Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & another
The bottom line
#Supreme Court reinstates terrorism conviction, ruling admissions leading to evidence are admissible but need corroboration.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal's decision that had freed two Iranian men convicted of possessing 15kg of explosives. The Court ruled that when a suspect leads police to evidence, that act can be used as an admission in court. However, such an admission alone cannot secure a conviction; it must be supported by other evidence. In this case, the admission was backed by strong circumstantial evidence, including repeated visits to the spot where the explosives were buried.
Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Admissibility of information from a suspect leading to discovery of evidence after repeal of section 31 of the Evidence Act
Such information is admissible as an admission, not a confession, and may be proved in evidence but cannot alone sustain a conviction; it requires corroboration.
The court distinguished between a confession (direct acknowledgement of guilt) and an admission (statement from which guilt may be inferred). It held that the repeal of section 31 did not render all such information inadmissible. While section 25A governs confessions, admissions that do not meet its strict requirements are still admissible but cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The court found that the 1st respondent leading police to the RDX was an admission of possession, which was corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
Whether the conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence
The conviction was not based purely on circumstantial evidence; it was partly based on the 1st respondent's admission of possession by leading police to the RDX, which was corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
The court found that the 1st respondent's act of leading police to the spot where the RDX was recovered constituted an admission of possession. This admission, combined with circumstantial evidence such as the respondents' repeated visits to the isolated spot at Hole No. 9, their failure to visit any tourist sites, and their early departure from the hotel, formed a complete chain pointing to guilt. The court held that the Court of Appeal erred in treating the case as resting solely on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction
The circumstantial evidence on record unerringly pointed to the respondents' guilt and was inconsistent with their innocence.
The court reviewed the evidence of PW7 (taxi driver), PW14 (golfer), and PW13/PW17 (police officers). It noted that the respondents visited Hole No. 9 at least three times, including at dusk on the day before the RDX was recovered. They were first-time visitors to Kenya who did not visit any tourist sites. The golf course was open, but the respondents' repeated visits to that specific isolated spot, combined with their early departure and the 1st respondent leading police to the exact location, created a complete chain of evidence. The court found no evidence that anyone else had planted the RDX there.
Legal principles established
#- An admission by a suspect that does not meet confession rules is still admissible but cannot alone support a conviction.
- Section 111(1) of the Evidence Act applies at trial, not during police investigations.
- There is no conflict between sections 25A and 111(1) of the Evidence Act; they cover different situations.
- Circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction if it forms a complete chain pointing to guilt.
- Leading police to discover evidence can be treated as an admission of possession or involvement.
Court orders
#- 1.This appeal is hereby allowed.
- 2.The judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal made on January 28, 2018 are hereby set aside.
- 3.The conviction by the trial court of the respondents and the High Court decision are hereby affirmed.
- 4.The respondents shall serve the remainder of their imprisonment term after which they shall be repatriated to their country.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Admissions vs confessions clarified
When defending clients, distinguish between a confession (direct guilt admission under section 25A) and an admission (inferential statement). Admissions from leading to evidence are now clearly admissible but require corroboration. Challenge the weight, not admissibility. Use this to argue for corroboration if the prosecution relies solely on such evidence.
Security cooperation with police
If your business premises are used in criminal investigations, employees may be asked to lead police to evidence. This judgment confirms that such cooperation can be used as evidence. Ensure staff understand their rights and that any statements or actions may be admissible. Consult legal counsel before voluntarily assisting investigations beyond basic cooperation.
Your actions can be used in court
If you are a suspect and you voluntarily show police where evidence is hidden, that act can be used as an admission against you in a Kenyan court. It is not a full confession, but it can help convict you if combined with other evidence. Always ask for a lawyer before speaking or acting during police questioning.
Frequently asked questions
#Can police use information I give them that leads to evidence in Kenya?+
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that such information is admissible as an admission. However, it cannot be the only basis for a conviction; the prosecution must provide additional evidence to support it.
What is the difference between a confession and an admission in Kenya?+
A confession is a direct acknowledgment of guilt made under strict rules (section 25A Evidence Act). An admission is a statement or action from which guilt can be inferred, like leading police to evidence. Admissions are easier to admit but need corroboration.
Can I be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence in Kenya?+
Yes, if the circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain that points unerringly to your guilt and is inconsistent with any other reasonable explanation. The Supreme Court upheld this principle in the Ahmad Abolfathi case.
What happened in the Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed case in Kenya?+
Two Iranian nationals were convicted for possessing 15kg of RDX explosive. The Court of Appeal freed them, but the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. The Court ruled that leading police to the explosives was an admission, and combined with other evidence, it proved guilt.
Later judgments citing this (7)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Assets Recovery Agency v Gethi (Civil Appeal 40 of 2019) [2026] KECA 473 (KLR)[2026] KECA 473 (KLR)6 Mar 2026applied
- Elvis v Republic (Criminal Appeal E033 of 2022) [2026] KECA 196 (KLR)[2026] KECA 196 (KLR)30 Jan 2026followed
- Nyakundi v Republic (Criminal Appeal 144 of 2020) [2026] KECA 187 (KLR)[2026] KECA 187 (KLR)30 Jan 2026applied
- Nakwai v Republic (Criminal Appeal 266 of 2018) [2025] KECA 1347 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1347 (KLR)25 Jul 2025followed
- Mangiti & 21 others v Republic (Criminal Appeal E111, E162, E056, E055, E054 & E053 of 2023 & E006 of 2024 & E021 of 2022 (Consolidated)) [2025] KECA 735 (KLR)[2025] KECA 735 (KLR)2 May 2025applied
- Mugini & another v Republic (Criminal Appeal 277 of 2018) [2025] KECA 480 (KLR)[2025] KECA 480 (KLR)7 Mar 2025applied
- Auko v Republic (Criminal Appeal 134 of 2019) [2024] KECA 1694 (KLR)[2024] KECA 1694 (KLR)22 Nov 2024applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & another", Case Analysis (2019). Petition 39 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2019/48/eng@2019-03-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.