The legislation, sponsored by Nominated MP Irene Nyakerario Mayaka, seeks to introduce a clear legal framework for preventing, investigating and punishing manipulation of sporting competitions in Kenya.

Parliament says the Bill targets match-fixing and other practices that threaten the integrity of sport.

Under the proposed law, manipulation of a sporting competition will include offering, giving or receiving an undue advantage to influence the outcome of a competition, conspiring to fix a result, deliberately underperforming and using insider information for betting.

A person who directly or indirectly takes part in, aids, enables or assists in manipulating a sporting competition will face a fine of up to Sh1 million, imprisonment for up to one year, or both upon conviction.

The legislation is also expected to strengthen the role of Sports Kenya in receiving reports of suspected manipulation and undertaking investigations in collaboration with other relevant agencies.

Parliament’s action comes amid growing concerns over match-fixing and betting-related interference in sporting competitions, particularly the vulnerability of young athletes to financial inducements.

The House also approved the nomination of Dr Duncan Oburu Ojwang as chairperson of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), clearing the way for him to take over leadership of the civilian police oversight body.

The approval followed the adoption of a report by the Departmental Committee on Administration and Internal Security, chaired by Gabriel Tongoyo, which found Ojwang suitable for the position.

“Having considered the suitability, capacity, qualifications and integrity of the nominee during the approval hearing…the Committee recommends that the House approves the nomination of Dr. Duncan Oburu Ojwang as Chairperson of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority,” the committee stated.

Ojwang, who previously served as Director of Constitutional Commissions and Independent Offices Liaison in the Office of the Deputy President, is expected to steer IPOA at a time when the authority faces intense public scrutiny over police accountability.

He succeeds Ahmed Issack Hassan, who left the position after his appointment as a Court of Appeal judge.

However, his approval has attracted questions over his legal credentials, with the Law Society of Kenya raising concerns about whether he meets the statutory requirements for the position.

The concerns emerged after documents presented during the vetting process indicated that Ojwang is not a member of the Law Society of Kenya and has not sat the Kenyan Bar examinations.

The National Assembly also considered the nomination of Flora Nduku Mutua as a member of the Public Service Commission.

Mutua’s nomination was handled by the Departmental Committee on Labour and Social Welfare, which recommended her suitability for appointment to the commission.

Her approval would fill a vacancy in the constitutional body responsible for overseeing key aspects of Kenya’s public service.

Beyond the appointments, MPs also introduced the Air Passenger Service Charge (Amendment) Bill, 2026, National Assembly Bill No. 56 of 2026, during the week’s proceedings.

The proposed legislation comes against the backdrop of earlier reforms seeking to determine how proceeds from the air passenger service charge are distributed among key aviation and tourism institutions.

The existing charge is Sh600 for domestic passengers and US$50 for international passengers.

The House also considered other legislative and oversight matters during the week, including measures touching on transport, education, public service and governance.

The post MPs pass Sports Bill as Parliament approves IPOA, PSC nominees appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Justice Alexander Muasya Muteti of the Milimani High Court directed the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) to continue investigating the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Evans Otieno Omondi, Michael Oloo Osoro and Macmillan Kiarie Mugo.

Evidence tendered before the court indicated that the three men were allegedly arrested by hooded individuals described as civilian police officers.

The evidence emerged through testimonies by their parents and wives, who narrated the circumstances surrounding their last known whereabouts and disappearance.

According to the evidence presented before Justice Muteti, the three men were allegedly seen at various locations within Nairobi estates in the days preceding the June 25 Gen Z anniversary protests before they disappeared.

The testimonies raised questions over the circumstances of their alleged arrests, their movements and what happened to them after they were allegedly taken by the hooded individuals.

The police have denied arresting the three men and maintained throughout the proceedings that they were neither arrested nor held in police custody.

Justice Muteti said IPOA and KNCHR should not halt their investigations merely because the matter is pending before court.

“Not withstanding the provisions of Section 26 of the IPOA Act and Section 30 of the Kenya National Human Rights Commission Act Cap.71 the two agencies in the spirit of transparency and promotion of accountability, be and are hereby ordered to continue with their independent investigations into the circumstances leading to the arrest and disappearance of the subjects,” Justice Muteti ruled.

The court further directed IPOA and KNCHR to share the outcome of their investigations with the court.

“The Interested parties shall be under duty to share with this court the result of their findings,” the judge said.

The ruling arose from a habeas corpus application filed by Pamela Aloo, wife of Evans Otieno Omondi, and Siasa Place over the disappearance of the three men.

