Revealed: KWS rangers broke rules in handling missing fisherman Odhiambo

By  Joseph Openda

Correspondent

Nation Media Group

The trial of six Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) rangers charged with the abduction of missing Nakuru fisherman Brian Odhiambo has exposed how the officers failed to follow the law while handling the suspect.

The difficulties faced by various KWS officers in responding to procedural questions posed by the prosecution and lawyers representing Odhiambo’s family revealed a serious lapse in adherence to KWS standard operating procedures when dealing with wildlife crime suspects.

The officers were left unable to justify their actions, which were deemed to have departed from the established rules and procedures.

For instance, a question was raised over the failure by a ranger identified as Abdulrahman Ali Sudi to immediately report an alleged escape by Mr Odhiambo on January 18, who had been left in his custody on time and had to wait until his commander, Francis Wachira, called him before he could explain.

Sudi is a KWS ranger and driver who is among the six KWS rangers charged with the abduction with intent to confine Mr Odhiambo at an unknown place on January 18, 2025. He is said to be the last person seen with Mr Odhiambo before he went missing.

Other suspects include Alexander Lorogoi, Isaac Ochieng, Michael Wabukala and Evans Kimaiyo. Witnesses said Sudi was left in the custody of Mr Odhiambo at the Sewage area after he was arrested by the team.

Mr Wachira, one of the suspects, who took to the stand to defend himself, told the court that he called Mr Sudi at 2 pm to get an update on the suspect he had left in his custody at the Sewage area, only for Sudi to claim the suspect had escaped after beating him.

However, this explanation did not go down well with the prosecution team, who questioned the procedural failure.

The issue arose again on Monday during the cross-examination of the final defence witness, Edwin Mwasi, a senior investigations officer at the KWS. Testifying as an expert, lawyers Abuya Mogendi and Kipkoech Ng’etich asked the witness for their opinion on how the suspect was handled.

The lawyers also asked the expert for his opinion on Mr Sudi's decision to accompany the suspect for hours, despite the incident never being recorded in the occurrence book at the time.

“How do you take of the fact that the Sudi moved around with the suspect but did not see the need of reporting the incident for it to be recorded in the OB. Does it concern you that he had to wait for his boss to call him for him to say that the suspect had escaped?” they asked.

Mr Mwasi, in his response, admitted that it was against the procedures for an officer not to report an incident as it occurs. He was, however, fast to explain that Sudi could have acted based on the instructions and directives given by his commander in the operation.

“It is expected that the information on Brian's disappearance should have been relayed as soon as possible. It is a requirement that the OB be entered within at least two or three hours after the incident has occurred,” stated Mr Mwasi.

Another question emerged over the decision by the operation commander, Senior Sergeant Wachira, to leave the suspect in the custody of only one officer, that is, Sudi.

Mr Mwachi, while explaining the procedures, indicated that it is a requirement that a suspect must be held with at least two officers.

Mr Wachira, in his earlier testimony, had defended himself, arguing that the service is understaffed yet the magnitude of work is high. He further explained that Sudi was among the highly specialised rangers in the said operation.

He further defended Sudi from any wrongdoing, noting that despite being in custody of the officer, he was not the one who arrested him, adding that the law provides that the arresting officer ought to be the one to present the suspects to the investigation’s office for processing and arraignment in court.

“There are numerous activities in the park and the number of rangers present is not sufficient to handle all of them effectively. Sometimes we are forced to divide the work and stretch our abilities,” said Mr Wachira.

The issue of the fact that Odhiambo’s disappearance was recorded in the remarks section after the supervisor had signed for him to check in also featured prominently in the trial. The prosecution insisted that this was done as an afterthought in an attempt to cover up the case.

Mr Mwasi, who said the OB is usually checked at 11:59 pm, however, maintained that the law does not prevent them from recording the incident at the said section. He further noted that the supervisor can check out the OB at any time, despite the operating procedures providing 11:59 pm.

Furthermore, the witness explained that the report of the court-sanctioned search in October 2025 has never been made available, making it difficult to ascertain the outcome of the search.

Mr Mwasi's testimony brings the trial to a close. The trial has continued for over one and a half months, during which time 10 prosecution witnesses and seven defence witnesses were called.

The court directed that parties file and serve written submissions within 21 days each before the matter is mentioned on October 26 for highlighting.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.