Viwandani MCA, two others deny robbery charges

Viwandani Ward Member of County Assembly (MCA) Aaron Kang'ara Wangare, along with his personal assistant Kepha Muiyoro Wanjiru and Nairobi County official Zablon Kirima Mwangi, have been arraigned at the Makadara Law Courts, facing charges of robbery with violence. The trio denied the allegations stemming from an incident in Donholm on June 26, 2026, where they are accused of robbing three individuals of cash and other valuables. This case highlights the serious implications of robbery with violence under Kenya's Penal Code, Cap 63, which historically carried a mandatory death sentence, though recent judicial pronouncements have challenged the constitutionality of such mandatory provisions. The accused were released on bond, underscoring the ongoing legal process and the presumption of innocence.

The legal landscape in Kenya is currently grappling with a high-profile case involving a sitting public official, Viwandani Ward MCA Aaron Kang'ara Wangare, his personal assistant, and a Nairobi County official, who have been charged with robbery with violence. The three, Aaron Kang'ara Wangare, Kepha Muiyoro Wanjiru, and Zablon Kirima Mwangi, appeared before the Makadara Law Courts to answer to allegations of a violent robbery that occurred in Donholm on June 26, 2026. They have all pleaded not guilty to the charges, a stance that sets the stage for a significant legal battle.

This incident, and the subsequent arraignment, draws attention to the severe nature of robbery with violence as an offence under Kenyan law and the procedural intricacies involved in prosecuting such cases. The involvement of public figures adds a layer of public interest and scrutiny, emphasizing the principle of equality before the law. The case will undoubtedly test the prosecution's evidence and the defence's arguments within the evolving framework of criminal justice in Kenya, particularly concerning offences that previously attracted mandatory capital punishment.

The article will delve into the statutory definition and elements of robbery with violence under the Penal Code, Cap 63, examine the historical and contemporary sentencing regime for this offence in light of landmark constitutional judgments, and consider the broader implications for legal practitioners and the public.

Robbery with violence is a grave felony under Kenyan law, primarily governed by the Penal Code, Cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya. Section 295 of the Penal Code defines robbery, while Section 296 outlines the aggravated form of the offence, commonly known as robbery with violence. According to Section 296(2), a person commits robbery with violence if, at the time of the robbery, they are armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument, or are in the company of one or more other persons, or if, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery, they wound, beat, strike, or use any other personal violence to any person.

Historically, a conviction for robbery with violence under Section 296(2) carried a mandatory death sentence. This provision has been a subject of extensive legal debate and constitutional challenges over the years. The rationale behind such a severe penalty was to deter violent crime and protect public safety. However, the mandatory nature of the death penalty raised concerns regarding judicial discretion, proportionality, and fundamental human rights, leading to significant jurisprudential developments in recent times.

The Makadara Law Courts, where the accused were arraigned, serve a wide jurisdiction within Nairobi County, handling a substantial volume of criminal cases. The establishment of a High Court Criminal Division at Makadara from January 2025 further underscores its importance in the administration of criminal justice, particularly for serious offences like robbery with violence, which often proceed to the High Court for trial or appeal.

The charges against the Viwandani MCA and his co-accused fall squarely under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code, Cap 63, given the prosecution's allegation that the trio robbed three people of valuables during an incident in Donholm. The elements that elevate a simple robbery to robbery with violence, such as being in the company of one or more persons, are clearly articulated in the statute and will be central to the prosecution's case. The value of the stolen items, including a Samsung Galaxy Z Fold phone, a silver chain, and cash, totaling approximately KSh 170,000 from one victim alone, further illustrates the gravity of the alleged offence.

A critical aspect of this case, and indeed all robbery with violence cases in Kenya, is the sentencing framework. While Section 296(2) of the Penal Code explicitly states that an offender "shall be sentenced to death," this mandatory imposition has been significantly altered by judicial precedent. The Supreme Court, in the landmark decision of *Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic* [2017] eKLR, declared mandatory death sentences unconstitutional, particularly for murder, on the grounds that they deny courts the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances. This principle was extended to robbery with violence by the High Court in February 2025, which ruled that the mandatory nature of the death sentence under Sections 296(2) and 297(2) of the Penal Code is unconstitutional. The High Court further directed that all prisoners serving life sentences for robbery with violence be given an opportunity to apply for mitigation and resentencing.

More recently, in January 2026, the High Court declined a sweeping order for the mass release of all inmates charged or convicted of robbery with violence, citing public safety concerns. However, Justice Lawrence Mugambi acknowledged that the continued reliance on certain Penal Code provisions for robbery with violence violates the Constitution, following earlier judicial declarations. The court directed the Attorney General to file progress reports on steps taken to align the law with constitutional requirements, with a warning that if the law is not corrected by June 30, 2027, charges, prosecutions, or convictions based solely on Sections 295 and 297 will be quashed. This indicates a clear judicial imperative for legislative reform, as evidenced by the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which proposes repealing Section 296.

The accused in the present case have pleaded not guilty and have been granted a bond of KSh 1 million, with an alternative cash bail of KSh 500,000. This reflects the courts' adherence to the presumption of innocence and the right to bail, even for serious offences, unless compelling reasons are demonstrated to deny it. The prosecution will bear the burden of proving the elements of robbery with violence beyond a reasonable doubt, including the identification of the accused and the use of violence or the presence of aggravating factors. The defence will likely challenge the evidence presented, focusing on issues such as identification, intent, and the absence of the statutory elements of the aggravated offence.

The arraignment of Viwandani MCA Aaron Kang'ara Wangare and his co-accused for robbery with violence underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law, irrespective of an individual's public standing. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a timely reminder of the complexities surrounding robbery with violence charges in Kenya, particularly in light of the evolving jurisprudence on mandatory sentencing. The ongoing legislative efforts to amend the Penal Code, specifically the proposed repeal of Section 296, will be crucial in aligning statutory provisions with constitutional mandates and judicial pronouncements.

Practitioners involved in criminal defence must remain abreast of these developments, leveraging the *Muruatetu* decision and subsequent High Court rulings to advocate for fair sentencing and the consideration of mitigating factors. The outcome of this particular case, which is still in its early stages, will be closely watched, not only for its implications for the accused but also for its potential to further shape the interpretation and application of criminal law in Kenya. It reinforces the importance of meticulous preparation, adherence to due process, and the protection of fundamental rights throughout the criminal justice system.