Rally driver Maxine Wahome to be detained for 1 week

In the meantime, she will be detained at Kilimani police station.

Maxine Wahome.
Image: Courtesy

Safari Rally Driver Maxine Wahome’s plea has been deferred to next week Wednesday. The matter was mentioned on Tuesday before Justice Lilian Mutende who was informed that the mental examination had not been conducted.

She directed that she be taken for mental assessment before taking a plea. In the meantime, she will be detained at Kilimani police station.

The DPP on Tuesday told the lower court that he had approved murder charges against her in the probe into her late boyfriend Asad Khan.

The prosecution said Wahome would be charged with murder on Wednesday and that they were heading to a virtual court for directions.

“The DPP has now made a decision to charge the suspect with murder. He has further informed the court that the respondent (Wahome) is required today virtually for directions,” Ochoi said.

The state also asked that the court detains her at the Kilimani police station as she waits to the murder plea.

Wahome was arrested in December last year and was being investigated for assault and grievous harm but the DPP has since enhanced the charges to murder following Khan's death.

She was released from police custody on a Sh100,000 cash bail after spending two nights behind bars and has been reporting to the police station weekly to assist in investigations.

Wahome made history in June last year by becoming the first female to win the WRC3 at the age of 26.

At the time of her arrest, Khan was alive but unconscious and in critical condition at the high-dependency unit. Police said the victim, now deceased, sustained a deep cut on his ankle that was allegedly inflicted by Wahome.

The investigating officer told the court she (Wahome) was arrested at their apartment after the boyfriend’s brother made a report of an assault to the police.

The court heard that during the arrest, the police found a lot of blood in the house and broken glasses.

However, through her lawyers, Wahome maintained that she is a victim and further claimed that Khan hurt himself when he was attacking her.

His lawyer told the court that until investigations are over no one really knows who the victim is in this case since the intended complainant is still unconscious and he can’t record a statement.

However, Khan passed on days later which changed the trajectory of the case as the victim’s family also appeared in court seeking for justice for their son.

The family had challenged the closure of the miscellaneous file without proper directions from the DPP. The Khan family through lawyers Cliff Ombeta and Danstan Omari argued that the police has not disclosed in finality if they recommended her to be charged or not.

Omari has asked court not to close the file as requested but instead give a further mention date so that the DPP can tell court what his recommendation is.

The victims worn their case after the court later in a ruling delivered in court directed the DPP to file a report in court of the findings of the investigations into the death of Khan.

Ochoi declined to withdraw the miscellaneous application as had been asked by the investigating officer ruling that it will be unfair to Wahome if the matter is withdrawn without the investigating officer telling court their findings.

“This court must be informed by the findings of the investigations. It will be unfair for the MSc application to be closed without the respondent being informed about the results that were being conducted against her,” the court ruled.

Ochoi said it would be an abuse of court process if the file is closed without the findings, no matter what kind of investigations were being conducted. He further ruled that the investigations officer has obligations to inform court of the findings

He said that's the court procedure and they need to say what they intend to do to the person whom they sought to be detained pending investigations.

Khan’s lawyers had opposed the withdrawal of the matter until the state tells them what they intend to do with the file.

The investigating officer had told court that they were through with investigations and wanted to close the file since they had forwarded it to the DPP for advice.