Missing Tanzanian lawyer's mystery deepens as police falter

Lawyer Abshir Ahmedsadak Abdi was allegedly bundled into a vehicle by armed men in Nairobi on November 1, 2026. [Nancy Gitonga, Standard]

Security agencies in the country are on the spot after struggling to explain the disappearance of a Nairobi lawyer, with officers who previously arrested and investigated him now unable to account for his whereabouts.

Officers from the Anti-Terrorism Police Unit (ATPU) and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) were on Thursday hard-pressed to account for the disappearance of Abshir Ahmedsadak Abdi, with their court testimony exposing troubling gaps in their accounts of the advocate's disappearance.

Chief Inspector Vitalis Kibet, the officer commanding the ATPU Nairobi Detachment,faced intense questioning from lawyers led by former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) president Eric Theuri, who challenged his account of the lawyer's arrest, release and subsequent disappearance.

Despite being summoned by Justice Alexander Muteti to explain Abdi's whereabouts, Kibet could not tell the court where the advocate was, what had happened to him or what his unit had done to trace him.

The officer instead maintained that ATPU could not independently investigate the disappearance because the unit had been accused of involvement.

"In relation to this particular petition, the Counter-Terrorism Bureau, I included as a respondent, there are several allegations against us in this application. So for fair and professional investigation and without any bias, there's nothing else we can do because we are being accused that we are the one who abducted him having arrested and detained him previously ," Kibet told the court.

His response prompted Theuri to put it to him that the unit was doing nothing to establish the whereabouts of the missing lawyer.

The uncomfortable exchange came against the backdrop of Kibet's own admission that Abdi and his client, businessman Ahmed Abdi Hassan, remained persons of interest in ongoing ATPU investigations.

Kibet said that investigators suspected advocate Abdi of operating an extortion network in which people who failed to meet financial demands were arrested and charged.

He alleged that the scheme also involved officers from Pangani, Shauri Monyo, Airbase, Eastleigh North, California Police Stations, where the targeted individuals were allegedly taken after refusing to pay.

Justice Muteti sought clarification on whether the officer was alleging that people who declined to pay were arrested and presented in court for fabricated charges.

"Yes that is exactly what l have stated," Inspector Kibet answered adding that investigations into the alleged extortion a s abduction activities were still ongoing.

Kibet confirmed that the missing advocate and his client were still under investigation under police file number TPO 14619-2035, even though the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) had declined twice to approve charges and custodial applications presented by investigators.

Theuri confronted the officer with the circumstances surrounding Abdi's arrest on October 9, 2025, and his presentation at Kahawa Law Courts on October 13, 2025.

Kibet confirmed that the advocate had spent four days in police custody before being presented in court.

The lawyer then produced a notice to compel attendance issued by Police Constable Henry Bwire, an officer under Kibet's command, requiring Abdi to appear at ATPU headquarters on October 12, 2025.

The document was dated October 11, 2025, raising questions about why an officer would issue a notice requiring attendance if the advocate was still in custody.

Kibet acknowledged that such notices are ordinarily issued when a suspect is released but required to return to assist investigators.

The judge also had to intervene, directing the officer who tried to dodge questions, to listen carefully to questions and answer them directly rather than attempt to interpret what counsel was asking.

"At the same time, just listen to the question carefully. Supply the answer based on the question. Don't try to interpret the questions or try to imagine what counsel is up to. Just answer the questions," Justice Muteti directed.

Another contentious issue involved the seizure of Abdi's electronic devices.

Kibet initially appeared to maintain that the advocate had voluntarily surrendered his laptop and mobile phone.

However, when Theuri pressed him for a direct answer, he conceded that the gadgets had been confiscated contracting his earlier testimony to court

"My lord, no is the answer because it was confiscated from him," Kibet admitted.

The officer further confirmed that ATPU had sought court orders to retain the devices for forensic examination after investigators failed to secure the necessary custodial orders in Kahawa

The DPP's refusal to approve the applications became another point of confrontation.

Kibet agreed with Theuri that when the prosecution declines to approve charges, it means there is insufficient evidence to sustain the proposed charge at that particular time.

The same questions resurfaced in relation to Hassan, who was arrested on October 24, 2025, in connection with Abdi's arrest.

Kibet confirmed that the ODPP had also declined a custodial application relating to Hassan.

But despite the setbacks in securing charges, he acknowledged that both men remained persons of interest to the security unit.

The court proceedings also brought back explosive allegations contained in a complaint letter dated October 25, 2025, addressed to DCI Director Amin Mohamed Ibrahim by Mugeria, Lempaa and Kariuki Advocates.

The lawyers accused ATPU and NIS officers of turning a criminal case pending before Makadara Law Courts into a security operation designed to intimidate witnesses and force the withdrawal of criminal proceedings.

The underlying case arose from allegations that businessman Ahmed Ali Mohamed obtained mobile phones worth approximately Sh 618,000 from Hassan between June 15 and July 15, 2024 at eastleigh area in Kamukunji, on the promise of payment.

The missing lawyer client, Hassan reported the matter at Pangani Police Station under OB number 03/08/10/04/2024, with prosecutors recommending charges of obtaining goods by false pretences under Section 313 of the Penal Code.

In his affidavit, lawyer Abdi claimed that on October 9, 2025, two individuals, Siyad Mohamed and Abdirahman, masqueraded as employees of the estate management company before handing him over to waiting ATPU officers.

He alleged that during interrogation at ATPU headquarters, he was threatened with terrorism-related charges unless he prevailed upon his client Hassan to withdraw the Makadara case.

"They openly threatened me that if I failed to prevail over the accused person to withdraw the charges, they will make sure that they craft trumped up charges including terrorism related and have me detained at ATPU so that I do not attend Court," Abdi stated in his affidavit.

Hassan separately alleged that he was arrested on October 24, 2025, by ATPU officers accompanied by two NIS officers.

He claimed that during interrogation, NIS officer Siyad threatened to have him detained so that he would miss his court appearance scheduled for October 29,2025, while his co-officer Abdirahman allegedly brandished a firearm.

The lawyers' complaint further questioned why intelligence officers were allegedly spearheading interrogations at ATPU facilities and whether the security unit was being used to advance the interests of a businessman facing criminal charges.

However, Kibet distanced his unit from the alleged intimidation and denied that ATPU was holding the missing advocate in regard to that matter.

The question of NIS involvement also proved difficult for the officers.

During the High Court proceedings, LSK lawyer  Wycklife Oyoo sought confirmation of whether NIS officers had participated in the disputed interviews and intimidation incidents at ATPU headquarters.

However, the officers were unable to provide a clear confirmation on whether two NIS officers were present during the disputed encounter.

Lawyer Nyamodi representing the heads of the security agencies opposed the question citing national security concerns, arguing that revealing details about the multi-agency team's composition would prejudice security operations.

The court questioned the basis of withholding even a general confirmation of the agency's participation, distinguishing between revealing individual officers' identities and confirming whether NIS participated.

Lawyer Theuri maintained that identifying the officers was unnecessary, insisting that the court only needed confirmation of the agency's involvement.

Earlier, ATPU officer Nicholas Kimanthi, who had been sent to represent his boss, Assistant Inspector General Saidi Kiprotich, told the court that Abdi was not in ATPU custody and that he had taken no action after learning of the lawyer’s disappearance, maintaining that the matter fell under Kilimani Police Station’s jurisdiction

While confirming that ATPU had arrested and detained Abdi and Ahmed Ali Mohamed before releasing them without charge, Kimanthi distanced himself from allegations that officers from the unit and the National Intelligence Service (NIS) had threatened the lawyer and his client at ATPU headquarters over the pending Makadara case.

He told the court that he was not present during the alleged intimidation but named a fellow ATPU officer, identified as Karanja, as having been present during the incident.

“The missing advocate was neither arrested by ATPU officers nor detained at ATPU cells. I have confirmed this from the Occurrence Books and registers,” he said.

National Police Service Deputy Director and Commissioner of Police Charles Otiende was also questioned on whether Abdi was being held at any police station in the country.

Responding to lawyer Nyamodi, Otiende told the court: “The subject, I have confirmed that he is not held in police custody among the 1,200 police stations in the nation of Kenya.”

The investigating officer, DCI Corporal Dennis Mwenda, was also recalled for further questioning as the court sought answers from the various security agencies over Abdi’s disappearance.

Mwenda told the court that police had recovered Abdi’s white Toyota Premio, registration number KDL 356C, overturned in a drainage ditch along Muchai Road.

During questioning by lawyer Theuri, the officer confirmed that the vehicle had been linked to the missing advocate, although he acknowledged that there could have been other occupants in the car alongside the advocate who had not been reported missing.

Mwenda further told the court that detectives had made inquiries at police stations within Nairobi and established that Lawyer Abdi was not being held in any of them.

He said inquiries had also been extended to police stations across the country, but so far there was no indication that the advocate was in police custody.

The officer also confirmed that he had reviewed two CCTV recordings obtained from different premises where the alleged abduction occured as part of the ongoing investigations.

According to Mwenda, one of the recordings captured the point where the vehicle plunged into a drainage ditch, while another showed vehicles moving along the same route.

He said the footage showed a white vehicle being followed by two other vehicles, one resembling a Toyota Prado and another a double-cab pickup, both black in colour.

Mwenda also told the court that people captured in the footage appeared to be carrying an object resembling a firearm but declined to confirm the abductors are police officers, raising further questions about the circumstances surrounding the incident.

He said investigations were still ongoing as detectives continued examining the CCTV footage and pursuing other leads.

The investigating officer was subsequently recalled as the court continued seeking answers from the different security agencies.

Despite several officers appearing before the court after Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and DCI Director Amin Mohamed failed to honour court summons, none has so far accounted for Abdi’s whereabouts or explained what happened to him after his disappearance.

This prompted LSK lawyers led by Theuri and Oyoo to seek fresh summons to all heads of security agencies in the country, arguing that the explanations given by officers who had appeared before the court were insufficient to account for Abdi’s disappearance.

Theuri said the fact that the disappearance was being investigated by the Kilimani Directorate of Criminal Investigations officer did not absolve the leadership of the National Police Service from responsibility.

“This court should find that the respondents, as per your orders, have not shown sufficient cause to dispel the overwhelming evidence of harassment, intimidation, extrajudicial abductions and actions employed by State agencies against the advocate,” he submitted.

He argued that the entire leadership of the National Police Service should be held accountable, noting that Abdi was an officer of the court and that the alleged threats against him were connected to proceedings before the Judiciary.

“The proceedings are in two angles: one, trying to save the life of an individual; and the other, the rule of law and administration of justice. If such extrajudicial measures are being carried out to defeat justice in competent courts of law, my lord, we shall descend to the rule of the jungle,” Theuri told the court.

LSK representative Oyoo said the society was deeply aggrieved by the disappearance of Abdi, who is a member of the legal fraternity, warning that the incident had far-reaching implications for the administration of justice.

“It is sad that an advocate of the High Court is abducted in broad daylight and disappears without accountability. This touches the core of the administration of justice and creates a chilling effect not only on members of the bar, but also on witnesses and every justice user and consumer,” Oyoo said.

He faulted the security agencies for presenting evidence about previous criminal investigations involving Abdi instead of directly answering the court's question about his current whereabouts and why he was abducted.

“All the State agencies have done is bring a narrative to court that there have been criminal investigations against the advocate. Instead of answering the question asked by the court to explain his whereabouts, they have chosen to take us in circles and in a circus, which we are not going to get into,” he submitted.

Oyoo said LSK supported the request by Abdi’s family and brother Zakaria Abshir to strengthen the production orders and compel the senior-most security officials to appear before the court.

“It is on that account that we fully support the request made by the family and brother of lawyer Abdi to strengthen the production orders and ensure that the highest command of all investigating and other police units are brought before this court for the immediate securing of the production of advocate Abdi, dead or alive,” he said.

However, the Attorney General, through lawyer Ms Rukia, opposed the application to summon the heads of security agencies, arguing that investigations into Abdi’s disappearance were still ongoing and should be allowed to run their course.

Rukia told the court that it would be premature to summon the senior security officials before investigators had concluded their work, urging the lawyers not to rush the process.

She argued that it was not appropriate to “jump the gun” when investigations were yet to be completed and the agencies were still pursuing leads into the advocate’s disappearance.

Justice Alexander Muteti directed that he will rule on Tuesday on whether to issue fresh summons requiring Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja, DCI Director Amin Mohamed and other security agency chiefs to appear before the court.

In the meantime, the judge ordered the State agencies to immediately release Abdi if he is being held in custody or produce him in court and have him arraigned if there are grounds to charge him, ahead of his ruling.