By Andrew Kariuki

The Kahawa Law Courts have convicted Abdikarim Hassanow Hassan under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2012, in a case prosecutors said revealed a coordinated effort to recruit and radicalise individuals for extremist activities.

According to the prosecution, Hassan was found to have been an active member of Al-Shabaab, a group designated as a terrorist organisation under Kenya Gazette Notice No. 12585 of 2010. The court heard that his activities were part of a broader network aimed at strengthening the group’s operations through local recruitment and ideological influence.

The charges stemmed from events on or before April 2, 2024, at Kehancha Township in Migori County, where the accused was said to have played a key role in advancing the group’s agenda.

The court was told that Hassan targeted a minor, whom he allegedly lured with promises of financial gain, military training and religious incentives. He is said to have gone further to facilitate plans for the minor to travel to Somalia to join the militant group.

Prosecutors presented evidence indicating that the accused provided logistical support, including guidance on travel routes and financial assistance, as part of the recruitment process. They argued that his actions demonstrated a deliberate attempt to groom the minor for involvement in terrorism-related activities.

In its ruling, the court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the evidence pointed to a structured effort involving recruitment, radicalisation, and facilitation.

Trial Magistrate Ombewa held that the accused had played multiple roles within the alleged network, including acting as a recruiter and facilitator.

“I find that Prosecution established a troubling narrative of facilitation, ideological indoctrination, and preparation, and proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the author, financier, recruiter, and radicaliser as charged,” the magistrate ruled.

The matter will be mentioned on April 20, 2026, when the court is expected to give directions on sentencing.

By Andrew Kariuki

New details have emerged in the ongoing legal battle involving Moi High School Kabarak, with the parent of a Form Four student now accusing the institution of defying a High Court order directing the learner’s immediate re-admission.

In a further affidavit filed before the High Court in Nairobi, Evans Mbicha Ayiema, who is suing on behalf of his son identified as M.L.A, through his lawyer, Danstan Omari, claims that the school failed to comply with orders issued on March 12, 2026, requiring the student to be unconditionally readmitted by 5:00 p.m.

Ayiema told the court that he travelled to Nakuru with the student on the same day in an effort to comply with the court’s directive, but encountered resistance from the school administration.

According to the affidavit, attempts to reach the school principal, Mrs. Elishabah Cheruiyot, for guidance on the re-admission process were unsuccessful, as messages sent went unanswered.

He further stated that upon arrival at the school, security personnel denied them entry, indicating that access required express authorization from the principal.

“Upon arrival at the gate of Moi High School Kabarak, I was denied entry by security personnel who stated access required express authorization from the principal,” he deposed.

The parent also claims that while they were at the school premises, part of the first-term school fees was refunded to his wife’s bank account, a move he interpreted as inconsistent with the court’s directive on re-admission.

Bank records attached to the affidavit show that a sum of Ksh73,500 was credited to an account in the name of Peninah Maruna Mareru on March 12, 2026, with subsequent withdrawals made through mobile transactions.

Ayiema further alleges that the school later communicated that he should desist from pursuing the matter, citing that KCSE candidates had already been registered with the Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC).

Despite receiving a later message from the principal indicating that the school was “awaiting the child,” he maintains that they were still denied entry, with the principal allegedly declining to take his calls.

He told the court that a subsequent attempt to access the school on a later date also proved unsuccessful, with staff allegedly avoiding communication and declining to facilitate the student’s return.

The affidavit has now introduced fresh questions over whether the school complied with the court’s orders, as the matter continues to unfold before the High Court.

The case, filed under Judicial Review Application No. E059 of 2026, pits the student’s parent against the school’s administration and board, with the Ministry of Education and the County Director of Education listed as interested parties.

The dispute stems from the student’s earlier suspension over alleged disciplinary issues, which the parent has challenged as unlawful, arguing that it violates the learner’s right to education.

By Andrew Kariuki

The High Court in Garissa has dismissed an application by a Mandera woman seeking to have the remainder of her prison sentence converted to a non-custodial term, ruling that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the sentence at this stage.

In a ruling delivered on March 17, 2026, Justice J.N. Onyiego declined the application filed by Jamila Maalim Hussein Eymoi, who had asked the court to consider releasing her on probation, citing rehabilitation, remorse and family responsibilities.

Eymoi was initially charged before the Mandera Law Courts in Criminal Case No. E163 of 2021 with offences relating to possession of a firearm and ammunition without a valid certificate, as well as unlawful entry into Kenya. The prosecution had told the trial court that she was found on April 20, 2021, at Busley in Mandera East Sub-County in possession of an AK-47 rifle loaded with 13 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition.

She was convicted on the first two counts and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm and 10 years for possession of ammunition, while she was acquitted on the charge of unlawful entry.

Dissatisfied with the decision, she appealed before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. E050 of 2022, where the court reduced the 20-year sentence to seven years while maintaining the 10-year term, ordering that the sentences run concurrently from August 1, 2022.

She later filed another application in 2025 seeking review of the sentence, which the court dismissed save for a reduction equivalent to the time she had spent in remand custody.

In her latest application dated December 19, 2025, Eymoi urged the court to review her sentence once more and allow her to serve the remainder under probation, stating that she had reformed, was remorseful and needed to return home to care for her five children.

However, the prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the court had already determined the matter and was therefore functus officio and further maintained that the offences were serious and did not warrant a non-custodial sentence.

In his ruling, Justice Onyiego agreed with the prosecution, holding that once a court has pronounced itself on a sentence, it cannot revisit the matter unless through an appellate process.

The judge noted that the applicant had already exercised her right of appeal and had even filed a similar application previously, terming the latest application an abuse of the court process.

“Once a judge or judicial officer has pronounced a sentence, he or she becomes functus officio,” the court held.

The court consequently dismissed the application for lack of merit, leaving the earlier sentence in force.