• Ondieki said Deya could not have participated in child stealing as when the crime is said to have happened in 2004, he was in the United Kingdom.
• Hs wife faced the same charges and was acquitted.
Image: FILE
Controversial televangelist Gilbert Juma Deya, on Monday acquitted of five child trafficking charges, has said he's happy and has forgiven his persecutors.
"The case tainted my name but I'm happy that I'm going back to the ministry, I'm happy that I've been acquitted," he said after his acquittal for lack of evidence.
The offence is alleged to have occurred in 2004 when Deye was in the UK and the case against him has been pending for 20 years. He was extradited from the UK and deported to Kenya on August 4, 2017.
Deya had been charged in 2004 in absentia and later charged in 2017 after being extradited.
Milimani senior principal magistrate Robison Ondieki ruled the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against Deya.
The court said the burden of proof against the accused was wanting as none of the evidence placed the accused in the house where the subjects or victims were.
Ondieki said Deya did not participate in child stealing as by the time the crime is said to have happened in 2004, he was in the United Kingdom.
The magistrate faulted the prosecution's evidence because no witness was able to place the the accused at the house from which the children were alleged to have been stolen.
The suspicion was very strong, but it could not make someone guilty, he said.
The magistrate said despite Deya's his wife Mary Juma being charged with a similar offence, she was acquitted by a Kibera court.
"The prosecution having failed to establish circumstantial evidence, I acquit the accused under Section 215 of the CPC," the magistrate ruled.
Deya had been charged with five counts of stealing five children, all aged under 14, between 2002 and 2004, at Mountain View Estate, Nairobi.
Addressing the media after his release, Deya said that he has forgiven his persecutors, saying he is going back to the UK to continue with his ministry.
Previously, Deya through lawyer John Swaka, had submitted that the evidence relied on by the prosecution was marred with inconclusive information and discrepancies, which cannot amount to a safe and secure conviction.
Swaka told the court that it was upon the prosecution to tender sufficient evidence, despite using huge resources in getting Deya from the UK using an extradition order.
In May, Deya told the court the state fabricated the case against him without evidence.
While defending himself, the preacher denied all the five counts levelled against him.
Deya asked the court to acquit him for lack of evidence, saying he was maliciously charged with the same offence that his wife was charged with. She was acquitted.
While being cross-examined by senior state counsel Nicholas Mutuku, the preacher told the court he is being persecuted by the state. He denied having stolen the children, adding that he was in the UK when the alleged offences were said to have been committed.
The bishop denied having given any instruction to anybody to keep the five children in his Mountain View House, No 226, in Nairobi.
He told magistrate Ondieki the charges against him were malicious and meant to tarnish his name as "a man of God".
Deya said at the time of the alleged offence he was in the UK where his church is based.
"Your Honour, I did not process a birth certificate for the alleged children and the DNA results did not show the children were mine," he said.
He said he has no connection with the five children. Deya also denied having visited several clinics in Nairobi. He said he never registered the children as alleged by the prosecution.
"Your Honour, the prosecution later charged me with the same offence [as his wife, who was acquitted]," Deya said.
He asked the court to acquit him for lack of evidence, saying he has never engaged in child trafficking.
"The ingredients of the offence have not been proven to satisfaction," the bishop said.
The lawyer told the court the prosecution reliedon a number of witnesses who failed to show that Deya received and harboured the children.
He said it is important to note that the testimonies provided only go further to show that the accused was nowhere in the country and could therefore not be linked to the act of receiving and harbouring the children.