The court was told that IPOA had received complaints from the families and opened inquiry files but had not proceeded with investigations, citing Section 26 of the IPOA Act.

KNCHR similarly acknowledged receiving complaints but said it could not investigate because Section 30 of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Act barred investigations into matters pending before court.

Justice Muteti rejected the restrictive interpretation of the two provisions, saying they were not intended to prevent investigations simply because a matter was before court.

“The provisions of Section 26 of the IPOA Act and Section 30 of the KNHRC Act cannot have been intended to bar investigations into a matter simply because it is before a court,” the judge said.

He said the restrictions were intended to prevent investigations that could compromise the administration of justice, rather than inquiries aimed at establishing the whereabouts of missing persons.

“The investigations can only be of benefit to securing the liberty of the individuals as opposed to compromising the integrity of the instant proceedings,” Justice Muteti said.

The judge said habeas corpus proceedings required the court to pursue the truth about the alleged detention or disappearance of the subjects.

“The court should task any agency of government that may be able to help with investigations into the whereabouts of the concerned subject without being inhibited by technicalities that may only serve to slow the wheels of justice and defeat the course of justice,” he ruled.

Justice Muteti also declined a request to declare Sections 26 of the IPOA Act and 30 of the KNHRC Act unconstitutional, saying such a determination would require a substantive constitutional petition.

“For the avoidance of doubt this court declines to travel the route of striking down the two provisions on grounds of unconstitutionality,” the judge ruled.

Instead, he interpreted the provisions in a manner that allows the two agencies to investigate where their work does not prejudice proceedings before the court.

The judge said allegations of possible police involvement in the arrest and disappearance of the three men automatically triggered IPOA’s mandate.

“The allegation of possible police involvement in the arrest and illegal detention is a matter that would automatically trigger the mandate of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority,” he said.

Justice Muteti noted that police had denied arresting the three men and maintained throughout the proceedings that they were not in police custody.

He said allowing the investigations to continue would enable the agencies to play complementary roles in establishing what happened to the missing Kenyans.

“The fact that the police are investigating the matter should not exclude other investigative agencies from continuing with their investigation since each agency would be playing a complementary role in trying to trace, find and locate the subjects with a view to informing this court of their status,” the judge ruled.

The judge also warned against an interpretation of the law that could undermine the independence of IPOA and the rights of persons affected by police actions.

He said a contrary interpretation could allow individuals to frustrate IPOA investigations by filing court proceedings whenever its intervention was required.

The order now requires IPOA and KNCHR to independently pursue the circumstances surrounding the alleged arrests and disappearance of Evans Otieno Omondi, Michael Oloo Osoro and Macmillan Kiarie Mugo and report their findings to the High Court as the habeas corpus proceedings continue.

The post Judge orders IPOA and KNCHR to probe disappearance of three Kenyans appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The trial resumed on Monday, bringing chilling eyewitness testimony that paints a grim picture of alleged police brutality on the night of August 1, 2021.

Newton Kinyua, a security guard at Namuru Bar, told Justice Margaret Muigai that he witnessed the brothers being violently assaulted before being loaded into a police Landrover.

“Boniface and Mutura were with four others when they came out of Namuru Bar and Restaurant around 10 pm. They ran in different directions when they saw the police vehicle, as it was during the Covid-19 curfew. A police officer with a long stick jumped from the vehicle and attacked Boniface,”
Kinyua recounted.

He described how Boniface was struck repeatedly until he fell unconscious, after which another officer set upon Mutura with punches and kicks.

Kinyua, who had taken cover in a public toilet, said he could see everything clearly under the electric lights.

“The two officers picked Boniface from the ground and loaded him into the Landrover. They also helped Mutura to his feet and assisted him into the vehicle. I saw it speed off towards Kianjakoma Hospital. I noticed the vehicle leave the hospital after some time,”
he testified.

Kinyua told the court that both brothers were his friends and ran a butchery business at Kianjakoma.

He learned the following day that they had died.

During cross-examination, defense lawyers Martina Swiga and Danstan Omari questioned Kinyua’s ability to identify the officers or confirm the deaths.

“I did not see the police kill the two brothers, nor did I see them jump from the moving vehicle,”
Kinyua admitted.

The six accused, James Mwaniki Njogu, Benson Mbuthia, Consolata Kariuki, Nicholas Cheruiyot, Martin Wanyama, and Lilian Cherono, have consistently denied murdering the brothers while enforcing Covid-19 curfew rules.

