LEGAL BATTLE BREWS BETWEEN KENYA AND IRAN OVER TWO ARRESTED WITH BOMB EXPLOSIVES.

0
502
Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed and Sayed Mansour with their lawyer Ahmednassir Abdullahi/FILE PHOTO.

BY NT CORRESPONDENT.

A legal tussle is brewing between Iran and Kenya over two arrested and confined.

Seyed Mohammad Hadi, a legal officer from Islamic Republic of Iran says Administration Police Commandant must produce the two Iranians who were illegally and unlawfully confined.

Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed and Sayed Mansour were detained despite the court of appeal quashing their conviction.

Through lawyer Ahmednassir Abdullahi, Hadi says that a judgement was delivered on January 26 after the Court of Appeal allowed their appeal of 2016.

“The court quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence of the two Iranians and ordered for their release and to be surrendered to the Immigration department for repatriation back to their country,” SC Ahmednassir says.

He claims that the suspects were released from Kamiti Maximum prison on the same day and were surrendered to the Anti-terrorism police unit for clearance and repatriation.

“Despite two court of appeal decisions , one which ordered for the repatriation of the subjects and one that dismissed the states application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, our clients are still being unlawfully detained” Ahmednassir told the court.

He claims on January 29, representatives from the two Iranians went to the ATPU headquarters to oversee clearance and release but were informed that they were being held at unknown place and no one was allowed to visit them.

SC Ahmednassir alleges that the actions by the officers in charge are blatant breach of an order issued by the Court of Appeal.

Ahmad and Monsour were imprisoned for having 15 kilogram (33-pound) stash of bomb explosives (RDX).

Court of appeal held that the circumstantial evidence that was relied upon to convict the respondents was so weak that it did not unerringly to their guilty.

The court noted that, ” The law relating to circumstantial evidence does not stand in a state of uncertainty so that it is for the common good of all that it will be clarified by the supreme court”

The three-judge bench of the appellate dismissed the state’s application. Ruling tomorrow.

LEAVE A REPLY