Joshua Waiganjo Walks Free from Impersonation Charges

A Naivasha court has acquitted Joshua Waiganjo of all charges related to impersonation and possession of police uniforms.

The man had gained notoriety for impersonating senior police officers. The court's decision came after determining that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate their case, ultimately leading to Waiganjo's acquittal. Initially, Waiganjo faced a total of six charges – five counts of impersonating police officers and one count of possessing police uniforms. However, his journey towards acquittal took a major turn when Naivasha Chief Magistrate Nathan Lutta handled the legal proceedings.

During the trial, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) attempted to withdraw the cases under section 87 (a) of the Penal Code, a provision that allows for temporary suspension of prosecution. Waiganjo, however, opposed this move, insisting on a full prosecution to clear his name and secure an outright acquittal. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal declared the accused innocent under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Lutta, the presiding judge, explained that the court's decision was influenced by the doctrine of stare decisis, which prioritizes the seniority of courts and their precedents.

The saga began in 2013 when Waiganjo faced charges of impersonating senior police officers, robbery with violence, and possession of police uniforms in a Naivasha court. However, the case faltered due to missing evidence and witnesses failing to appear as it was transferred between courts. In 2015, while Waiganjo was acquitted of some charges, he received prison sentences for impersonation, wearing a police uniform, and possession of government items.

Undeterred, Waiganjo appealed the ruling in the High Court, which ordered a retrial of the case. The appeal was subsequently taken to the Court of Appeal in 2017 where the entire case was dismissed. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the High Court's decision to order a retrial lacked a proper legal basis, stating, "We affirm the judge's instructions and grant the appellant's request, commanding immediate release."