Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga ordered the Directorate of Criminal Investigations on August 5 to form a new investigative team, removing the case from Karen police station amid allegations officers helped orchestrate a cover-up in a crash that killed two Peponi School students less than four months ago.
The move came after the family of a third student — left in a coma from the April 25 crash along Ngong Road — accused traffic officers at Karen police station of protecting the underage son of a prominent Kenyan businessman who they say was actually driving. The businessman's Isuzu D-Max pick-up truck, imported in 2018 and registered to his company, carried seven students home from a leavers' party at Muthaiga Country Club when it crashed in the early morning hours. Two foreign nationals died. One remains in a coma.
The Unusual Court Objection
The Chief Magistrate's Court in Kibera heard an extraordinary objection Tuesday morning when prosecutor Michael Mutune applied to withdraw charges against the businessman's nephew, who'd been charged with causing death by dangerous driving on May 28. The nephew, through lawyer Marete, refused to accept the withdrawal. He wanted to plead guilty.
Mr Marete told Magistrate Stella Atambo he'd spent the entire weekend counselling his client, who'd initially pleaded not guilty less than three months ago. After that counselling, the accused was ready to plead guilty to all charges and accept whatever conviction and sentence the court imposed. Magistrate Atambo will rule on the DPP's withdrawal application on August 27, in 14 days.
Conflicting Accounts and Missing Evidence
The prosecutor explained the withdrawal would facilitate thorough investigations to determine who actually sat in the driver's seat. When police arrived at the crash scene, nobody occupied that seat. The vehicle's owner told police his nephew was driving and that his son and four other students were passengers. The businessman's son, who sustained minor injuries, confirmed his cousin was driving. The nephew also told police he was driving.
But the family of the comatose student, represented by Murgor & Murgor Advocates, wrote to the ODPP three times between June and August questioning how someone was being prosecuted before investigators established the driver's identity. Their letters demanded examination of CCTV footage from the crash scene, phone location data from all parties involved, and statements from various witnesses. They maintain the businessman's underage son was driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Two Peponi School students had been dropped at their homes in Muthaiga and Kitisuru before the crash, making them potential witnesses. One student who was dropped home safely told police the prominent businessman's nephew was driving. Yet Peponi School's headmaster Mark Durston told learners and staff in an official communication on May 18, about three months ago, that the businessman's son was driving. "In the early hours of the following morning, a group of pupils left the Club in a private vehicle driven by one of the pupils, [name withheld for legal reasons]. There were seven pupils in total, with the intention that passengers would be dropped at their respective homes," Mr Durston's communication read.
Investigation Obstacles and New Directions
Five days after the crash, Karen police station's traffic department filed an application seeking court orders to compel Peponi School to grant officers access to record witness statements. The school said it could only allow access after receiving a court order and parental consent. By June 5, about two months ago, when the court issued those orders, the A-Level class had finished final exams and learners had been released to their parents.
The DPP's office has now directed investigators to examine conspiracy to defeat justice, which could entangle the businessman, his son, and his nephew. The businessman's nephew claimed he lost control when swerving to avoid hitting a motorcycle being ridden on the wrong side of the road. He said it was raining and the road was wet. A police constable who arrived at the scene contradicted that account, stating in his statement that it had rained earlier in the day but the road was completely dry. "The driver of the said motor vehicle [registration number withheld] must have been at a very high speed bearing in mind that the road was dry. It (the accident) occurred at a right slight bend…," the officer's statement reads.
The nephew told police a good Samaritan helped him break the windscreen and exit the vehicle, and that he froze upon seeing three learners who'd been thrown out as the Isuzu D-Max rolled. He added that another motorist offered to drive him to the city centre, warning he might be attacked for causing the accident. He said he borrowed somebody's phone in the city centre to call his uncle before going home.
The father of the student in a coma told police the prominent businessman and his wife were at Karen Hospital when he arrived, and that his son was then transferred to MP Shah. The businessman followed them before handing over a CT scan conducted at Karen Hospital. The businessman's nephew claimed his cousin only drove the vehicle from Muthaiga Country Club to a block of apartments a few metres away.
Why This Matters:
The removal of Karen police station from this investigation and the DPP's directive to examine conspiracy to defeat justice underscore serious concerns about institutional integrity within law enforcement. When police stations face credible allegations of protecting well-connected individuals, the rule of law itself becomes the casualty. The contradictions between witness statements, physical evidence, and official school communications suggest a systematic effort to obscure the truth rather than establish it. The nephew's insistence on pleading guilty — even as prosecutors seek to withdraw charges — raises questions about whether someone is attempting to shield the actual driver from accountability. For Kenya's justice system to maintain public confidence, investigations must follow evidence regardless of a suspect's family connections or social standing. The families of two deceased students and one critically injured student deserve answers based on facts, not influence.