Media Shut Out as Barnabas Kiprop Bwabok’s KSh14.9 Million Fraud Case Goes Behind Closed Doors at Milimani
BY KT Team A fraud prosecution involving Nairobi businessman Barnabas Kiprop Bwabok has sparked fresh questions about courtroom transparency after a hearing reportedly proceeded behind closed doors, shutting journalists out of proceedings in a case attracting public interest. The controversy surrounding businessman Barnabas Kiprop Bwabok has taken a troubling turn following reports that journalists were excluded from proceedings at the Milimani Law Courts on Friday, October 9, 2026, as his KSh14.9 million fraud case moved into a closed-door hearing. The development raises a fundamental question about the administration of justice: why should proceedings in a financial fraud case attracting public attention be conducted away from the scrutiny of journalists and the wider public? Bwabok's prosecution concerns a disputed transaction involving medical kits and millions of shillings. The case previously attracted coverage from Citizen Digital, while the latest report by Daily Trends focuses on the exclusion of the media from the courtroom. Although courts may lawfully restrict public access in particular circumstances, such restrictions demand a clear legal justification. The public has a legitimate interest in understanding why access was limited, who requested the restriction and whether the court formally authorised it. The exclusion of journalists should not be confused with proof of criminal wrongdoing. Equally, the existence of a criminal prosecution does not automatically justify keeping the proceedings beyond public scrutiny. KSh14.95 Million Medical Kits Deal at the Centre of the Case The roots of the prosecution stretch back to 2022, when Bwabok was charged with obtaining KSh14,950,000 from Ollyvian Agencies through his company, Amara. According to a report published by Citizen Digital on October 28, 2022, prosecutors accused Bwabok of obtaining the money by falsely representing that he could supply medical kits known as microcuvettes. The prosecution placed the disputed transactions between April 1 and May 19, 2022, in Nairobi. The accusation was that Bwabok received the money on the strength of a representation about his ability to supply the medical products. But the case did not stop at the money. Bwabok was also charged with making a false Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) Local Certificate of Conformity, identified in the charge as UCR 202204009387, and presenting it as genuine. Prosecutors placed the making of the disputed certificate on May 17, 2022, and its presentation at City Hall Annex in Nairobi on July 19, 2022. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and was released on KSh2 million cash bail. The prosecution therefore involves two serious issues: the disputed multimillion-shilling payment and the authenticity of a document presented as a KEBS certification. Closed-Door Hearing Raises Questions About Open Justice The latest controversy concerns the reported exclusion of journalists from proceedings at Milimani. Yesterday the case moved to a closed-door hearing, raising concerns about media access to a prosecution that has been in the public domain since 2022. The immediate question is whether the exclusion followed a formal court order and, if so, what legal reasons justified it. Kenya's Constitution recognises the principle that justice should ordinarily be administered in public. Article 50(1) provides for a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal. That principle is not absolute. Courts may restrict public access where legally justified, including circumstances involving the protection of vulnerable witnesses, confidential information or other compelling interests. But a restriction should not become a means of shielding a litigant from legitimate reporting merely because the proceedings could attract negative publicity. The reputation of an accused businessman is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to conceal a criminal trial from public scrutiny. The precise legal basis for Friday's reported closed-door session remains important. Without the relevant order or a reliable account of the magistrate's directions, it cannot be established that Bwabok personally secured the exclusion or that the court acted to protect him from exposure. Why the Public Deserves to Know What Happened The KSh14.95 million prosecution raises questions about commercial accountability, documentary authenticity and the conduct of transactions involving medical supplies. These are matters of legitimate public interest. Businesses entering supply agreements must be able to rely on representations about products, documentation and delivery arrangements. Where prosecutors charge a supplier with obtaining money through false pretences, the public has an interest in understanding the evidence presented and the court's eventual findings. The same applies to the disputed KEBS certificate. If the prosecution proves that a conformity document was forged and used to support a commercial transaction, the implications would extend beyond the parties to the case. If Bwabok successfully challenges the charges, the public should also know that outcome. Neither result benefits from unnecessary secrecy. The proceedings should therefore remain open to scrutiny unless the court identifies a lawful and proportionate reason for restricting access. Four Years Later, the Case Still Demands Answers Bwabok was charged in October 2022. The reported October 2026 hearing means the case has remained in the judicial system for nearly four years. That passage of time raises further questions about the progress of the prosecution, including the evidence heard, the number of adjournments and what remains before a determination can be reached. Those details cannot be established from the two reports alone, and the current trial record would be needed to provide an accurate account of the delays. Nevertheless, prolonged criminal proceedings can carry consequences for everyone involved. The complainant has an interest in a timely resolution. The accused has the right to have the charges determined without unreasonable delay. The public has an interest in seeing serious financial-crime prosecutions concluded through a fair and transparent process. A closed-door hearing, particularly one that attracts controversy over media access, only intensifies the need for clear communication from the court about the status of the proceedings. Courtroom Transparency Must Not Become a Casualty The controversy surrounding Barnabas Kiprop Bwabok is now about more than the original KSh14.95 million transaction. It is also about the public's ability to follow a criminal prosecution involving disputed medical supplies and a contested KEBS document. The charges are serious. The reported exclusion of journalists is equally deserving of scrutiny. But accountability requires precision. The prosecution's accusations must not be presented as convictions, and the exclusion of reporters must not automatically be attributed to a corrupt motive without evidence of who requested it and why. The Milimani court should make the legal basis for the reported restriction clear, including whether the order applies to the entire trial or only a particular session. A fraud prosecution of this magnitude should not disappear from public view without a compelling legal explanation. Justice must be done fairly, and the public must be able to understand how it is being administered. For Bwabok, the central issue remains whether prosecutors can prove the charges arising from the KSh14.95 million medical kits transaction. For the judiciary, the latest controversy presents a separate test of openness, proportionality and public confidence. The public deserves answers on both.