A Nairobi-based journalist has moved to court seeking protection and anticipatory bail following her alleged implication in a high-profile abduction saga involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju.

Zipporah Wambui Weru, through her lawyer Danstan Omari, filed an urgent application seeking anticipatory bail of KSh 20,000 and conservatory orders to restrain state agencies from harassing, intimidating, or interfering with her without due process.

In the application, Weru argues that she is a law-abiding journalist accredited by the Media Council of Kenya and poses no flight risk. She maintains that she has a fixed place of residence and is willing to comply fully with any court directives.

The application arises from a statement issued on April 3, 2026, by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), which allegedly identified her as a “person of interest” in what authorities described as a staged disappearance involving Tuju.

The statement reportedly named three other individuals Samson Okiya Sirako, Karen Wangare, and Khadijah Chepkosia Saidi as being linked to the alleged incident.

Weru has strongly denied any involvement, stating she does not know the individuals mentioned and only learned of the alleged disappearance through media reports.

She contends that the DCI’s public statement has exposed her to reputational harm, threats to her personal security, and potential violations of her fundamental rights.

Through her petition, she argues that unless the court intervenes, she risks arbitrary arrest and continued harassment.

She is seeking orders to safeguard her constitutional rights, including protection from unlawful detention, the right to a fair trial, and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment.

The application further emphasizes that denying her bail would undermine the purpose of bail, which is to ensure attendance in court rather than to punish. She insists that there are no compelling reasons to justify her arrest or detention.

Weru is also asking the court to issue any additional orders it deems just and fair under the circumstances, stressing that the respondents would not suffer prejudice if the requested protections are granted.