Concerns about data privacy and police accountability have intensified after a Nairobi court questioned how funds and a personal identification number were accessed from a seized mobile phone belonging to a police officer facing criminal charges.
The court demanded a full explanation from the investigating officer after it emerged that money had been withdrawn from the officer’s account while the phone was in state custody.
The directive was issued by Magistrate BenMark Ekhubi following a formal complaint by police officer Charles Lotira, who is among several people accused of engaging in organised criminal activities in Turkana, including the alleged sale of ammunition for profit.
All the accused have denied involvement in any criminal activity.
Lotira, represented by lawyer Danstan Omari, told the court that investigators confiscated his mobile phone during the investigation and later returned it after completing the process. However, he discovered that his personal identification number had been compromised while the phone was in the hands of law enforcement. Upon checking his M-Pesa Fuliza account, he realised that over Ksh.30,000 had been withdrawn without his knowledge or permission.
Omari told the court that the incident raises troubling questions about how law enforcement handles private digital information belonging to suspects or accused persons.
He argued that the breach reflects serious flaws in the chain of custody of digital evidence and a possible misuse of access privileges by officers.
The lawyer further noted that the unauthorised withdrawals showed a lack of proper data protection mechanisms and accountability within the police system.
Magistrate Ekhubi directed the investigating officer to appear in person and explain how the phone’s PIN was accessed and how unknown individuals managed to withdraw money from Lotira’s account.
The court also demanded a report identifying those responsible for the withdrawals and detailing the procedures used when handling confiscated devices.
Lotira, through his lawyer, requested that mobile service providers be summoned to produce transaction records to help uncover how the unauthorised transactions took place. He maintained that his financial information had been secure prior to the phone’s seizure, and the timing of the withdrawals clearly pointed to mishandling or deliberate interference by those who had access to the device.
