The ruling, delivered by Principal Magistrate Rose Ndombi on September 22, 2025, found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the charges against Jama beyond reasonable doubt.
The case had raised questions over the process used to obtain Jama’s identification documents and exposed weaknesses in the investigation, including missing witnesses and unresolved contradictions.
Prosecution case relied on disputed identity claims
Jama faced three charges linked to his 2011 application for a Kenyan identity card in Isiolo.
The prosecution relied mainly on testimony from Ayni Hussein Mahamud, who claimed she had known Jama since childhood in Mogadishu, Somalia, and Fatuma Mohamed, whose national identity card details were allegedly used as Jama’s mother’s information during the application process.
Mohamed told the court that she was not Jama’s mother and denied any connection to him.
However, the prosecution did not call key witnesses involved in the registration process, including officials and local elders who participated in vetting the original application.
Court finds investigative gaps
In her decision, Magistrate Ndombi ruled that the prosecution’s evidence contained major weaknesses.
The court agreed with the defence argument that Jama, who was described as illiterate, may not have been responsible for incorrect details appearing on the application forms.
The magistrate noted that the errors could have resulted from administrative mistakes during the registration process.
The court held that suspicion alone could not justify a conviction.
Citizenship question raised during trial
Jama also faced allegations of being unlawfully present in Kenya.
However, the court found that death certificates presented for his parents supported his claim to Kenyan citizenship by birth.
The prosecution failed to disprove this claim, leading the court to grant Jama the benefit of doubt.
Unresolved contradictions in identity documents
Despite the acquittal, the case revealed several unanswered questions regarding Jama’s identity records.
Investigators had previously alleged that a birth certificate submitted during a 2015 passport application belonged to another person, Ann Gatwiri Kithure.
However, Kithure was not called as a witness during the trial, leaving the alleged forgery evidence untested.
The defence later produced another birth certificate together with parental death certificates issued in 2016, creating conflicting narratives about Jama’s documentation history.
Investigation process questioned
The case also exposed concerns about how investigations were conducted.
Jama was initially arrested over a separate assault matter, after which police obtained a 14-day detention order to conduct further investigations.
However, the investigation later changed direction, with officers replaced, the matter transferred to another court, and some potential charges dropped.
The prosecution also failed to fully pursue additional evidence, including alleged social media activity showing Jama campaigning for political office in Somalia.
Court says evidence must support conviction
While delivering the judgment, Magistrate Ndombi emphasized that courts must rely on evidence presented before them.
The court stated that strong suspicion cannot replace proof required for a criminal conviction.
Jama was therefore acquitted after the prosecution failed to establish a sufficient case against him.
ODPP faces decision on possible appeal
Following the acquittal, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) must decide whether to challenge the decision through an appeal or accept the court’s ruling.
The case has highlighted broader concerns regarding the verification of national identification documents and the need for stronger safeguards in registration systems.
It has also renewed debate on the importance of protecting whistleblowers who expose suspected fraud and corruption within public institutions.
