Ndiang'ui mystery deepens as LSK seeks to grill blogger

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) is demanding that ICT expert Ndiang’ui Kinyagia, his cousin, and mother appear in court for questioning over a controversial affidavit filed following his mysterious 13-day disappearance.

In a dramatic court session on Friday, LSK President Faith Odhiambo told High Court Judge Chacha Mwita that Ndiang’ui’s initial account of his disappearance contradicts a sworn affidavit filed by his cousin, lawyer Lilian Wanjiku Gitonga.

Odhiambo informed the court that the affidavit, filed on July 3, 2025, contains information that conflicts with what had been previously presented to the society before Ndiang’ui went missing for nearly two weeks.

“We want to make an application before we start the hearing of this case, based on an affidavit sworn by Lilian Wanjiku Gitonga. My Lord, this affidavit is in stark contrast to the information we were earlier given,” said Odhiambo.

“We are seeking to cross-examine Mr Ndiang’ui, Ms Lilian Gitonga, and Ms Margaret Rukwaro (his mother) since pertinent concerns have arisen from the contents of the affidavit,” she added.

Odhiambo also raised concerns about how affidavits are being filed in court without informing the LSK.

Ndiang’ui reportedly went missing in June under mysterious circumstances and later resurfaced at the Milimani High Court. Details surrounding his disappearance remain unclear.

According to a three-page affidavit, lawyer Gitonga stated she received a call from an undisclosed location during Ndiang’ui’s absence.

In the call, Ndiang’ui reportedly assured her he was "fine and safe" and had not been abducted by individuals believed to be police officers, contrary to earlier claims made in court by LSK, which had sought a court order compelling the Inspector General of Police and the DCI to produce him in court, dead or alive.

Despite this, the reasons for his disappearance and where he had been remain opaque. 

The LSK believes the conflicting narratives must be examined through cross-examination to uncover the truth.

“It raises great concerns and touches on the integrity of the Law Society itself. As officers of the court, we are bound to come before the court with clean hands. Therefore, this would help in dealing with the matter and determine the fate of even the very petition that the Law Society filed,” Odhiambo told the court.

Adding to the confusion, family lawyer Kibe Mungai distanced himself from a second affidavit now at the centre of the legal standoff.

Kibe told the court that during previous proceedings, he had been tasked with  liaising with the family and Ndiang’ui to prepare the affidavit, which was to be filed in court before yesterday

However, Kibe told the judge after the July 3, 2025, court session, he had established contacts and had discussions with Ndiangui, his mother, and relatives. 

During the conversations, Kibe told court the family expressed concerns about disclosing Ndiang’ui’s whereabouts and proposed that the information be conveyed through an affidavit.  

Kibe recounted that after preparing a draft based on Ndiang’ui’s instructions, he shared it with the family. 

"The family said the affidavit made them uncomfortable, and I told them to amend it to a version they were comfortable with,” he said.

“Subsequently, I received an amended affidavit that was materially different from the instructions I had drawn from Ndiang’ui. Consequently, I was uncomfortable with the changes and declined to have it filed through my law firm.”

The court heard that the revisions by other family lawyers led by Wahome Thuku differed substantially from what had originally been drafted.

Odhiambo informed the court that the LSK had not been made aware of the second affidavit, which had since been formally filed, and are seeking to question the trio on the affidavit filed on July 3, 2025

The LSK president maintained that uncovering the truth behind  Ndiang’ui’s disappearance and resolving the affidavit controversy is crucial to the credibility of their petition.

Kibe, appearing for Lilian and the family, explained that he had initially coordinated with both LSK and Ndiang’ui after engaging with the family. 

However, the divergence in versions and representation left the court perplexed.

Justice Mwita remarked on the visible discomfort Kibe exhibited during his explanation, highlighting the same to LSK’s President Odhiambo during proceedings.

Mwita emphasized the need for clarity on who officially represents the second petitioner, noting that there would be no meaningful progress until the matter is resolved. 

“The affidavit here is by someone else and not the second petitioner, Ndiangui. We need to make that distinction,” Justice Mwita stated, pointing out inconsistencies between the parties claiming to act on behalf of Ndiang’ui. 

Due to the inconsistencies between affidavits and the confusion over legal representation, the hearing was unable to proceed. 

Justice Mwita postponed the matter to July 24,  urging the parties to “put their house in order.”

“This matter cannot proceed until the petitioners decide how to proceed with this case," he directed.