This archive report was first published on 4 September 2019.
Kenya's anti-corruption agencies have suffered a major setback in their fight against graft, thanks to a recent court ruling that has far-reaching implications for the country's ability to investigate and prosecute crimes.
According to press reports, the courts have ruled that investigative agencies must obtain information directly from suspects before pressing charges, and that evidence obtained through secret warrants is inadmissible in court.
This decision has sparked concerns about the impact on Kenya's ability to protect itself from criminals, and has been criticized for its misunderstanding of basic criminology and investigation practices.
Surveillance is a crucial tool in the fight against crime, and the ruling effectively ends all forms of surveillance, making it harder for investigators to gather evidence and bring perpetrators to justice.
Furthermore, the ruling has raised concerns about the ability of investigators to comply with Section 8 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (PoCAMLA), which prohibits the 'tipping off' of suspects.
Experts argue that the ruling will have serious consequences for the country's ability to investigate and prosecute crimes, including terrorism and kidnapping cases.
As one expert noted, 'the effect of declaring secret warrants illegal is to end all forms of surveillance. It is hard to see how this serves anyone's interests – except the criminals.'
Despite the challenges posed by the ruling, experts believe that there are alternative strategies that can be used to disrupt the activities of economic criminals without necessarily seeking to prosecute them.
