Police Officer Who Was a Key Witness in the Albert Ojwang Murder Case Dies After Suffering Acute Ulcers, Cardiac Arrest and Depression
A police officer who was expected to play a crucial role in the ongoing murder case involving the late teacher and blogger Albert Ojwang has died before he could appear in court to give his testimony.
The officer, identified as Stephen Maina Nderitu, was attached to the office of the Officer Commanding Station at Nairobi Central Police Station at the time of Ojwang’s death. He reportedly collapsed and died on Monday, September 7, 2026, shortly after leaving work. A postmortem report has cited acute ulcers and cardiac arrest, with depression also listed among the conditions associated with his death.
Nderitu’s death comes at a sensitive stage of the trial, where prosecutors were preparing to call him as one of the witnesses expected to help the court understand what happened to Ojwang during his final hours in police custody.
His death has therefore created a significant development in a case that has already attracted nationwide attention and raised serious questions about police accountability, the treatment of suspects in custody and the handling of evidence at Nairobi Central Police Station.
Nderitu had reportedly recorded a statement with investigators on May 18, 2025. The statement was considered important because of the information it contained concerning events surrounding Ojwang’s detention and the circumstances at the police station during the night he died.
Investigators were particularly interested in information that could help establish a chain of accountability involving the then Officer Commanding Station, Samson Talam, and the alleged interference with or tampering of the police station’s CCTV hard drive.
The CCTV system has been a significant part of the investigation because footage from the station could potentially help establish what happened to Ojwang after he was brought to Central Police Station and what occurred before he was found unconscious.
Nderitu was expected to provide evidence that could help prosecutors connect different accounts surrounding the alleged handling of the CCTV hard drive. His anticipated testimony was therefore viewed as potentially important in helping the prosecution piece together events that have remained heavily contested since Ojwang’s death.
The sudden death of the officer means prosecutors will now have to rely on the evidence already collected from him and determine what portions of his statement and other investigative material can be presented before the court in accordance with the law.
His death does not bring the murder case to an end. The trial will continue with other witnesses who have been lined up by the prosecution.
However, the loss of a witness who was expected to testify about sensitive events inside one of the country’s most important police stations adds another complication to a case that has already faced questions over evidence, witnesses and the protection of people expected to give evidence.
Ojwang died in police custody in June 2025 after being arrested in Homa Bay and transported to Nairobi following a complaint over his social media activities.
He was a teacher and blogger who had gained a significant following for his outspoken commentary on political and social issues. His arrest and subsequent death sparked widespread public outrage, protests and renewed debate about the treatment of suspects in police custody.
Ojwang was initially reported by police to have suffered injuries that were allegedly self-inflicted. That account was later challenged by findings from a postmortem examination, which indicated that he had suffered serious injuries, including head trauma and neck compression.
The findings changed the direction of the investigation and intensified calls for an independent and transparent inquiry into what happened inside the police station.
The Independent Policing Oversight Authority, IPOA, subsequently investigated the circumstances surrounding Ojwang’s death.
The case eventually moved to court, where several police officers were charged with murder. They have denied the allegations, and the court process is ongoing.
The prosecution’s case has focused on establishing what happened to Ojwang between the time he arrived at Central Police Station and the time he was found unconscious.
Evidence presented during the proceedings has sought to reconstruct his final hours and determine who was responsible for his custody and welfare.
Nderitu’s expected evidence was significant within that broader effort because he was attached to the OCS office at the station during the period in question.
His knowledge of the station’s operations and the information contained in his statement were expected to help investigators and prosecutors establish how different events fitted together.
The alleged interference with the CCTV hard drive has been particularly important because surveillance footage could potentially provide an independent account of what happened inside the station.
Questions surrounding the CCTV system have consequently remained part of the wider investigation into Ojwang’s death.
The death of Nderitu now means that one of the people expected to shed more light on those questions will not be able to personally appear before the court.
According to reports, Nderitu had been designated as a protected witness. The protection of witnesses has become a major issue in the case because of concerns about possible interference with people expected to testify.
Reports indicate that six other witnesses have been placed under tight protective custody after prosecutors raised concerns about the possibility of witness interference.
The protection measures demonstrate the sensitivity surrounding the proceedings and the importance attached to ensuring that witnesses are able to provide evidence without intimidation or interference.
Nderitu’s death, however, should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of foul play or as proof that his involvement in the Ojwang case contributed to his death.
The available reports attribute his death to medical conditions identified in the postmortem, including acute ulcers and cardiac arrest, with depression also cited. There is currently no verified evidence in the reports reviewed showing that he was killed because of his role as a witness.
That distinction is important because the circumstances surrounding Ojwang’s death have already generated strong public emotions and speculation.
The police officer’s death is likely to attract additional public attention because of the timing and because he had been expected to testify in such a high-profile case.
Nevertheless, the official evidence surrounding his death will be important in determining what happened to him.
Nderitu reportedly collapsed after leaving work, and his death was subsequently subjected to a postmortem examination. The findings have provided the initial medical explanation for his death.
