A police officer who colluded with another man to rob a cashier of Sh15 million at gunpoint at Mitsumi Business Park, Parklands Nairobi has pleaded with the court to give him a non-custodial sentence.
Corporal George Onyango Mtere attached to Ruiru police station and his co-accused Bernard Ogutu Okech were convicted of robbery with violence after senior principal magistrate Bernard Ochoi found them guilty of robbing Daksha Patel over Sh15 million at gunpoint.
The 49-year-old police officer, who once served at Kitengela police station, begged for mercy saying in his 25 years in the police force, he has never been involved in any criminal offence or disciplinary action from his employer.
Onyango through his lawyer Danstan Omari urged the court to exercise mercy because the community was willing to accept him back.
“He is a well-jelled social person within the community. The area chief has confirmed this man is good and the community is waiting to take him and rehabilitate him,” said Omari
“Don’t take him to the prisons he will be contaminated and come back radical,” Omari told the court.”
He told the court that despite working in more than 20 police stations in Kenya, he has never abused drugs or been involved in alcoholism.
He said he is a prodigal son who has come to say sorry to the whole public for whatever happened.
He told the court that he has a terminal health challenge which requires continuous medical review and that the prison authority does not encourage custodial terms for persons who are terminally ill.
He said: “There is a huge number of inmates in prison, the policy is to remove and decongest prison based on economies and on the facilities built by the colonial government.”
“We moved from a tit for tat, eye for an eye to a rehabilitative sentence.”
While finding the two guilty, Ochoi noted in his decision that the victim of the robbery, Daksha Patel, positively identified Officer Onyango and his accomplice Ogutu as the robbers of her handbag at gunpoint inside a lift as she left the building.
Patel was accosted by the two attackers, both armed with pistols, as she headed to a bank to deposit the money, and robbed of her handbag, laptop, and mobile phone.
“The gunmen confronted me and others in the lift as we were getting out, one man brandishing a gun asked me to release the backpack I was carrying, but I hesitated, and Corporal Onyango grabbed the bag which had the money, and the two walked away,” Patel testified.
“I find that the evidence of Patel was corroborated by the CCTV footage that was played in court,” Ochoi said.
The magistrate also convicted three employees working at Mitsumi Business Park, including Albert Oketch Ochola, who is the plumber at the building, Wycliffe Marani, who is the electrician, and Walter Kiverenge Indimali, who is the caretaker and supervisor at the building, for organizing the robbery and bringing in officer Onyango and Ogutu to rob Patel.
It was the case of the victim, a cashier at the Mitsumi Computer Garage, that on December 7, 2020, around 5:30 pm, she was counting cash in the office.
Due to exceeding the allowed limit, she decided to deposit $150,000 in a safe at the nearby Golden Tulips building.
While in the lift, she encountered two men and two women. Upon reaching the ground floor, two men entered, one armed with a pistol.
They demanded her laptop bag, containing the cash. Despite resistance, one snatched the bag. The incident was reported to the police.
Patel identified them through CCTV footage.
The accused were their employees, identified on the 12th floor, but not on the ground floor during the incident.
Patel clarified that bank visits were infrequent, and they used the safe for after-hours transactions.
However, the 1st accused, Walter Keverenge, a Mitsumi supervisor, Bernard Ogutu, a welder, Albert Oketch, a Mitsumi employee, Wycliffe Mbarani and George Onyango, a police officer denied being involved in the robbery
Their lawyer argued that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the generation, storage, and communication of electronic and digital evidence, questioning its admissibility under Section 78A of the Evidence Act.
They also contended that the prosecution failed to prove the complainant’s possession of the stolen money, crucial for establishing ownership and theft.
They argued that the police, despite having ample time, didn’t obtain search warrants for the accused’s premises, violating their rights and fundamental freedoms. As a result, they urged the court not to admit and rely on evidence obtained after these searches.