The prosecution maintains that circumstantial evidence supports the conviction of the former Venezuelan Embassy official over the 2012 murder of Olga Fonseca Jimenez.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss an appeal by former Venezuelan Embassy official Dwight Sagaray and uphold his 20-year prison sentence for the murder of Olga Fonseca Jimenez in Nairobi in July 2012.
In written submissions filed before the Supreme Court in Petition No. E030 of 2026, the prosecution argued that the evidence presented during the trial was sufficient to sustain Sagaray’s conviction, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal on March 7, 2025.
Sagaray filed his petition on August 7, 2026, challenging the appellate court’s decision and seeking to overturn his conviction and sentence.
The prosecution maintains that Sagaray’s diplomatic status did not shield him from prosecution, arguing that communication from Venezuelan authorities terminating his diplomatic mission and cancelling his diplomatic passport brought his diplomatic functions to an end.
It further contends that any immunity that may have remained did not extend to acts committed outside his official diplomatic functions.
The prosecution has also defended the evidence used to convict Sagaray, insisting that the decision was not based solely on alleged motive, perceived benefit or his association with Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Hassan.
Instead, the DPP argues that the trial court and the Court of Appeal properly considered the combined weight of circumstantial evidence surrounding the murder.
Among the issues highlighted by the prosecution are a dispute over control of the Venezuelan Embassy, Sagaray’s relationship with Hassan and events surrounding Fonseca’s death.
The prosecution maintains that circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction where the facts, considered collectively, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and exclude reasonable alternative explanations.
In his appeal, Sagaray argues that Kenyan courts lacked jurisdiction to try him because Venezuela did not expressly waive his diplomatic immunity.
He also challenges the evidentiary basis of his conviction, contending that the courts relied on motive, perceived benefit and his association with Hassan rather than sufficient evidence directly linking him to the murder.
The Supreme Court will now be required to consider the issues raised in the petition as the legal dispute over his conviction continues.
The Supreme Court Deputy Registrar has directed that the petition be placed before the Deputy Chief Justice for the empanelment of a bench and further directions.
The move sets the stage for further proceedings in a case that has raised questions about diplomatic immunity, the jurisdiction of Kenyan courts and the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal convictions.
The DPP is seeking to preserve the 20-year sentence, while Sagaray is challenging both the jurisdiction of the courts and the evidence underpinning his conviction.
