Tuju case takes new turn as police officer says she never received abduction report

A police officer at the centre of the case against former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju has told a Nairobi court that he never reported to her that he had been abducted.

Chief Inspector Purity Kobia, who was the Officer Commanding Station at Karen Police Station at the time, said Tuju only reported that a vehicle was following him.

Her testimony puts fresh focus on the precise information that reached police on the night of March 21, 2026, and what was later recorded as a missing-person case.

Kobia told the court that she received a report from Tuju at about 6pm concerning a white Land Cruiser that he said had been following him.

But she said she could not establish whether the claim was true or false because she had not witnessed the incident and was not the investigating officer.

“I could not know whether it was false or true. I made the report as it was reported,” Kobia told the court.

She was equally cautious when asked whether Tuju had lied to her.

“I can’t tell he lied to me. I don’t know whether he was lying or not,” she said.

What did Tuju actually report?

The distinction is central to the case.

Tuju is facing a charge of giving false information to a person employed in the public service under Section 129(a) of the Penal Code.

The prosecution alleges that on March 21, at Entim Sidai Spa and Wellness Sanctuary in Karen, Tuju told Kobia that he had been traced by unknown assailants and later abducted, knowing the information to be false.

Tuju has pleaded not guilty.

But Kobia told the court that she personally did not receive an abduction report from him.

Instead, she said her role was to record what was brought to her and assign the matter for investigation.

She later clarified that the investigation was taken over by the Criminal Investigations Directorate, meaning she could not testify about what detectives subsequently established.

Officer disputes being the source of the false-information complaint

Kobia also distanced herself from the allegation that she had personally been given false information.

She told the court that she did not author the charge sheet, even though her name appears in the case as the complainant.

“There was no false information I was given. That one I would deny,” she said.

The testimony creates an important distinction between what the officer says she personally received and what investigators later alleged Tuju had told police.

That distinction is likely to remain important as the court examines the evidence.

Two police records became a point of contention

The court also heard evidence about two separate entries in the Karen Police Station occurrence book.

One was identified as OB 21 of March 21, 2026. Kobia said that was the report she personally received concerning the alleged vehicle trailing Tuju.

Another, OB 17 of March 22, concerned a missing person and an abandoned vehicle.

Kobia said she did not make the second entry and could not say who recorded it.

During cross-examination, the description of the March 22 entry was also examined, with references in court to both a “missing person and abandoned motor vehicle” and a “missing person and stolen vehicle”.

Kobia maintained that she could only speak about the report she personally received.

Abandoned vehicle added to the mystery

The abandoned vehicle became a key part of the events that followed.

Police went to Tuju's Karen home after concerns were raised about his whereabouts and the vehicle was found abandoned.

Kobia told the court that she was among officers who went to the residence.

They encountered a watchman who initially told them that nobody was in the house.

She later received a call from Tuju's wife, who said she was uncomfortable with the people at the gate and would instead go to the police station with her advocate to record a statement.

The vehicle was eventually towed to Karen Police Station.

Kobia said she did not know what happened to it after she was transferred from the station.

The case followed a dramatic disappearance

The events began on March 21, when Tuju reported that he had been followed by a white Land Cruiser.

His family later raised the alarm after they could not reach him, and his vehicle was found abandoned in Karen.

A missing-person report was subsequently filed.

Tuju resurfaced two days later and said he had gone into hiding because he feared for his safety.

His account was later challenged by the DCI, which said its investigations indicated that he had remained at his Karen residence during the period he was reported missing. The agency described the disappearance as staged.

Tuju has disputed the allegations and pleaded not guilty to the charge of giving false information.

Court developments have added another layer

The legal battle has not been without setbacks for investigators.

In August, a Milimani court struck out a DCI application seeking to advance investigations against Tuju, finding that the application did not disclose an offence to be investigated against him under Section 129(a) of the Penal Code.

That ruling is separate from the evidence being considered in the criminal proceedings and does not amount to a finding that the events surrounding Tuju's disappearance did or did not happen.

Earlier in the case, a DCI investigator also faced questions in court over inconsistencies concerning the reports that triggered the police response and the number of vehicles that arrived at Tuju's residence.

What Kobia's evidence does — and does not — establish

Kobia's testimony does not establish that Tuju was telling the truth about being followed.

It also does not establish that he deliberately lied.

What it does establish, based on her evidence, is that the report she personally received was about a vehicle allegedly following Tuju, and that she did not personally receive a report from him saying he had been abducted.

Whether Tuju later gave police false information, and whether the prosecution can prove the elements of the charge, remains a matter for the court.

The case therefore turns not simply on whether Tuju disappeared, but on a narrower question: what exactly did he tell police, who received that information, and can the prosecution prove that he knowingly gave false information?

Those questions will now be tested against the police records, testimony from other officers and the wider evidence surrounding the events of March 21 and 22.

For now, Kobia's evidence has drawn a clear line between the report she says she received and the more serious allegation contained in the charge against Tuju.

About the Author

Maureen Onyango is a journalist passionate about storytelling, life coaching and spiritual lessons. She studied at the Kenya Institute of Management and enjoys telling stories that inform, inspire and empower communities.