DCI officer fails to prove impersonation charge against businessman

Nazir Bhadurali Jinnah appeared in the dock at the Milimani Law Courts on Thursday for the hearing of his case. He is accused of impersonating an advocate, forging and uttering false documents. [Collins Kweyu,Standard]

A police officer who investigated a case of impersonation of a high court advocate was put on the spot on Thursday for failing to prove the allegations.

Inspector Eunice Njue, a DCI officer, appeared before Milimani Senior Principal Magistrate Dolphina Alego as a witness in the case against businessman Nazir Bhadurali Jinnah.

Jinnah is accused of pretending to be an associate of the law firm of Khaminwa and Khaminwa advocates, which is owned by veteran lawyer Dr John Khaminwa. The law firm is 60 years old and has handled many high-profile cases in the country.

The defence lawyer, Conrad Maloba, questioned the officer on the basis of the case, given that there was no complaint lodged by the law firm or any other person who had dealt with Jinnah as a lawyer. Maloba also asked the officer to produce any evidence that Jinnah had presented himself as a lawyer from the law firm.

The officer admitted that she had not received any complaint from the law firm or any other person, and that she only focused on the allegations made by one Sunny Birdi Singh, who claimed to have lost money in a transaction involving Jinnah and another law firm, Anjarwalla and Khanna advocates.

The officer said that Singh had reported that Jinnah had posed as a lawyer from Khaminwa and Khaminwa advocates and had facilitated the transaction, which turned out to be fraudulent. The officer said that she had obtained a letter from Khaminwa and Khaminwa advocates, stating that Jinnah was not a lawyer in their firm and that they had no knowledge of him or his contacts.

"Nazir is not a lawyer in our law firm, we have no such person in our office or his contacts," the letter to the DCI from the law firm stated.

The officer, however, could not produce any other evidence to show that Jinnah had impersonated a lawyer from the law firm, such as a business card, a letterhead, a contract, or a witness statement.

The defence lawyer argued that the case was based on hearsay and speculation, and that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of impersonation beyond reasonable doubt.

The case will resume on November 29.