Charlene Ruto Misses Court Hearing in Impersonation Case as Defense Seeks Dismissal
Quote from Lawyer on July 23, 2025, 5:49 pmOn July 23, 2025, Charlene Ruto, daughter of Kenyan President William Ruto, failed to appear at Nairobi's Milimani Law Courts to testify in an ongoing impersonation case against author Webster Ochora Elijah. The absence prompted Ochora's legal team to request the dismissal of the charges, citing a lack of prosecution. The court has scheduled a ruling on the matter for July 28, 2025.
Webster Ochora Elijah faces charges under Section 382(1) of the Kenyan Penal Code for allegedly impersonating Charlene Ruto. The accusations stem from his publication of a book titled Beyond the Name: Charlene Ruto and the Youth Uprising under Zawadi Publishers. The charge sheet claims that between an unknown date and May 22, 2025, Ochora, either alone or with others not yet charged, falsely represented himself as Charlene Ruto with the intent to defraud her by publishing the book without her consent. Authorities allege this act violates the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act.
Ochora was arrested by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) on June 3, 2025, and has been out on a bond of Sh100,000 with an alternative cash bail of Sh50,000 since his arraignment. The court granted bail on the grounds that he is not a flight risk. During the investigation, the DCI seized Ochora's laptop for forensic analysis, which he later requested be returned, arguing it was essential for his work as a publisher and author. The court acknowledged his concern and urged investigators to expedite the forensic process, with an expected completion within a week from July 8, 2025.
During the July 23 hearing, Ochora's defense lawyer, Evans Ondieki, argued that Charlene Ruto's failure to attend the court session violated the accused's constitutional rights under Article 50, which mandates that cases be resolved within a reasonable time. Ondieki emphasized that Ochora had consistently attended court sessions, while the complainant, a high-profile public figure, had not appeared to testify. He urged the court to discharge Ochora for want of prosecution, stating, "It is an affront to the rights of the accused if he keeps attending court while the complainant fails to show up."
Ondieki further argued that the prolonged delay undermined the principles of fair trial and justice, pressing for the case's dismissal due to the complainant's absence.
Charlene Ruto's legal team, represented by lawyer Kevin Kachapin, along with prosecuting counsel Everlyn Mutisya, requested additional time to allow their client to appear in court and testify. Kachapin stressed the importance of ensuring justice is visibly served in the case, indicating that Charlene's testimony was critical to the proceedings. The prosecution did not oppose Ochora's earlier bond application and confirmed that all evidentiary materials would be provided to the defense.
Charlene Ruto, listed as both the complainant and a key witness, has publicly stated that she reported the matter to the police because Ochora used her name without permission. She clarified that her objection was not related to the book's content but rather the unauthorized use of her identity. In previous statements, she emphasized her commitment to following legal procedures.
Ochora's legal team has maintained that he is a student and a creative professional who intended no harm. They argue that the book was a positive piece about Charlene Ruto, highlighting her public role. Another lawyer representing Ochora, Kennedy Mung’are, previously described him as a serious writer with a history of authoring books on figures like Donald Trump and Raila Odinga. Mung’are criticized the DCI's actions, arguing that detaining Ochora without due process was unfair and that creative expression should be protected.
The case has sparked a broader debate about the boundaries of creative freedom and the application of cybercrime laws in Kenya. Critics, including politician and lawyer Willis Otieno, have argued that criminalizing authorship in this manner misuses state resources to protect personal sensitivities. Otieno described the charges as an attempt to shield "fragile egos," raising concerns about restrictions on free expression. This sentiment echoes broader discussions about freedom of speech, particularly following other recent cases, such as the detention of a software developer for creating a tool to oppose a government finance bill and the charging of a teacher for impersonating another of President Ruto’s daughters on social media.
Charlene Ruto, born January 11, 1993, is a prominent figure in Kenya, often compared to Ivanka Trump due to her high-profile public appearances. As the third-born daughter of President William Ruto and First Lady Rachel Ruto, she holds a bachelor's degree in Mass Communication from Daystar University and a Master of Business Administration in Hospitality from Les Roches International School of Hotel Management in Switzerland. She has been involved in media relations, public relations, and philanthropy, often participating in national and international forums under her unofficial "Office of the First Daughter" role, which she has clarified is not funded by public money.
In October 2024, Charlene publicly denied rumors of a government appointment to the National Mining Corporation, emphasizing her focus on youth empowerment and agriculture. She also defended her father’s commitment to fair and transparent leadership, asserting that he would not favor his family for official roles.
The impersonation case against Ochora is one of several high-profile legal battles involving President Ruto’s family. In April 2025, a secondary school teacher was charged with impersonating another of Ruto’s daughters, June Ruto, on Facebook, indicating a pattern of legal actions against alleged misuse of the family’s identity. These cases have amplified concerns about the balance between protecting personal rights and upholding freedom of expression in Kenya’s democratic framework.
The court’s ruling on July 28, 2025, will determine whether the case proceeds or is dismissed due to Charlene Ruto’s absence. The outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases involving public figures and creative works are handled, particularly in the context of Kenya’s evolving legal landscape around cybercrime and freedom of expression.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case remains a focal point for discussions about the rights of creatives, the responsibilities of public figures, and the application of justice in high-profile disputes.
