Nancy Kigunzu, a prominent businesswoman known as ‘Mathe wa Ngara,’ has been refused bail in a significant drug trafficking case.
The court’s ruling stemmed from concerns that Kigunzu posed a significant flight risk due to her alleged involvement in the drug trade. Magistrate Njeri Thuku, presiding over the case, concluded that granting her bail would not align with the pursuit of justice.
Kigunzu, along with co-accused Eugine Jumbo, also denied bail, will remain in custody until the court hears and adjudicates the drug trafficking charges against them.
However, Teresia Wanjiru, another co-accused, has been granted cash bail amounting to Ksh. 50,000.
Wanjiru’s release is conditional on her providing contact details for two individuals, one of whom must be a blood relative. Additionally, she is required to submit a social report at the JKIA law courts within a week.
‘Mathe wa Ngara’ has been in detention since her arrest on August 21 in connection with a significant drug seizure in Nairobi’s Ngara district, where law enforcement also confiscated Ksh. 13.4 million in cash.
During the bail hearing, Kigunzu experienced a medical incident, highlighting her need for ongoing medical care and medication. She expressed concerns that her health could deteriorate if she were denied bail.
Facing Magistrate Njeri Thuku, Kigunzu vehemently denied accusations that she posed a flight risk or intended to evade court proceedings.
Represented by her attorney, Danstan Omari, Kigunzu emphasized that her children were apprehended at a residential location while she was arrested in Nairobi CBD. This, she argued, underlined her rootedness in the community.
Moreover, she countered claims of potential witness interference, pointing out that all the witnesses were law enforcement officers, making it implausible for her to exert any influence over them.
Present in court were not only Kigunzu but also co-accused Teresia Wanjiru and two others, all seeking release on bail. The accused individuals, through their legal representatives, contested that the prosecution had failed to establish compelling grounds to justify their continued detention in remand.
