NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has ordered the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) to pay High Court Advocate Abdinoor Maalim Ismail KSh6.9 million after finding he was prosecuted without any factual basis over the 2019 DusitD2 terror attack.
Justice Patricia Nyaundi ruled that the state prosecution organ flagrantly violated Article 157(11) of the Constitution by instituting severe criminal proceedings that were entirely unsupported by evidence. The court held that the ODPP’s actions amounted to an abuse of the legal process, violating the petitioner’s constitutional right to equal protection and benefit of the law under Article 27.
Millions Awarded in Special and General Damages
In her comprehensive judgment, Justice Nyaundi awarded the advocate KSh5 million in general damages to compensate for the severe violation of his fundamental constitutional rights. An additional KSh1.9 million was granted in special damages to fully reimburse the legal expenses he incurred while defending himself against the state. The High Court further ordered the ODPP to cover the full costs of the petition.
Ismail, a practicing advocate and the director of Seatech Limited, was arrested in January 2019 during a sweeping security sweep following the deadly DusitD2 complex terror raid. State security agencies accused him of aiding, abetting, and financing terrorism through his company’s corporate M-Pesa business.
A Three-Year Legal Nightmare Ends in Absolution
The petitioner was subjected to a grueling 39-day detention period before being formally charged. He endured a punishing three-year criminal trial before being completely acquitted in March 2022 under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, after the trial court established that the state lacked a single shred of evidence linking him to the offenses.
While Justice Nyaundi observed that the petitioner did not explicitly prove underlying malice on the part of individual prosecutors, she held that the ODPP fundamentally failed in its institutional constitutional duty. The judge emphasized that the state must ensure criminal charges are firmly anchored on credible evidence before invoking its coercive powers against citizens.
The court noted that the prosecution’s reckless actions subjected the blameless petitioner to prolonged detention, a agonizingly lengthy criminal trial, and severely delayed his formal admission to the Roll of Advocates, resulting in far-reaching personal, financial, and professional devastation.
