By Peter John and Andrew Kariuki
A Nairobi court has directed a police investigator to personally account for how more than Ksh 30,000 was withdrawn from a suspect’s M-Pesa and Fuliza accounts while his phone was in police custody.
The suspect, police officer Charles Lotira, told the court that the funds disappeared shortly after his mobile phone was confiscated during investigations.
Lotira said he had been compelled to surrender his M-Pesa PIN to the officers handling his case, only to later discover that transactions had been made without his knowledge or consent.
His lawyer, Danstan Omari, termed the incident a serious breach of procedure and a worrying example of how digital evidence is being mishandled by law enforcement officers.
He argued that once a device is seized, it becomes the responsibility of the investigating officers to preserve its integrity until the court determines its use as evidence.
“This case underscores a growing problem in how police manage digital evidence, especially mobile money data that can easily be manipulated if not properly safeguarded,” Omari said.
Magistrate Ben Mark Ekhubi, while presiding over the matter, ordered the investigating officer to give a detailed explanation of how the withdrawals occurred when the phone was supposed to be under police control.
The court directed that the officer presents a report outlining the transactions, the timeline and the measures taken to secure the device after seizure.
Lotira, who is also facing separate charges linked to organised criminal activities in Turkana County, maintains that the alleged withdrawals were made without his authorization and are unrelated to the charges before the court.
The ruling has sparked renewed debate over accountability and transparency in the handling of digital evidence by law enforcement agencies.
Legal experts have called for stricter chain of custody protocols to prevent similar incidents, warning that such lapses could compromise investigations and erode public trust in the justice system.
The matter will be mentioned at a later date for the court to receive the investigator’s explanation.
