The views of the victim must be considered before prosecutors are allowed to withdraw a criminal case, the High Court has ruled.
Justice Teresia Matheka said the Victim Protection Act made the victim less of a spectator in court proceedings and more of an active participant.
“In our constitutional dispensation, the rights of the victim are no less than those of the accused person,” Justice Matheka said in her ruling.
“We are, as the justice system, obligated to provide ways and means where parties and witnesses in all categories of cases can access the requisite information as that is core to access to justice.”
The ruling followed an application by Solai Dam owner Patel Mansukh (now deceased) challenging the trial court’s decision to allow the withdrawal of criminal charges against Kabazi MCA Peter Mbae and eight others on October 15 last year.
Dr Mbae and his co-accused were charged with incitement to violence, arson and malicious damage to property worth Sh7 million belonging to the Patel coffee estate in Nakuru on January 30, 2019.
This was during a protest that rocked the Solai area after police disrupted a meeting planned by victims of the Solai dam tragedy and the Kenya Human Rights Commission to push for compensation.
Mansukh complained that the court’s decision to set the suspects free was made illegally and without his consent.
He lamented that the court record was incomplete and incomprehensible and did not provide a proper account of who was in court and what transpired before the charges were withdrawn.
The court heard that neither the complainant nor his lawyer was present in court when the decision was made and they had not been informed of the court date.
Dr Mbae, for his part, had argued that it was not their fault that the complainant was not informed, and that the suspects could not be punished for the mistakes of a judicial officer.
Justice Matheka faulted prosecutors, saying they made no effort to inform the victim of their intention to withdraw the charges so that the victim could participate in the proceedings.
She set aside the trial court’s ruling and ordered that the criminal proceedings be reinstated.
“The subordinate court had the duty to uphold the law, and in this case, in considering the application by the prosecution, the learned magistrate was required to consider the views of the victim before either allowing or disallowing the application,” the judge ruled.
The trial is set to proceed in December BY DAILY NATION