A Milimani court will deliver a ruling on July 7 on whether the prosecution in the cybercrime case against blogger and social media influencer Maverick Aoko will be granted more time to call additional witnesses or be compelled to close its case.

The decision comes after the prosecution failed to present all its witnesses during a three-day hearing allocated for the matter.

On Thursday, only one witness was available, prompting the defence to ask the court to terminate the proceedings for lack of sufficient evidence.

The case, which resumed on June 26 before Principal Magistrate Dolphina Alego, saw the prosecution open with the testimony of Sergeant Norah Shidi.

She told the court that she and Chief Inspector Patience Mungero were instructed to arrest Aoko along Gatanga Road on August 16, 2024.

Shidi said the arrest followed a court order issued under miscellaneous application E2737/2024, which also allowed for a search at Aoko’s residence.

During the operation, officers recovered several electronic items, including a Huawei phone with a broken screen, a Dell laptop, a red and black flash disk, and a laptop charger.

"At the point of arrest, we found the items in her house," Shidi testified. She added that an inventory was prepared and the items were handed over to the investigating officer at the DCI headquarters.

She further said that Aoko was informed of the reason for her arrest and signed the warrant. The officers also requested her to unlock her phone to retrieve the IMEI number to assist with the investigation.

However, during cross-examination, defence lawyer Kennedy Echesa questioned the legality of the search and arrest.

He argued that Shidi acted outside the scope of the warrant, which named Chief Inspector Nixon Kinyua or a person authorised by him to conduct the operation.

"Norah Shidi was not given such instructions and therefore acted outside the scope of the court order," Echesa said.

Shidi admitted that she did not sign any inventory when handing over the items to the investigating officer and could not confirm whether the house belonged to Aoko or if the items were hers.

She also acknowledged that the warrant was not shown to the accused until after the team had entered the residence.

Chief Inspector Kinyua, who was present in court, confirmed he is among the lead investigators in the cybercrime case.

He listed the remaining prosecution witnesses as a digital forensic expert and a man identified as Jimal Ibrahim Hassan.

He also admitted the case has faced multiple delays due to witness unavailability.

The defence, led by lawyers Kennedy Echesa and Anyena, asked the court to close the case, accusing the prosecution of dragging the matter unnecessarily. “It is unfair to punish the accused due to delays. The investigating officer should proceed with the statements to allow the prosecution to present its case so the court can determine whether the accused has a case to answer,” Anyena argued.

Aoko is accused of posting a false and defamatory tweet on August 3, 2024, targeting complainant Beth Wambui Mbuitu.

The charge sheet states that the tweet, published on Aoko’s ‘X’ handle, read:

"Maze it disorients me to say this.. But Amber Ray is innocent. She did not ruin marriage, ya Jamal Amira.. Beth did. She's the daughter of a powerful cop, so if you find me thrown Kware, refer to this tweet... Ask how Jamal moved from Makanga wa South C to Matatu boss... Ndio naanza."

The state alleges the post was false and intended to damage the complainant’s reputation, contrary to Section 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act of 2018. Aoko also faces two other counts of cyber harassment and misuse of electronic data.

She denied the charges and was released on a cash bail of Sh100,000. The case now awaits the July 7 ruling to determine whether the prosecution will proceed or be forced to close its case.