Journalist seeks anticipatory bail after DCI names her in alleged staged Tuju disappearance

In an urgent application filed at the Milimani Law Courts, Zipporah Wambui is seeking anticipatory bail and orders restraining police from arresting or harassing her, arguing that the DCI’s public statement has put her liberty, safety, and professional reputation at risk.

Through her lawyer, Danstan Omari, Wambui told the court that she was wrongly identified alongside three other individuals as allegedly involved in planning and coordinating the purported disappearance. She maintains that she does not know the other persons mentioned and has never had any dealings with them.

According to her affidavit, the journalist says she only became aware of the alleged disappearance through media reports and communication from colleagues, like any other reporter covering a developing story.

She explains that she later attended press briefings in Karen strictly in her capacity as a journalist, covering what she describes as a matter of significant public interest. Any interaction she had with sources or individuals linked to the story, she argues, was purely for purposes of newsgathering.

Trouble began on April 3 when the DCI, through its communications director, publicly named her as a person of interest in what investigators termed a staged disappearance involving Tuju.

Wambui says the announcement caused fear and apprehension that she could be arrested or subjected to harassment despite having committed no offence. She adds that attempts to seek clarification from the DCI on why she was named have not yielded any response.

The journalist, who says she has over 15 years of experience and is accredited by the Media Council of Kenya, insists she is a law-abiding citizen willing to cooperate with any lawful investigations.

In her application, she is seeking anticipatory bail of KSh20,000 and court orders barring the DCI and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from arresting, harassing, or intimidating her without due process.

She argues that the intervention of the court is necessary to safeguard her constitutional rights, including freedom of the media, liberty, and fair treatment under the law.