Two Kenyans, American, and Pakistani Petition for Removal of DPP Ingonga Over Alleged Misconduct and Constitutional Violations

Four people among two foreigners have petitioned for the removal of the Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga and three State counsels for gross misconduct.

In a petition to the Public Service Commission (PSC), the two Kenyans, an American and a Pakistani national wants Ingonga removed from office for alleged breach of chapter 6 of the constitution.

Josephine Chirondo Ndune, Ekra Wambui Ndung’u, Davies Lawrence Bennett and Farah Akbar further accuse Ingonga and three State counsels of misbehaviour, incompetence and violation of the constitution.

“We urge the committee to find merit in the petition and to proceed accordingly under the provisions of Article 158 (3) of the constitution of Kenya 2010,” says the petitioners.

They state that they were arrested in Mombasa and held in Bamburi police station on the night of 12th February 2025.

They said despite requests to access legal representation, the arresting officers allegedly refused to let them consult and or contact advocates of their choice by confiscating their mobile phones and neither providing them with alternative means of seeking legal representation.

“This is in particular violation of the express provisions of the constitution under chapter four and in particular Article 50(g) and (h),” claim the four.

They said despite informing the arresting officers, C.I. Kinyua that Davies Lawrence Bennett and Farah Akbar were foreigners and their request for their respective embassies to be informed of their arrest and incarceration, he allegedly refused to either take a step in informing their embassies, ministry of foreign affairs or the immigration.

The petitioners were thereafter arraigned in Shanzu Law Courts under criminal case no. E144 OF 2025 where they were released on cash bail with an order that the petitioners be supplied with the statements and other documents the prosecution was to rely on in the case.

They claim upon raising the bond and securing their freedom have raised their dissatisfaction in how the office of the ODPP has handled the matter commencing with their arrest, arraignment and general conduct of the trial.

In their petition, they allege that the ODPP violated the clear provisions of the constitution and ought to be removed from office on account of gross misconduct.
They said the DPP should have regard to public interest, the interest of administration of justice and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process.

They state that the dereliction of duty and failure to adhere to the express provisions in the constitution exposes the ODPP for removal from office by a petition to public service commission.

“The concerns of the petitioners were addressed to the office of the ODPP through the letters dated 19th March 2025 and 20th March 2025 respectively. A reminder was sent to the respondent (ODPP) vide the letter dated 7th April 2025 which again the respondent has ignored. (the letter and evidence of service on the respondent,” they claim in their petition

It is their argument that Ingonga, being at the pinnacle of the DPP’s office, refused to exercise the powers of his office by not inquiring the evidence in support of the charge sheet, did not observe the requirements of the office of the Director of Prosecution Act Section 4 (c) (d) and (f) and section 14 (c) of the Act

“Two of the accused are foreigners an American and Pakistan Citizens respectively and employees and Agents of ELMWOOD FIELDS Leadership Alliance (EFLA) which offers continued professional development CPD Recognitions and awards and did not inquire whether a report had been made against the petitioners before their arrest and arraignment,” they claim.

Further DPP did not inquire whether the CUE had made the necessary inquiries and investigations on the status of the petitioners and the business school before moving to arrest them and did not inquire whether there was an inquiry in form of a letter from the investigator to Master Minds Business School (UK) informing of its status.

They further claim DPP Ingonga did not interrogate the magnitude of the penalty contained in Section 28(5) of the University Act of 10 million- or 3-year’s imprisonment or both. And did not interrogate the circumstances that led to the arrest of the accused persons.

“DPP Ingonga did not inquire the role of the Commission for University Education which are not mandated to regulate conferences or tourist events,” they want him out of office.