On July 23, 2025, Charlene Ruto, daughter of Kenyan President William Ruto, failed to appear at Nairobi's Milimani Law Courts to testify in an ongoing impersonation case against author Webster Ochora Elijah. The absence prompted Ochora's legal team to request the dismissal of the charges, citing a lack of prosecution. The court has scheduled a ruling on the matter for July 28, 2025.
Webster Ochora Elijah faces charges under Section 382(1) of the Kenyan Penal Code for allegedly impersonating Charlene Ruto. The accusations stem from his publication of a book titled Beyond the Name: Charlene Ruto and the Youth Uprising under Zawadi Publishers. The charge sheet claims that between an unknown date and May 22, 2025, Ochora, either alone or with others not yet charged, falsely represented himself as Charlene Ruto with the intent to defraud her by publishing the book without her consent. Authorities allege this act violates the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act.
Ochora was arrested by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) on June 3, 2025, and has been out on a bond of Sh100,000 with an alternative cash bail of Sh50,000 since his arraignment. The court granted bail on the grounds that he is not a flight risk. During the investigation, the DCI seized Ochora's laptop for forensic analysis, which he later requested be returned, arguing it was essential for his work as a publisher and author. The court acknowledged his concern and urged investigators to expedite the forensic process, with an expected completion within a week from July 8, 2025.
During the July 23 hearing, Ochora's defense lawyer, Evans Ondieki, argued that Charlene Ruto's failure to attend the court session violated the accused's constitutional rights under Article 50, which mandates that cases be resolved within a reasonable time. Ondieki emphasized that Ochora had consistently attended court sessions, while the complainant, a high-profile public figure, had not appeared to testify. He urged the court to discharge Ochora for want of prosecution, stating, "It is an affront to the rights of the accused if he keeps attending court while the complainant fails to show up."
Ondieki further argued that the prolonged delay undermined the principles of fair trial and justice, pressing for the case's dismissal due to the complainant's absence.
Charlene Ruto's legal team, represented by lawyer Kevin Kachapin, along with prosecuting counsel Everlyn Mutisya, requested additional time to allow their client to appear in court and testify. Kachapin stressed the importance of ensuring justice is visibly served in the case, indicating that Charlene's testimony was critical to the proceedings. The prosecution did not oppose Ochora's earlier bond application and confirmed that all evidentiary materials would be provided to the defense.
Charlene Ruto, listed as both the complainant and a key witness, has publicly stated that she reported the matter to the police because Ochora used her name without permission. She clarified that her objection was not related to the book's content but rather the unauthorized use of her identity. In previous statements, she emphasized her commitment to following legal procedures.
Ochora's legal team has maintained that he is a student and a creative professional who intended no harm. They argue that the book was a positive piece about Charlene Ruto, highlighting her public role. Another lawyer representing Ochora, Kennedy Mung’are, previously described him as a serious writer with a history of authoring books on figures like Donald Trump and Raila Odinga. Mung’are criticized the DCI's actions, arguing that detaining Ochora without due process was unfair and that creative expression should be protected.
The case has sparked a broader debate about the boundaries of creative freedom and the application of cybercrime laws in Kenya. Critics, including politician and lawyer Willis Otieno, have argued that criminalizing authorship in this manner misuses state resources to protect personal sensitivities. Otieno described the charges as an attempt to shield "fragile egos," raising concerns about restrictions on free expression. This sentiment echoes broader discussions about freedom of speech, particularly following other recent cases, such as the detention of a software developer for creating a tool to oppose a government finance bill and the charging of a teacher for impersonating another of President Ruto’s daughters on social media.
Charlene Ruto, born January 11, 1993, is a prominent figure in Kenya, often compared to Ivanka Trump due to her high-profile public appearances. As the third-born daughter of President William Ruto and First Lady Rachel Ruto, she holds a bachelor's degree in Mass Communication from Daystar University and a Master of Business Administration in Hospitality from Les Roches International School of Hotel Management in Switzerland. She has been involved in media relations, public relations, and philanthropy, often participating in national and international forums under her unofficial "Office of the First Daughter" role, which she has clarified is not funded by public money.
In October 2024, Charlene publicly denied rumors of a government appointment to the National Mining Corporation, emphasizing her focus on youth empowerment and agriculture. She also defended her father’s commitment to fair and transparent leadership, asserting that he would not favor his family for official roles.
The impersonation case against Ochora is one of several high-profile legal battles involving President Ruto’s family. In April 2025, a secondary school teacher was charged with impersonating another of Ruto’s daughters, June Ruto, on Facebook, indicating a pattern of legal actions against alleged misuse of the family’s identity. These cases have amplified concerns about the balance between protecting personal rights and upholding freedom of expression in Kenya’s democratic framework.
The court’s ruling on July 28, 2025, will determine whether the case proceeds or is dismissed due to Charlene Ruto’s absence. The outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases involving public figures and creative works are handled, particularly in the context of Kenya’s evolving legal landscape around cybercrime and freedom of expression.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case remains a focal point for discussions about the rights of creatives, the responsibilities of public figures, and the application of justice in high-profile disputes.