Interference with witnesses
9.Judicial precedent has established that, likelihood of or interference with prosecution witnesses is an affront to the trial in particular, and administration of justice in general, thus, a justifiable reason to limit the right to liberty in order to preserve the integrity of the trial (R. vs. Patius Gichobi, article 24 of the Constitution)
10.See also a work of the court in R. vs. Jaktan Mayende & 3 others, that:
11.Accordingly, the specific instances of or likelihood of interference with witnesses must be laid before the court with such succinct detail or evidence as to persuade the court to deny the accused bond (R. vs. Dwight Sagaray & 4 others, 2013 eKLR)
12.The prosecution claims that some witnesses are close relatives of the accused and are likely to be interfered with by the accused. The witnesses have been listed as the brother and cousin of the accused and they are minors.
13.These are victims of the crime whose rights the court is obligated to uphold and protect. The rights are stated in Section 10 of the Victim Protection Act No. 17 of 2014 that: -10 (1)a victim has a right to: -(a)Be free from intimidation, harassment, fear, tampering, bribery, corruption and abuse;(b)Have their safety and that of their family considered in determining the conditions of bail and release of the offender; and(c)Have their property protected.
14.The witnesses in question are minors and close family members of the accused which makes them vulnerable witnesses to the accused person. It is highly possible that such witnesses may resign to fear and may not give evidence or give skewed evidence to avert unpleasant repercussions.
15.The witnesses should be protected in accordance with section 10 of the Victims Protection Act from possible harm, intimidation, harassment, fear, tampering, blackmail, and abuse by the accused persons. It is also not lost to the court that the safety of victims is to be considered in determining bond issues.
16.On the basis of material placed before the court, the court finds that the prosecution has proved that the accused is likely to interfere with witnesses herein.
17.It is the duty of the court to ensure that the integrity of the trial is not prejudiced by unlawful acts of the accused such as interference with witnesses. The integrity of the trial guarantees fair trial (R. vs. Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others, Nairobi Criminal Case No. 57 of 2016 (2016) eKLR and K K K vs. Republic  eKLR)
18.Of danger upon the person of the accused. This ground is problematic for its potentiality to inadvertently encourage people to be taking the law into their hands to harm a suspect. Be that as it may, the ground has not been proved.
19.The prosecution has also claimed that the applicant while out on bond on another criminal matter committed the offence he is charged with herein. The court is aware of the right to presumption of innocence of the accused. But, violation of bond terms in any case speaks to the person’s ability to adhere to or observe bond terms and conditions.
20.Also related, is the potential abuse of bond especially where a person is charged in more than one criminal case. Bond may be denied in one or more of the cases but granted in one or other of the cases. This is a real challenge to the court, the DPP as well the prison authorities. Until it was proposed in some discourse whether in granting bond the court should be mindful that the person may be lawfully held in custody and therefore subsequent order of bond may not earn the person liberty. In similar manner court orders in an appeal.