The Supreme Court of Kenya recently delivered a significant judgment, rejecting a government initiative aimed at seizing assets belonging to Gibriel Cusman Mohamed, a former Somali diplomat. The assets in question included a striking residence valued at KSh 110 million and cash amounting to KSh 8.6 million. Authorities had accused Mohamed of having ties to Yemeni terrorist organizations, raising profound questions about the intersection of diplomacy, legality, and ethical governance.
- Advertisement -
Representatives from the Asset Recovery Agency (ARA) contended that the house, located on Eldama Ravine Road in the affluent Westlands district of Nairobi, along with funds held in three accounts at I&M Bank, were derived from activities related to terrorism and money laundering. The ARA’s forfeiture application, which was submitted in August 2024, found its way to the Milimani Anti-Corruption Court, where the agency sought a formal declaration stating that the properties owned by Mr. Mohamed and his enterprise, Jibca Services Limited, were connected to terrorism.
In seeking to take control of the property, the ARA pointed to its acquisition history, revealing that the estate had been purchased from Siana Properties Limited for KSh 110.5 million. However, the agency’s assertions gained additional weight when it claimed that the funds employed to secure the property could be traced back to Abdi Nasir Ali, an individual listed by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Allegedly, Ali had been involved in financing Houthi rebels, thereby exacerbating the ongoing instability in Yemen.
The ARA disclosed that Ali had been noted by Kenyan security agencies, having traveled in and out of the country eight times between 2013 and 2018, casting further suspicion on Mohamed’s dealings. However, in a notable turn of events, Justice Benjamin Musyoki dismissed the ARA’s application, highlighting a critical deficiency—namely, a lack of credible evidence linking Mohamed or his business to Ali or any terrorism-related activities.
“The ARA merely made general assertions about purported investigations suggesting connections to terrorism without presenting the necessary details or evidence before the court. If credible investigations did exist that tied Mohamed to Ali, the agency fell short in its responsibility by not providing that evidence,” Justice Musyoki stated, his judgment resonating with those who advocate for a rigorous legal standard built on factual accuracy.
The court’s analysis did not overlook Mohamed’s extensive diplomatic background and current possession of diplomatic passports from Somalia, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. His prior roles included serving as Somalia’s ambassador and as the First Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission at the Somali Embassy in Malaysia. Justice Musyoki pointed out, “If we strictly follow the ARA’s narrative, the only accusation is that Mr. Mohamed sold an inherited property to Mr. Ali. Given this lack of criminal linkage, freezing his property could unjustly strip him of his rightful inheritance.” Such reflection begs a broader question: How can we reconcile the need for security with the rights of individuals who have dedicated their lives to public service?
Mr. Mohamed, who chose to represent himself in court, passionately articulated that the funds in contention originated from the sale of a family home he had inherited from his mother in Mogadishu. He recounted selling the property—known as Sudan House—in September 2023 to Dahir Mohamoud Mohamed for $2.2 million (approximately KSh 285 million). This transaction, he noted, was validated by Somalia’s Financial Crimes Department and the Office of the Attorney General, providing another layer of credibility to his assertions.
Mohamed emphasized his intention for the Westlands property: “It was meant to provide a comfortable home for my family in Kenya.” He firmly denied any direct or indirect interaction with Ali, stating that during the transaction of the Mogadishu property, his only dealings were with a Notary Public and Dahir Mohamoud, who represented the buyer. Quite strikingly, Mohamed insisted he had never received any funds from Ali, a fact that creates an interesting tension in the narrative presented by the ARA.
A central element of the case hinged upon the transfer of $560,000 (around KSh 72.5 million), which Dahir Mohamoud transferred into Jibca Services Limited’s I&M Bank account in February and March 2024. The ARA alleged that these funds were indirectly sourced from Ali, purportedly funneled through Dahir Mohamoud to Jibca Services Limited, a recently registered company with Mohamed listed as one of its two shareholders and the sole signatory. The agency further claimed the account exhibited unusually rapid transactions that raised red flags, culminating in it being emptied.
As this intricate legal battle unfolds, it compels us to reflect: How does one navigate the murky waters of asset recovery and accusations? Justice is paramount, but so too is the protection of individual rights. This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between ensuring national security and safeguarding the dignity and rights of those who have devoted their lives to public service.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring.
