Judge blocks seizure of assets in drug trafficking case

The State has lost a bid to seize multi-million shilling properties of a suspected drug trafficker, who was arrested by police four years ago transporting bhang worth Sh11 million on the Nairobi-Nakuru highway.

Through the Asset Recovery Agency (ARA), the State wanted the court to declare properties of Ruth Auma are proceeds of crime and liable for forfeiture to the agency.

The targeted properties are a parcel of land in Mavoko and two motor vehicles, which ARA alleged were acquired using funds generated from dealing or trading in narcotics substances.

But Justice Musyoka dismissed the application upon finding that the agency failed to sufficiently connect the property to any proceeds of crime.

He asked ARA to ‘up their game’ in investigations by avoiding making general statements. He said the agency ought to furnish the court with details of the alleged offences to secure orders for forfeiture of assets acquired through criminal enterprise.

Ms Auma was arrested in August 2020 at the Gilgil weighbridge along the Nakuru - Nairobi highway and police recovered 368.5 kilogrammes of green substance from her.

During the arrest, her vehicle, nine sacks of green plant material stored in the motor vehicle, and a police abstract for a person named Paul Otieno were recovered. The green substance was later tested at the Government Chemist and confirmed to be cannabis with a street value of Sh11 million.

She was subsequently arraigned before the Anti-Narcotics court at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport and charged with the offence of trafficking narcotic drugs.

ARA pegged its forfeiture suit on this criminal case with its investigator Nicholas Sune alleging that the agency obtained warrants to search and inspect her bank accounts and mobile lines after her arrest and arraignment in court.

The judge noted that Ms Auma’s title for the Mavoko land had been charged to Absa Bank Kenya Limited for a Sh8.4 million loan, hence the ARA could not seize the property without engaging the bank. She had five accounts at Absa Bank.

“Where a property is charged, the same cannot be forfeited without giving the bank an opportunity to be heard,” he stated.

He said that after analysing the bank statements tabled by ARA, the court noted one of them was a loan account and the property was bought using the loan facility advanced to Ms Auma by the bank.

He stated ARA should have demonstrated to the court that the repayments of the loan were from proceeds of crimes which would have justified the intended forfeiture.

“In my opinion, the ARA did not conduct sufficient investigations to warrant Ms Auma to be called upon to provide explanations of the acquisition of her assets. I say so because there were no investigations for 2019 and 2021 when the motor vehicles were acquired,” said the judge.

According to him, the only investigations that the agency carried out after receiving the information about Ms Auma being charged in JKIA law courts were procurement of her bank and Mpesa statements and ownership of the landed property.

“This to me is not enough to establish a strong case as not all persons arrested and charged in court are necessarily guilty or connected to the offence they are charged with. The ARA must take further steps to investigate the suspected assets and make a correlation between the assets and a crime or illegitimate source of funds,” stated Justice Musyoki.