A Nairobi court has denied Francis Kamau Karanja bail and bond after prosecutors alleged that a threatening text message sent to a magistrate handling a case involving Gabriel Saka forced the judicial officer to abandon her residence and stop using her personal vehicle over fears for her safety.
Karanja, who is charged with cyber harassment, denied the allegations before Milimani Law Courts Senior Principal Magistrate Irene Thamara. The court ruled on Friday, October 9, 2026, that compelling reasons had been established to keep him in custody pending trial.
At the centre of the case is a message prosecutors say was sent on September 28, 2026, at around 7pm to a mobile phone number registered in the name of Kibera Magistrate Margaret Murage.
According to the charge sheet, the sender accused Murage of bias in the proceedings involving Saka, claimed she had taken sides and warned that the sender would not stop until justice was done.
The message allegedly concluded with the chilling words: “Chunga kazi yako. Na uchunge sana. Tunajua kwako.”
Translated from Kiswahili, the phrases warn the magistrate to be careful in her work and claim that the sender knows where she lives. Prosecutors argued that the language was likely to cause apprehension or fear of violence against the judicial officer.
Magistrate allegedly forced out of her home
In opposing Karanja’s release, the prosecution told the court that the alleged threats had disrupted the magistrate’s personal life, forcing her to leave her residence and stop using her vehicle because of security concerns.
The State argued that restricting Karanja’s access to Kibera Law Courts would not adequately protect the complainant, given the alleged message’s reference to knowing her home.
Magistrate Thamara agreed that the prosecution had demonstrated compelling reasons to deny bail and bond, ordering Karanja to remain in custody at Nairobi Area Prison as the case proceeds.
The ruling places the alleged intimidation of a judicial officer at the centre of a case in which the prosecution says the complainant’s safety cannot be assured through ordinary restrictions on the accused’s movements. The allegations, however, remain unproven, and Karanja is presumed innocent unless convicted by a court.
How the case unfolded
The dispute emerged from a case involving Gabriel Saka, whose proceedings were allegedly the subject of Karanja’s complaint about perceived judicial bias.
According to earlier court reports, Karanja was arrested on October 5, 2026, and the matter initially came before Kibera Law Courts. The prosecution subsequently sought to have the case transferred to Milimani, an application that delayed plea-taking.
The Kibera court agreed that proceeding there could expose the case to allegations of bias because the complainant was a magistrate serving at that court. It directed that Karanja be presented before Milimani for plea-taking, while noting that concerns over possible violations of his rights could be addressed through the legal process.
Karanja subsequently appeared before Thamara and pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 27(1)(a), as read with Section 27(2), of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act.
His lawyer, Muriithi Mbaabu, had urged the court to grant reasonable and lenient bail terms. The defence also complained that Karanja had been arrested and denied police bail without being informed of the reasons, and that he was not presented in court on the day he was taken to Kilimani Police Station.
A test of judicial independence and personal safety
The case raises serious questions about the safety of judicial officers and the boundaries between challenging a court’s decisions and allegedly intimidating the person presiding over a case.
Kenya’s justice system provides avenues for parties to challenge perceived bias, seek recusal or appeal decisions. Prosecutors contend that the message in this case crossed into cyber harassment because of its alleged warnings and reference to the magistrate’s home.
For now, the prosecution must prove its case in court. Karanja’s denial means the allegations have yet to be established at trial.
The matter is scheduled for mention on October 14, 2026, for pre-trial directions, with Karanja remaining in custody following the denial of bail and bond.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
