IRANIANS JAILED OVER TERRORISM TO SERVE REMAINING 10 YEARS , SUPREME COURT RULE.

0
1267
Two Iranians Sayed Mousavi and Ahmad Mohammed at Supreme court after decision of majority judges ruled against them.

BY SAM ALFAN.

The Supreme Court has reversed the acquittal of two Iranian citizens and upheld their 15-year jail term for terrorism.

“The judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal made on 28th January, 2018 are hereby set aside and The conviction by the trial court of the respondents and the High Court decision are hereby affirmed,” ruled the supreme court.

This is after four judges Chief Justice David Maraga, Jackton Ojwang’, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola were the majority judges upheld the decision of the High Court that convicted two Iranian Sayed Nasrollah Ebrahim and Abdolhosein Gholi to serve 15 years in prison from a life imprisonment imposed by the trial court.

“The respondents shall serve the remainder of their imprisonment term after which they shall be repatriated to their country,” ruled the judges.

The Court of Appeal had acquitted the two after they appealed the High Court sentencing.

The majority decision set aside entire decision of court of appeal acquitting the two over terrorism related charges.

While reversing the decision the judges found that evidence given showed that the two planted a 15kg explosive at a Mombasa golf course and failed to give evidence on their business in Kenya.

The top court agreed with DPP that the two had an explosive after one of them admitted the on same and the this made the court to find that the two were indeed guilty.

However, Justice Mohammed Ibrahim and Smoking Wanjala dissented to the decision of the majority judges saying the evidence against Mousavi and Mohammed was not watertight.

The two judges said the evidence was purely circumstantial which could not have been used to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Ojwang’ read the ruling on behalf of the majority while Justice Ibrahim read the dissent

The court however ordered the two jailed will now to serve their remaining eight years term at Kamiti Maximum prison after serving Seven years in jail and upon completion of their jail term, they will be repatriated to Iran.

The duo were arrested after they allegedly come to Kenya for a 10 day holiday.

The two judges said the evidence was purely circumstantial which could not have been used to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

While dissenting with the four judges he said In doing so, he was not insensitive to the fact that our country, has suffered innumerable acts of terrorism, which have been satanically planned, and executed with ruthless bestiality against innocent people. Such heinous crimes, must be harshly punished.

He said the law enforcement agencies, charged with the duty of tracking down those who commit such horrible crimes and cause so much pain and grief, must not be hampered in any way, as they go about their noble duties.

“Yet courts of law, must still remain true to the safeguards that have been put in place, by the Constitution and the law to ensure that the public interest and the rights of an accused person are both safeguarded at the altar of justice,” said Judge Ibrahim.

Judges said the judgement was unique and it has broken new ground in a matter certified as raising matters of great public interest as stated elsewhere above.

“By it, we have clarified issues that should guide lower courts in the discharge of their mandate in determining criminal cases,” noted the judges.

https://nairobitimez.co.ke/2018/12/14/iranians-on-terror-charges-their-continued-detention-is-politically-motivated-says-ahmednasir/ via @Nairobi Times

The Supreme Court found that evidence given showed that the two planted a 15kg explosive at a Mombasa golf course. The court also gave the lawyer representing the duo, Ahmednasir Abdullahi, a dressing down for allegedly continuously disrespecting the court.

Appellate Judges Kihara Kariuki, Kathurima M’inoti and Agnes Murgor held that the circumstantial evidence relied on by both the High Court, and Magistrate Court, was so weak that it did not point to them as the only persons who could have placed the bomb-making material, RDX, at the Mombasa Golf Course where it was found.

The Two Iranians were jailed for 15 years in 2013 over terror-related charges The High Court found Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed, and Sayed Mansour Mousavi, guilty of concealing 15 kilograms of bomb-making material in the country.

But moved to the court of appeal through their lawyer Ahmednassir Abdullahi where they secured their freedom after the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no sufficient evidence to link them to the bomb-making material recovered in 2012.

The Director of Public Prosecution early this year applied to the Supreme Court seeking to quash a decision that set free two Iranians who were jailed by high court over terror-related charges.

Supreme court  Justice J.B Ojwang had directed that Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed, and Sayed Mansour Mousavi remain within the jurisdiction of the supreme court.

“The applicant will be contesting the release by the appellate court, of the two who were facing charges bearing claims of serious threat to the security of citizens –notable the charge under the Explosives Act,” rule justice Ojwang.

The court further certified the matter as urgent.

The DPP in its appeal said he was dissatisfied with the judgment issued by the court of appeal adding that it erred in law by quashing the sentence and setting the two free.

Supreme Court accepted submission made by senior director of public prosecution Duncan Ondimu that, if the two were repatriated , it will be difficult to secure the two presence in Kenya to complete their imprisonment term if the state appeal is disallowed.

Two Iranians accused the court of exercising illegal political powers without lawful jurisdiction over the two Iranians.

Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed and Sayed Mansour Mousavi through their lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi accused the superior court of being used by the state to legitimatize the illegal and unlawful detention of the the two.

They further accused the court of exercising what they term as “political justice”.

“The proceeding herein is in nature of a political show trial conducted by the court at the insistence of the state. Like all political show trials, the judgment of the Court, if the Court’s two previous rulings in the matter are anything to go by is a pre-determined and a foregone conclusion. The Respondents are reluctant participants in this political show trial,” Ahmednasir said in submissions.

The senior counsel submitted that the two are prisoners of conscience held by government of Kenya with the assistance of the supreme court and are being detained or held pursuant to orders issued by the court under powers that are essentially political and obviously extralegal.

The duo accused the court of being bias against them and lacks impartiality and the minimum ingredients of independence from the state and it agents in hearing and determine the case.

“This total lack of independence on the part of the Court has been extravagantly exhibited in the two rulings delivered by this Court in this matter. The Court had previously based its decision on extraneous political factors/considerations that are underpinned by a nationalistic affinity between the Court and the state. The two previous rulings were not based on a known statute or the Constitution of Kenya,” said Ahmednasir.

Please follow and like us:

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here