Acting Inspector General of Police, Gilbert Masengeli, has alleged that he was unfairly targeted and that the court overreached by sentencing him without being heard. Last Friday, Masengeli was sentenced to six months in prison after being found guilty of contempt of court.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi ordered Masengeli to surrender to the Commissioner General of Prisons. Alternatively, the judge directed that Masengeli appear in person to address the “issues he has been avoiding.”
The case stems from Masengeli’s failure to appear in court to explain the disappearance of three individuals in Kitengela. Justice Mugambi granted him a seven-day period to avoid serving the sentence by appearing in court.
“The Acting Inspector General can redeem himself by appearing before this court to address the issues he has been avoiding. Failure to do so will result in the sentence being enforced,” the judge stated.
Masengeli had ignored the court summons seven times, offering various reasons for his absence.
In one instance, Acting Inspector General of Police, Gilbert Masengeli, claimed he was unable to appear in court because he was attending a workshop and handling security issues in Mombasa and Wajir. On another occasion, he requested the court to reschedule his appearance for the following Monday, but he still failed to show up.
Instead, he sent Deputy IG Eliud Lagat, asking the court to consider his ‘busy schedule.’ This move frustrated the judge, who noted that Masengeli had “casually treated every opportunity given to him by the court.” Justice Mugambi remarked that deliberate defiance of court orders fosters impunity, especially when done by public officials.
“I do not wish to be unfair to anyone. I have gone out of my way to accommodate him, giving him multiple chances, even on the last possible day,” the judge said. With his final ruling, Justice Mugambi fulfilled the Law Society’s request by sentencing the Acting IG.
Masengeli has since appealed, seeking to have his conviction and sentence suspended, arguing that he was condemned without a fair hearing. He claims the court sentenced him without a formal application for contempt being filed.
Represented by advocate Steve Ogolla, Masengeli argued that the judge erred in ruling that he could not send representatives to explain the police’s failure to produce the missing individuals. He cited Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules (2010), which allows court appearances through advocates or recognized agents, and maintained that the summons did not require his personal attendance.
Masengeli further accused the judge of bias, claiming that Justice Mugambi applied different standards when considering his evidence versus the unsubstantiated claims of the respondents. He also asserted that his replying affidavit proved the missing Kenyans were not in police custody, yet the court dismissed this evidence.
ALSO READ:
