High Court Extends Orders Shielding Thika Magistrate from Bribery Probe Until July 8

High Court Judge Chacha Mwita has extended interim orders barring the state from investigating or prosecuting Thika Law Courts Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo over allegations of bribery. The ruling, delivered on Tuesday, pushes the temporary reprieve to July 8, pending further legal proceedings. The decision marks another chapter in a contentious legal battle that has raised questions about judicial independence, investigative transparency, and the conduct of anti-corruption agencies in Kenya.

The case stems from a raid conducted by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) on Atambo's Syokimau residence in March 2025, where investigators recovered 2.07 million Kenyan shillings in cash, allegedly stashed in a laptop bag. The EACC claimed the money was suspected proceeds of corruption, accusing Atambo of demanding and receiving bribes from litigants in criminal cases before her court. Alongside her court assistant, Patrick Njeri, Atambo was escorted to EACC headquarters for questioning following the raid. The commission stated that its actions were prompted by numerous complaints alleging that Atambo solicited bribes to influence judicial outcomes.

Atambo, through her legal team, swiftly moved to the High Court to challenge the investigation, describing the EACC's actions as an unlawful and calculated attack on her reputation and judicial mandate. Represented by prominent lawyers including Shadrack Wambui, Danstan Omari, and John Khaminwa, Atambo argued that the search warrant used to raid her home was obtained under questionable circumstances. She claimed that the EACC deliberately misrepresented her identity in court documents by using her initials, "Bonareri N," instead of her full name, in an apparent attempt to conceal her identity from colleagues at the Milimani Law Courts. Her lawyers contended that this move was not only deceptive but also an abuse of legal processes, undermining her rights and the sanctity of her home.

In her affidavit, Atambo, a judicial officer with 24 years of experience as an advocate of the High Court, described the early morning raid as distressing, particularly for her children, who were woken by the aggressive actions of EACC officers. She maintained her innocence, asserting that the seized cash belonged to her husband and was not linked to any illicit activity. Atambo further argued that the raid was an attempt to intimidate and harass her, possibly as retribution for her handling of sensitive and politically charged cases at Thika Law Courts. Her legal team emphasized that the EACC's actions threatened the independence of the judiciary, a sentiment echoed by the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA), which has sought to join the case as an interested party.

The KMJA, representing over 800 judicial officers, condemned what it described as a coordinated attack on the judiciary, warning that such actions expose judicial officers to public ridicule, psychological distress, and the risk of mob justice. The association argued that investigative agencies were misusing legal processes to criminalize judicial functions, citing issues such as ex-parte orders and identity concealment in litigation. The KMJA's application to be enjoined in the case is set to be heard on July 8, alongside Atambo's amended petition challenging the investigation and intended prosecution.

Judge Mwita's ruling on Tuesday extended the conservatory orders initially issued in March 2025, which barred the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), and the EACC from arresting, detaining, charging, or prosecuting Atambo based on the materials seized during the raid. The judge directed Atambo to serve her amended petition to the DPP, DCI, and EACC, noting that the state agencies had not yet been served with the updated documents. Mwita emphasized that the interim orders would remain in place until the KMJA's application and Atambo's petition are heard, underscoring the court's commitment to ensuring due process.

The case has sparked broader debates about the role of anti-corruption agencies and their interactions with judicial officers. Atambo's legal team has accused the EACC of overstepping its mandate by acting as both investigator and prosecutor, a role constitutionally reserved for the DPP. They argued that the EACC's failure to involve the DPP in obtaining the search warrant was a procedural irregularity that invalidated the raid. The lawyers also pointed out that no formal complainants had come forward to substantiate the bribery allegations, further casting doubt on the legitimacy of the investigation.

In a related development, Atambo recently sought the return of her official phone, which was confiscated during the raid. Her lawyers argued that the seizure had crippled operations at Thika Law Courts, as the phone was used for critical judicial functions such as approving payments, processing requisitions, and managing court operations. The application underscored the broader impact of the EACC's actions on the administration of justice, reinforcing Atambo's claim that the investigation was designed to obstruct her judicial duties.

The case has also drawn attention to procedural concerns within the anti-corruption framework. In March, Milimani Anti-Corruption Court Magistrate Charles Ondieki recused himself from handling the case, citing a 17-year personal and family friendship with Atambo and her husband. Ondieki's recusal followed revelations that the EACC had withheld Atambo's full identity in its application for the search warrant, a move the agency defended as a precautionary measure to safeguard the investigation. However, Atambo's legal team argued that this lack of transparency was a deliberate attempt to undermine her rights and tarnish her reputation.As the legal battle unfolds, the case has become a flashpoint for discussions about judicial independence and the accountability of anti-corruption agencies. Atambo's supporters, including the KMJA, view the investigation as part of a broader pattern of attacks on judicial officers, while the EACC maintains that its actions are justified by credible complaints of corruption. The outcome of the July 8 hearing is expected to shed further light on the legality of the investigation and the balance between combating corruption and protecting judicial integrity.

For now, Atambo remains shielded from arrest or prosecution, as the High Court continues to scrutinize the actions of the state agencies involved. The case underscores the delicate interplay between anti-corruption efforts and the need to safeguard the independence of Kenya's judiciary, with significant implications for both the legal system and public trust in governance.