313 300
Accused Demand Refund of Cash Bail as Prosecution Fails to Prove Case
Two out of the three individuals charged with a Sh 64 million gold fraud have been acquitted by the court due to insufficient evidence.
Partick Ngare Muchina and Congolese national Muke wa Mansoni Didier walked out of the courtroom vindicated, demanding the immediate refund of their cash bail, which they argue was unjustly taken.
The decision came after the State Prosecution admitted that they lacked substantial evidence to convict the accused. Magistrate Susan Shitubi, presiding over the case, concurred with the prosecution’s assessment, stating, “There is not enough evidence to convict the two accused.”
The prosecution, after reviewing the case file, made an application to withdraw the criminal charges against Muchina and Didier, citing a lack of evidence linking them to the alleged fraud. The two had been charged with multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit a felony and obtaining money by false pretenses from an Iranian businessman, Sadegh Sadeghain Abolfazi.
However, the State emphasized that the trial against the third accused, Kelvin Mwaura Ngotho, would proceed as planned, asserting that the evidence against him is overwhelming.
The accusations against Muchina and Didier stemmed from allegations that they obtained USD 500,000 from Abolfazi by falsely claiming to possess 60 kilograms of gold for sale. The purported offense was said to have occurred between April 2021 and April 14, 2023, in Kilimani, Nairobi, allegedly in collaboration with others not present in court.
Despite being out on a bond of Sh 3 million with an alternative cash bail of Sh 1 million, Muchina and Didier expressed frustration over the time they spent navigating the justice system. They argue that their innocence has been proven and demand compensation for the ordeal they endured.
The case highlights the complexities surrounding fraud allegations and underscores the importance of robust evidence in securing convictions. As Muchina and Didier seek restitution for their time and resources spent on defending themselves, the outcome raises questions about the efficacy of the legal process in safeguarding the rights of the accused.