The death of Rex Masai, a 29-year-old who was shot during the Finance Bill 2024 protests, continues to raise more questions than answers.
In the latest court session, the officer in charge of the Central Police Station’s armoury, Fredrick Okapesi, declined to hand over the arms movement register as an exhibit in the ongoing inquest.
This document is central to the case since it records which firearms were issued and to which officers, potentially linking a weapon to the fatal shooting.
However, Okapesi remained firm that he would not produce it, despite being pressed by the Director of Public Prosecution’s office.
The state’s handling of this matter points to an apparent cover up.
The National Police Service Commission’s lawyer, Elias Ouma, backed Okapesi’s refusal.
He argued that the register belongs to the commission and not any other agency, suggesting that it should not leave their hands.
Ouma went further to raise claims of possible alterations if the register were surrendered, even though the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) had not been shown to have tampered with it.
The DPP, represented by prosecutor Jalson Makori, stressed that there was no evidence the register was needed in another case, making its release necessary for justice in Masai’s death. Yet the officer still refused.
Even after Milimani Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo overruled the officer’s objection and assured the court that the document, once submitted, would remain under safe custody, Ouma insisted that Okapesi had not consented to its production.
His stance only added weight to suspicions that the state is not keen on full disclosure. Instead of helping the court, the custodians of the crucial register appear to be working to shield it from scrutiny.
Testifying further, Okapesi admitted to making alterations on the register. He had used whiteout to erase the name of one officer, Martin Githinji, and replaced it with the name of another, Simon Waweru, while leaving behind Githinji’s signature. He defended the act as an error he was correcting, claiming it was not an attempt to hide the truth.
He said such mistakes happen when filling the records and insisted that no firearm would have left the station without proper signatures.
Still, the contradiction between the names and signatures raises doubts, especially in a case as sensitive as this one.
To observers, the resistance by police officers and the legal backing by the commission’s lawyer suggest an institutional effort to control the narrative and keep certain facts hidden. The case is not just about a single shooting but about accountability.
A young man lost his life during a protest, and the family deserves clear answers. Yet the state appears to be closing ranks, prioritizing protection of its officers over transparency.
Each delay and refusal to produce evidence only deepens the suspicion that the truth of what happened to Rex Masai is being buried to protect those in uniform.
The inquest continues, but the manner in which key records are being withheld makes it hard to believe that justice will be straightforward.
For many, this is a clear sign that the state is leaning more on cover up than accountability. Until the arms register is fully examined in court, doubts will remain about whether Masai’s killers will ever be held responsible.