His family is now preparing to bury him, with reports indicating that his burial has been scheduled for Friday, September 18, 2026.
While the family mourns, the prosecution will have to assess how his death affects the ongoing proceedings.
A witness’s death before testimony can create evidentiary challenges, particularly where the witness had information that was expected to be tested through questioning in court.
The prosecution had reportedly recorded Nderitu’s statement during the investigation. That statement could become important as prosecutors consider what evidence can lawfully be placed before the court.
However, a statement recorded during an investigation is not automatically equivalent to testimony given before a trial court. The prosecution will therefore have to work within the rules governing admissibility of evidence and the rights of the accused persons.
The defence teams are also expected to scrutinise any evidence linked to the deceased officer, particularly given that he will no longer be available for cross-examination.
This could make the handling of his statement and other evidence associated with him particularly important in the coming stages of the case.
The development also comes at a time when the prosecution is still working through a substantial list of witnesses.
IPOA had lined up 28 witnesses for the trial, meaning that Nderitu was only one part of a much wider body of evidence expected to be presented to the court.
Other witnesses are expected to provide evidence about Ojwang’s arrest, transportation to Nairobi, detention at Central Police Station, his condition while in custody and the events surrounding the discovery of his body.
The prosecution’s broader objective is to establish beyond the required legal threshold what happened to Ojwang and whether the accused persons participated in his death.
For the family of Albert Ojwang, the proceedings remain an important avenue for accountability.
Ojwang’s death shocked the country because he died while in the custody of the very institution that was supposed to guarantee his safety after his arrest.
His death also became a symbol in a wider national conversation about police conduct and deaths in custody.
The case attracted demonstrations in Nairobi and other parts of the country, with civil society groups, human rights organisations and members of the public demanding answers.
The controversy also led to intense scrutiny of the National Police Service and senior officers who were in positions of responsibility around the time of Ojwang’s arrest and death.
The trial has since become one of the most closely watched police accountability cases in Kenya.
For many observers, the proceedings are not only about the individual accused officers but also about whether Kenya’s justice system can provide a credible answer when a person dies while under state custody.
That makes every development in the case significant.
Nderitu’s death is therefore likely to generate questions about how the prosecution will proceed without one of its anticipated witnesses.
It could also renew discussions about witness protection and the welfare of people who become involved in sensitive criminal investigations.
Witnesses can face significant pressure when they possess information relating to cases involving powerful institutions or individuals. Ensuring their safety and wellbeing is therefore an important part of any credible justice process.
At the same time, the medical findings surrounding Nderitu’s death demonstrate why conclusions should not be drawn before investigations establish the facts.
Acute ulcers, cardiac arrest and depression have been cited in reports on the postmortem findings. Those details provide the currently reported medical context but do not, on their own, establish a connection between his death and his role in the Ojwang case.
The focus will now shift to the evidence Nderitu left behind and whether investigators had already obtained enough information from him to preserve the substance of what he knew.
His statement reportedly contained sensitive details that investigators believed could strengthen the chain of accountability surrounding Ojwang’s death.
That means the statement could remain relevant even though its author will no longer appear in court.
The court will ultimately determine what evidence is admissible and what weight should be attached to it.
The accused officers, like any other suspects facing criminal charges, remain entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Their cases must therefore be determined on the evidence presented before the court rather than on public opinion or speculation surrounding the death of Ojwang.
The same principle applies to the death of Nderitu.
His death should be allowed to be investigated and understood on the basis of available medical and factual evidence rather than assumptions arising from his role as a witness.
For the Ojwang family, however, the latest development adds another emotional layer to an already painful case.
They have spent more than a year waiting for the judicial process to establish what happened to their loved one.
The loss of another person who was expected to provide evidence could raise fresh concerns, even as the case continues.
The responsibility now falls on investigators, prosecutors and the court to ensure that the proceedings continue transparently and that no critical evidence is lost.
The authorities will also have to ensure that the remaining witnesses are adequately protected as they prepare to testify.
The death of Stephen Maina Nderitu is a reminder of how complicated and sensitive the search for justice can become in a case that involves alleged misconduct within the police service.
He was expected to provide answers to questions surrounding the events at Central Police Station, particularly the alleged handling of CCTV evidence and the chain of responsibility surrounding Ojwang’s detention.
He will now never have the opportunity to give that evidence personally.
His statement and any other material lawfully obtained from him could nevertheless remain part of the broader evidentiary picture.
As the murder trial continues, the court will ultimately have to determine the facts surrounding Albert Ojwang’s death based on the evidence that survives the legal process.
For now, the country is left mourning another death connected to one of Kenya’s most closely watched police accountability cases, while the legal proceedings continue.
Stephen Maina Nderitu was expected to take the witness stand and help answer some of the questions that have surrounded Albert Ojwang’s final hours.
Instead, he died before he could tell his story in court.
His death has added another unexpected chapter to a case that began with the death of a young teacher and blogger in police custody and has since become a national test of accountability, justice and public trust in Kenya’s security institutions.
The trial will continue, and the search for answers over what happened to Albert Ojwang will continue with the witnesses and evidence that remain available to the court.
