High Court upholds drug trafficking conviction in 18kg cannabis case

A man convicted of trafficking narcotic drugs has lost his bid to overturn the verdict, with the High Court reaffirming his guilt and upholding the lower court's decision.

The ruling was delivered by the High Court proceedings in Isiolo, following an appeal that challenged both the conviction and sentence imposed by the magistrate’s court.

The case stems from an incident along the Marsabit–Isiolo highway, where the appellant was stopped at a police checkpoint while driving a vehicle originating from Marsabit.

Upon inspection of the vehicle, which he was driving alone, police officers discovered suspicious packages concealed in hidden compartments within the dashboard.

These packages contained a green, plant-like substance, which was seized and forwarded to a government analyst for forensic analysis.

In the report submitted to the trial court, the substance was confirmed to be cannabis sativa.

The total weight of the drug was established to be over 18 kilograms.

The matter was then taken to court, and the driver was charged with trafficking in narcotic drugs, contrary to Section 4(a)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act as amended in 2022.

During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including police officers who conducted the search, and a government chemist who analysed the recovered substance.

The key evidence included the seized narcotics, photographs of the vehicle, the weighing certificate, and the signed inventory acknowledging the seizure.

According to the prosecution, the accused was in sole possession and control of the vehicle and the drugs, and at no point did he object to or contest the seizure documentation during the trial.

In his defense, the accused claimed he had no knowledge of the contents hidden in the vehicle and that he had been hired merely to drive it to a specified destination.

The man argued that he was unaware of what had been placed in the vehicle’s concealed compartments and suggested that someone else may have been responsible. 

"The appellant was put in his defense and stated that he was hired to drive the motor vehicle to Isiolo to pick a spare wheel from Isiolo. He stated that he was stopped by police officers; whilst being searched, the sniffer dogs raised the trail to indicate there was something unusual," the judgment stated.

He further pointed to inconsistencies in how various prosecution witnesses referred to the vehicle's registration number, claiming that these discrepancies raised doubt about the entire prosecution case.

On appeal, he argued that the trial magistrate had failed to consider his defense, that the inconsistencies in vehicle registration raised serious credibility issues, and that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

He also contended that key witnesses, including those who took the forensic photographs and authored the chemical analysis report, were not called to testify.

In its analysis, the High Court dismissed each of these grounds.

The judge acknowledged the minor discrepancies in how witnesses recorded the vehicle’s registration number but concluded that these were typographical or recording errors and did not impact the substance of the case.

"In my view, this was a case of recording error. I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that the contradictions are only on the numerical, as there is consistency on the letters," Justice Chirchir observed.

"Further, the contradictions did not go into the core of the prosecution’s case, because the identity of the vehicle, as stated correctly by at least one of the prosecution witnesses, was confirmed by the appellant."

The court also addressed the issue of possession and control.

The accused was the sole occupant of the vehicle and admitted under cross-examination that the drugs were recovered from his car.

He also signed the weighing certificate and inventory without raising any objections during the trial. The court found these actions inconsistent with a claim of complete ignorance and instead pointed to knowledge and possession.

In the absence of certain witnesses, the appellate court ruled that the accused did not object when the documents were introduced through other officers, and therefore, could not raise that complaint at the appellate stage.

Furthermore, the documents were not materially challenged during trial, and their content stood uncontested.

As for his defense, the High Court agreed with the trial magistrate that the explanation given by the accused was unconvincing and unsupported.

 There was no evidence or even suggestion that he signed the two documents under duress or threats of violence. I, too, find the defence quite implausible and I hereby dismiss it," the court ruled.

The judge held that the trial court properly evaluated all the evidence and gave the accused a fair hearing before convicting him.

Under Section 4(a)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, anyone convicted of trafficking is liable to a fine of not less than Sh50 million or three times the market value of the drug (whichever is greater), or imprisonment for a term of fifty years, or both.

In this case, the trial court had imposed a fine of Sh1.62 million, three times the estimated street value of the drugs, and a default sentence of six years’ imprisonment in case of non-payment.

The appellate court ruled that the sentence was within the law, properly calculated, and not excessive.

The judge emphasised that courts are bound to apply the mandatory minimums set in law unless there are compelling reasons to depart from them, which did not exist in this case.

“The contradictions referred to did not go into the core of the prosecution’s case,” the judgment read.

The court concluded that both the conviction and sentence were lawful and supported by overwhelming evidence.

“The decision of the trial court on both the conviction and sentence is upheld, and the appeal herein is dismissed,” Justice Chirchir ordered.