Blogger Ndiang'ui and his family appear before the Milimani High Court on July 18, 2025/JAMES GICHIGIConfusion over affidavits and legal representation in a case involving Ndiang’ui Kinyagia, the second petitioner, has forced the High Court to adjourn the matter to July 24, 2025.
Justice Chacha Mwita pointed out inconsistencies between the parties claiming to act on behalf of Ndiang’ui, further complicating proceedings.
The confusion stems from an affidavit filed on July 3, 2025, which has now drawn in Ndiang’ui, his mother, and a family lawyer, Lilian Gitonga, all of whom are expected to be cross-examined by LSK.
Lawyer Kibe Mungai, appearing for Lilian and family, explained that he had initially joined forces with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and Ndiang’ui after establishing contact with the family.
He told the court that during previous proceedings, he had been tasked to liaise with Ndiang’ui and the family to prepare an affidavit.
However, after discussions with the family, the affidavit was amended without his input, creating contradictions between the instructions he had received and what was eventually filed.
“When we left court, the family said the affidavit was making them uncomfortable, and I told them to amend it to a version they were comfortable with,” Kibe told the court.
“Subsequently, I received an amended affidavit that was materially different from the instructions I had drawn from Ndiang’ui.”
Justice Mwita remarked on the visible discomfort Kibe exhibited during his explanation, highlighting the same to LSK’s President Faith Odhiambo during the proceedings.
“You could tell his body language was discomforting,” Mwita noted, adding the need for clarification on who speaks for the second petitioner and said there would be no meaningful progress until the issues were ironed out.
“The affidavit here is by someone else and not the second petitioner. We need to make that distinction so that this person can cross-examine this person,” Justice Mwita stated.
The Law Society of Kenya, represented by Faith Odhiambo, said it intended to cross-examine the witnesses, a position that neither the prosecution nor the lawyers opposed.
Kibe clarified that although his law firm had filed the affidavit in question, he had done so on the understanding that the instructions were coming from the family.
“I would not have filed that affidavit had I not been told to do that,” he said.
After hearing all parties, Justice Mwita directed them to resolve the outstanding issues ahead of the next hearing on July 24.
