MP Njeru Leo Wa Muthende Served With Demand Letter Over Alleged Ol Kalou Robbery and Attempted Abduction Claims
 |
| Photo collage/Leo Wa Muthende & Demand letter |
A fresh legal dispute has emerged following the Ol Kalou parliamentary by-election after lawyers acting for a woman identified as Wanjiku Mwihaki issued a formal demand letter to Mbeere North Member of Parliament Leo Wa Muthende. The letter outlines a series of serious allegations connected to an incident that is said to have occurred on 16 July 2026 near Mathakwa Primary School polling station in Mirangine Ward, Nyandarua County.
According to the demand letter, Wanjiku Mwihaki reported the matter to Ol Kalou Police Station on the same day. The complaint was recorded under an Occurrence Book (OB) number, with the incident being described as robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. The lawyers state that the complaint was officially lodged immediately after the alleged events.
The letter claims that Wanjiku and another person were travelling near the polling station when they encountered a convoy of Toyota Prado vehicles. It alleges that armed men travelling in the convoy confronted them while the MP was present at the scene. The document further states that the MP allegedly stepped out of one of the vehicles before the events unfolded.
One of the central claims in the letter is that Wanjiku's iPhone 17 Pro Max was allegedly taken during the confrontation. The lawyers argue that the phone was stolen while armed individuals were present and that the MP did not intervene despite allegedly witnessing the incident. They maintain that this forms the basis of the robbery with violence complaint.
The demand letter also alleges that after the phone was taken, the same group attempted to force Wanjiku and her companion into one of the convoy vehicles. According to the lawyers, the two resisted and managed to prevent what they describe as an attempted abduction. The document claims that the MP remained at the scene throughout the confrontation.
Lawyers representing Wanjiku argue that the actions described meet the legal requirements for robbery with violence under Kenyan law. They cite provisions of the Penal Code which define robbery involving weapons, multiple offenders, or violence against victims as robbery with violence. They further argue that anyone who aids or acts together with offenders may also bear legal responsibility.
Another issue raised in the demand letter concerns the role of the MP's alleged security officers. The lawyers claim the armed individuals were members of the MP's security detail and were operating while accompanying him. Because of this, they argue that he exercised authority over the officers and cannot distance himself from their alleged conduct if the allegations are proven.
The letter also refers to provisions of the Election Offences Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It argues that the alleged use of firearms, threats, and public intimidation near a polling station could amount to additional offences under Kenyan law. These references are included to explain why the complainant considers the matter to be more serious than an ordinary theft case.
According to the lawyers, a telephone conversation allegedly took place between Wanjiku and the MP two days after the incident. They claim that during the conversation, the MP allegedly stated that he had identified one of the individuals believed to have taken the phone but had not recovered it because the individual denied responsibility and had returned to camp. These claims are contained in the demand letter and have not been tested in court.
Based on these allegations, the lawyers issued several demands requiring action within seven days. First, they demand the immediate return of the iPhone 17 Pro Max in proper working condition. If that is not possible, they ask for a brand-new replacement or payment of KSh300,000 as compensation for the device.
Secondly, the lawyers demand written disclosure of the names and identifying details of the security officers they claim participated in the alleged robbery. They also seek the identities of any other individuals who were allegedly involved in the attempted abduction or present during the incident.
The demand letter warns that failure to comply may lead to additional legal action. Among the options listed are investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), possible prosecution by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), complaints before the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), civil lawsuits seeking damages, and possible constitutional proceedings regarding suitability to hold public office.
Copies of the demand letter were also addressed to several government institutions, including the Divisional Criminal Investigations Officer at Ol Kalou Police Station, the Director of Criminal Investigations, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), and the Speaker of the National Assembly.
At the time reflected by the document, the letter represents allegations and legal claims made on behalf of the complainant. A demand letter is not a court judgment and does not establish that any person is guilty of a criminal offence. Any criminal or civil liability would ultimately depend on investigations and the outcome of any legal proceedings before the appropriate authorities or the courts.
The case has already attracted public attention because it is linked to the recently concluded Ol Kalou by-election and involves a sitting Member of Parliament. Whether the matter proceeds to criminal investigations, civil litigation, or another legal process will depend on the response to the demand letter and decisions made by the relevant investigative and prosecutorial agencies. For now, the document marks the beginning of what could become a closely watched legal and political case in Kenya.
Tags
Politics