Their plea was entered on August 17, 2021, and the case was later inherited by Justice Muigai following the demise of Justice Daniel Ogembo.

Prosecution testimony states that police were patrolling to enforce curfew regulations when they encountered the brothers, who were walking home after closing their business.

Reports indicate that some bars in Muchagori, Embu, were operating beyond the stipulated curfew.

The mother of the deceased testified that she had called her sons to close their business and return home early, but instead, she learned that they had been killed by police.

The incident sparked public outrage in Embu County, leading to demonstrations that resulted in the burning of a police vehicle.

The defense challenged the credibility of Kinyua’s account, arguing that the incident occurred at night, during rain, making it impossible for him to clearly see or follow the police vehicle.

“The witness is relying on what he heard and saw from a distance. It is not clear whether the brothers died in the vehicle or jumped from it,” defense lawyers submitted.

Justice Muigai directed that the trial would continue with further witness testimony on February 12 and 19, 2026, with the next hearing scheduled for February 5, 2026.

The post Eyewitness Says Police Beat Kianjakoma Brothers Unconscious Before Driving Them Away appeared first on Insider Bits News.

This comes despite earlier court testimony in which Okapesi confidently stated he knew the suspect in question.

Appearing before Milimani Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo on Monday, September 1,2025, Corporal Okapesi was presented with photographic evidence by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), which allegedly captured the prime suspect, Corporal Isaiah Murangiri Ndumba, in civilian clothes during the protests that gripped the capital last year.

But when confronted with the images, Okapesi hesitated.

“Both Isaiah Murangiri and Benson Kamau are light-skinned. I can only identify them if they are produced physically,” he told the court, suggesting the person in the photos may resemble another officer, Benson Kamau, rather than Murangiri.

The statement marked a dramatic departure from his earlier position, where he had told the court he could identify Corporal Murangiri by face.

Photos, Denials, and a Struggle to Confirm Identity

The photographs in question, submitted by IPOA, were taken on June 18 and June 20, 2024, days during which large-scale protests erupted in Nairobi over the now-shelved Finance Bill.

One of the images showed a man in a blue shirt, black cap, and blue trousers, holding a walkie-talkie—an outfit that IPOA claims matches Murangiri.

However, Okapesi refused to confirm the identity, casting further uncertainty over the prosecution’s case.

“I’m not the one in those photos. On June 18, 2024, I had taken leave to attend to my sick child,” Murangiri later told the court after being recalled for comparison.

He also denied wearing any of the clothing described or carrying a police radio that day, dismissing even the most distinct features, among them a Kenyan-themed wristband and a unique birthmark.

Wristbands, Birthmarks, and Witness Testimony

Law Society of Kenya (LSK) counsel David Mwangi zeroed in on visual identifiers.

He highlighted a birthmark beneath the left ear of the man in the photographs, an attribute that appeared to match Murangiri.

Murangiri, however, denied having such a mark, prompting Mwangi to suggest he “check in a mirror at home.”

Another crucial detail was a Kenyan flag wristband and another bearing the name “Izoo” reportedly worn by the individual in both photo sets. Yet again, Murangiri denied ownership or ever wearing them.

Virtual Testimony from Protected Witness

Key testimony came from a protected witness known as “GG,” a journalist who had captured the crucial images during the protests.

Testifying virtually on July 29, GG described the suspect in minute detail.

“On June 20, he wore a black cap, dark grey short-sleeved shirt, blue jeans, black mask, white sneakers, and carried a walkie-talkie,” she said.

“On June 18, he wore a black cap, light blue shirt, grey trousers, and black shoes. He was photographed outside the Supreme Court, where arrested protesters were being held.”

GG told the court she had provided IPOA with both still images and video clips showing the same man on both dates.

She further stated that she had developed the ability to identify plainclothes officers at protests due to frequent coverage of police operations.

Rex Masai was fatally shot on June 20, 2024, near Moi Avenue during the second week of nationwide youth-led demonstrations.

The hearing of the inquest continues

The post Police Armoury Boss Fails to Identify Key Suspect in Rex Masai Killing case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a detailed affidavit filed in court, NPSC Chief Executive Officer Peter Kiptanui Leley stated that there is no evidence linking DIG Lagat to the fatal incident, nor is he the subject of any criminal or disciplinary proceedings.

“The ongoing investigations have not indicated to directly target or implicate the 1st Interested Party [Lagat] as a subject of either criminal or disciplinary inquiry,” Leley affirmed.

