Until 2019, he headed the Directorate of Criminal Investigations in Marsabit, and in October 2023, IPOA instituted an investigation over a lost exhibit – a gun – a probe that pinned down the senior detective

A senior detective who was pulled out of retirement to face charges has lost in his quest to be spared from prosecution in a matter investigated by the Independent Police Oversight Authority (IPOA).

Mr.  Samuel Barongo Ongoto who was the head of the Directorate of Criminal Investigation in Marsabit before retiring in July 2019, had moved to the High Court seeking orders to bar his appearance before a magistrate for loss of a firearm.

The gun was a crucial exhibit which IPOA investigators had identified as the weapon used to shoot dead three young men on January 13, 2018 during demonstrations in Marsabit Town.

Public Inquest

The IPOA findings triggered off a public inquest to shed more light into the incident and when the Magistrate’s court convened in one of the hearings on October 17, 2023, a ballistic expert was lined up to testify, during which it was discovered that “the relevant firearm could not be traced and the honourable court directed IPOA to conduct an inquiry as to its whereabouts.”

This subsequent investigation established that following the fatalities, the firearm was surrendered for ballistic examination and thereafter returned to police in Marsabit for safekeeping but unfortunately, was released to Mr. Guyo Dagane, who was then a police reservist in the Northern region.

Responsibility , IPOA Mandate

Despite the trail, the gun still could not be found because the reservist claimed to have “surrendered it to an unknown officer, based on instructions from the Government limiting their roles as National Police Reservists and asking them to surrender issued firearms to the County Commissioner’s office.”

IPOA also established that the DCIO failed to document the release of the exhibit, resulting to its loss and should therefore bear responsibility.

As a result, the Authority recommended to the Director of Public Prosecutions that Mr. Ongoto be charged for the loss of the firearm.

“The DPP who independently reviewed the said (investigation) file approved the recommendation,” the Court heard.

It has not been proved that the 1st respondent (IPOA) has failed to perform their obligation as mandated under the IPOA Act and in particular , the court would be overstretching its mandate to direct IPOA on how to conduct its investigations. The ex-parte (DCIO) prayer to that extent fails. IPOA has proved that pursuant to the inquest Magistrate direction, they had acted within their mandate and in the process sought DCIO response before arriving at their decision – Justice Rayola J.

Functions and Powers

It is on this premise that IPOA called the former DCIO from retirement to answer to the charges, and he responded by rushing to the High Court to stop the impending trial.

His grounds were among others, that IPOA had not conducted “diligent investigations before opting to charge him and their action had been made in bad faith,” which according to him was a surprise that “years later as he was enjoying his sunset years, he was being called upon to explain the whereabouts of an exhibit.”

In the Judgement, Justice Francis Rayola threw out the former DCIO’s application saying IPOA had not acted “ultra vires,” meaning its investigation was duly conducted within the confines of the law.