Eric Omondi has been released on a free bond in a traffic obstruction case after a Nairobi court cited his history of faithfully attending previous court proceedings as a key reason for allowing him to remain out of custody.
Milimani Magistrate Carolyne Nyaguthii said the court was satisfied that Omondi would continue to attend proceedings as required, noting that he had several other cases before the Milimani Law Courts in which he had complied with court attendance requirements.
He was arrested in Nairobi’s Central Business District while collecting signatures in support of his “Punguza Mzigo” referendum initiative.
They denied the allegations.
In her directions following the parties’ submissions on the bond terms, the magistrate said Omondi’s conduct in the other cases was relevant in determining the appropriate bond terms in the current case.
“The court knows that the first accused person (Eric) has several cases before the Milimani Law Courts, some cases even before this very court,” Magistrate Nyaguthii said.
“I do believe his bond adherence to the other cases is material when it comes to the consideration for bond terms.”
She noted that Omondi had “faithfully attended the court sessions” in the other matters, adding that she was confident the same would apply to the current case.
“I dare say, even if the first accused was to be released on a free bond, he is going nowhere,” the magistrate said.
The court consequently ordered Omondi to be released on a free bond and directed him to attend court when required, including during the mention for pre-trial directions.
Magistrate Nyaguthii also took into account the prosecution’s position on the bail application.
While the State urged the court to impose reasonable bail or bond terms commensurate with the charges, it did not oppose the accused persons being released.
The magistrate observed that the prosecution’s concession to the accused persons being released indicated that it had no major apprehension that they would abscond, interfere with witnesses or otherwise prejudice the prosecution of the case.
The defence lawyers, however, argued that the accused persons were being victimised for exercising their constitutional rights.
The court said that, at the bail stage, it would not delve into the merits of the prosecution’s case, noting that the key consideration was whether the accused persons would attend court when required.
For the other seven co-accused persons, however, the court said it did not have the same records regarding their compliance with previous court attendances.
It nevertheless opted to give them the benefit of the doubt.
They were each directed to execute a personal bond of Sh2,000 to ensure their attendance at the next court date.
The magistrate also directed that the defence be supplied with the relevant documents the prosecution intends to rely on in support of the case.