Court acquits man accused of posting Ruto in casket
By Zipporah Ngwatu, February 19, 2026A Nairobi court has acquitted David Mokaya, who was charged for publishing a photo of President William Ruto at a funeral procession with a casket covered with a Kenyan flag, escorted by a military officer.
According to the charge sheet, Mokaya on November 13, 2024, while at an unknown place within the Republic of Kenya, through his X account, posted the funeral procession in a ceremonial uniform, which he captioned “President William Ruto leaving Lee funeral home.”
Milimani Principal Magistrate Carolyne Nyaguthii Mugo on Thursday, February 19, 2026, in her judgement stated that the prosecution did not prove their case against Mokaya.
Further, Magistrate Nyaguthii stated that she has not found any proof linking Mokaya with the posts made on the said X account.
“Having excluded the unlawfully obtained evidence and finding no independent proof linking the accused person to the infringed publication, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused person is hereby acquitted,” Magistrate Mugo ruled.
The court noted that Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law, while Article 244 obligates the National Police Service (NPS) to comply with constitutional safeguards and respect human rights.
Nyaguthii avers that the fact that a publication mentions or concerns the President does not suspend the constitutional safeguards or justify investigative shortcuts.
In addition, she stated that the criminal process must never become a tool of expediency merely because the subject of the alleged offence is high-ranking or politically sensitive.
The court found that the investigators bypassed the legal safeguards due to the perceived gravity of the post involving the President.
“The investigators disregarded the constitutional safeguards since the post in question involved the President of the Republic of Kenya,” Magistrate Nyaguthii stated in her ruling.
However, the court accepts that offensive or false material may have been published online; criminal liability under section 22 only attaches to the actual publisher.
“In this case the prosecution failed to bridge the evidentiary gap between the existence of the publication and the responsibility of the accused person,” Nyaguthii added.
“Even if the court were to accept the prosecution evidence against the accused person from the evidence of the accused and the suspicions of the defence and the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), the accused person’s gadgets were seized and examined forensically without any court order,” the court noted.