According to the affidavit, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) have directed their attention to six other individuals, who are now facing murder charges before the Kibera Law Courts.

Mr. Lagat, Leley said, has not been charged or held personally responsible in relation to the incident.

“The fact that the 1st Interested Party lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations cannot in itself be construed as evidence of culpability or used to justify adverse inferences,” Leley said.

The high-profile case has stirred public concern over police accountability and chain-of-command responsibility.

However, Leley emphasized that the DIG’s act of temporarily stepping aside was voluntary and driven by a desire to uphold accountability and transparency,not an admission of guilt.

“At no point did the 1st Interested Party concede unfitness or incapacity to discharge the functions of his office,” Leley said, referencing Lagat’s public letter dated June 16, 2025, in which he announced his decision to step aside to avoid any perception of interference with investigations.

The affidavit dismisses claims that a vacancy was created in the office of the DIG-Kenya Police Service (KPS), clarifying that the move was purely administrative and did not trigger the constitutional or statutory requirements for fresh recruitment.

“There exists no legal or constitutional basis to commence a recruitment process,” Leley stated, adding that the temporary designation of a senior officer to manage administrative tasks in Lagat’s absence did not amount to an acting appointment.

He maintained that under Section 13 of the National Police Service Act, recruitment for the DIG position can only begin if a vacancy arises through resignation, removal, retirement, or death—all of which are not applicable in this case.

Leley further rebutted accusations that the NPSC violated Articles 245(3), 246(3)(b), or 249 of the Constitution by allowing Lagat to step aside, asserting that the Inspector-General of Police had sought and received the Commission’s acknowledgment of the administrative leave.

“The administrative arrangements put in place did not create a new office holder nor elevate the 2nd Interested Party (Lgat’s assistant Tito) to the status of acting DIG,” Leley added.

The NPSC boss argued that the petition filed by activist Eliud Matindi is grounded on misinterpretations of law and speculative claims.

“The Notice of Motion dated 20th June 2025 and the accompanying Petition are premised on misapprehensions of fact and law,” he said.

“They ought to be dismissed with costs.”

The post NPSC CEO Defends DIG Lagat in Blogger Ojwang’ Murder Case, Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Justice Chacha Mwita directed Lagat, the Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, and the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) to file their responses to the petition by July 23, 2025, after which the court will give further directions.

Matindi had requested interim orders to bar Lagat from performing any functions as DIG, citing Section 23 of the National Police Service Act.

He also sought similar orders against Lagat’s assistant, Patrick Tito, who was allegedly irregularly appointed as acting DIG through a delegation letter dated June 16, 2025.

Represented by lawyer Cecil Miller, Lagat asked for more time to respond before any injunctive relief could be issued.

The AG and NPSC also requested 14 days to file their responses.

Despite the Attorney General’s claim of not being served, Justice Mwita dismissed this, noting that substituted service had been effected through a newspaper advertisement published on July 4, 2025.

Matindi argued that Lagat’s “step aside” from office following the death of blogger Albert Ojwang’ in police custody was unconstitutional, pointing out no legal provision allows a DIG to self-step aside under Kenyan law.

He asserted a transparent recruitment process should have been initiated instead.

Highlighting the ongoing crisis in the Kenya Police Service, Matindi urged the court to act urgently to protect constitutional order and public interest.

Justice Mwita ordered all parties, including the Law Society of Kenya and Katiba Institute, to submit their responses within seven days.

The post High Court declines to bar DIG Lagat from performing duties appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Constables Duncan Kiprono and Masinde Barasa were arraigned before Senior Principal Magistrate Benmark Ekhubi on Thursday.

The court adopted a consent agreement between the prosecution and defence teams, allowing the officers to be held at Capital Hill Police Station without arguments being heard on the application.

“We adopt the compromise of the applicants; the respondents be remanded at Capital Hill Police Station for a period of 15 days,” ruled Magistrate Ekhubi.

Prosecuting counsel Victor Owiti informed the court that both parties had reached a consensus to hold the officers for 15 days, down from the 21 days initially requested by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA).

Defence lawyers Vincent Yegon and Abdulzhack also consented to the arrangement.

The case stems from an incident during a protest against the brutal killing of Albert Omondi Ojwang, during which the two officers allegedly opened fire, critically injuring a 22-year-old hawker.

The victim is currently admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at Kenyatta National Hospital.

The case will be mentioned on July 3, 2025, to review the progress of investigations.

The post Two Police Officers Accused of Shooting Hawker to Remain in Custody for 15 Days appeared first on Insider Bits News.