie backed the prosecution, saying families of the deceased were still in deep anguish a week after the tragedy. He called for patience as investigations continue, adding that both victims and accused deserved justice.

His counterpart, advocate Mbugua Macharia, also supported the application, saying it would help preserve the dignity of grieving families.

However, defence lawyer Bernard Kipkoech opposed the request, arguing that no compelling evidence had been presented to justify continued detention. He said the prosecution had not demonstrated that the minors were a flight risk or likely to interfere with investigations.

Another defence lawyer, Hezron Mugire, said holding the students amounted to unlawful pre-trial detention and violated Article 53 of the Constitution and the Children Act.

He insisted there were no charges yet nor evidence of interference with investigations.

Magistrate Ramathan directed that the minors’ ages be verified through birth certificates and ordered that they remain at their current holding stations pending ruling.

The court will deliver its decision on June 3.

Inside the parked courtroom  at the Naivasha Law Courts, the anxiety coupled with tension could literally be sliced as emotional parents and members of the public eagerly waited for nine girls from Utumishi Girls, Gilgil accused of killing nine of the colleagues through arson.

On one side of the courtroom, parents of the accused sat pensively, their faces covered in face masks and headscarves as their eyes darted from one side to their other.

On the other side were parents of the victims, tears flowing freely and at times their eyes briefly making contact with their perceived ‘enemies’ inside the parked court.

Outside the court room, anti-riot police officers took control, kicking out members of the public who had arrived in tens to view the suspects.

The thee-hour finally arrived and the suspects all dressed in hooded jumpers, faces covered in black masks and sandwiched between children officers arrived in the law courts.

Some of the family members openly shed tears, others buried their heads in hands as the media scrambled to get the best shot.

And as the minors were lined up, the prosecution sought 30 days to hold the accused so as to give the investigating team time to finish their investigations.

According to State Counsel Emma Bosire, the investigating officers had gathered evidence which incriminated the nine and placed them at the scene of the incident.

She told Naivasha Chief Magistrate Abdulqadir Ramathan that with the help of CCTV footage, the investigating officers had identified the nine at the center of the arson plot.

While calling for 30 days to hold the accused, Bosire said that the DCI was waiting for critical technical, forensic and structural reports from various State agencies and this required time to process.

“Following the incident, the school was closed and the students sent home and we shall require more time to reach out to them so that the witnesses can record statements,” she said.

She told the court that the minors were facing serious crime and releasing them public would endanger their lives as emotions were still high.

“There accused have demonstrated a likelihood to interfere with ongoing investigations as they have made passionate appeals to their fellow students not to ‘snitch’’ on each other and instead blame the fire on form fours,” she said.

On his part, prosecutor Joseck Abwajo called for the students to be held at Nakuru Remand Home for their own safety as the incident has attracted a lot of public outrage and tension.

Abwajo denied that holding the students was against the Children Act adding that this did not amount to pretrial without detention.

“There are compelling reasons to hold the accused in a remand which is meant for minors who are in conflict with the law and this is for their security and safety,” he said.

The victims' advocate Wairegi Kiarie supported the application to hold the minors for 30 days to give time for the prosecution to complete their investigations.

Wairegi called for justice for both the victims and the accused adding that the affected families were undergoing untold suffering one week after the incident.

“We should allow the wheels of justice to take their natural action and we support the planned confinement of the nine to Nakuru Remand Home,” he said.

This was supported by his counterpart, advocate Mbugua Macharia who called for the protection of the dignity of the affected families.

“If delivered, the application to hold the accused for 30 more days will uphold the dignity of the victims who are still hurting and yet to bury their children,” he said.

However High Court advocate Bernard Kipkoech for the accused opposed the application terming this as detention without pre-trial and against the Children Act.

He told the court that the prosecution had not given any compelling reason that the minors were a flight risk or would interfere with investigations.

“The prosecution claims that these minors could interfere with investigations but they have not proven how this is possible,” he said.

On public outrage, he told the court that the minors identity was still intact and allegations of their security were farfetched.

Another lawyer Hezron Mugire for minors noted that continued confinement of the minors in a remand home was tantamount to detention without pre-trial.

Mugire told the court the planned detention was against Article 53 of the Constitution and the Children Act which do not require pre-trial detention for minors.

“There are no charges that have been preferred against the minors or any compelling reasons which proves that the minors can interfere with government agencies in their investigations,” he said.

The magistrate called for the protection of the minors and directed the department of children to provide their birth certificates as proof of their age.

The magistrate further directed that the minors be held in respective stations where they had been held since they were arrested a week ago.

He will make the ruling on 3rd of June.