Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju has been arrested, hours after resurfacing from what his family and lawyers had earlier described as a mysterious disappearance that raised fears of abduction on March 22, 2026.
Tuju was arrested at Karen Police Station shortly after presenting himself to record a statement on his disappearance.
His lawyers said the arrest was carried out without explanation at the station, despite Tuju voluntarily appearing to cooperate with investigators.
They claimed officers acted abruptly and denied them clear information on where he was being taken, triggering questions over the due process.
Tuju’s Long-Running Crisis
The arrest came only hours after Tuju resurfaced and publicly explained that he had gone into hiding after noticing he was being trailed by an unmarked vehicle in Karen.
He said he abandoned his car on Saturday evening and sought refuge at a private residence near the Nairobi–Kiambu boundary after fear for his safety intensified.
Tuju had been reported missing after failing to attend a scheduled radio interview on March 22.
His disappearance prompted a police search after his vehicle was found abandoned along Miotoni Lane with hazard lights on.
Also Read: Former Cabinet Minister Raphael Tuju Resurfaces After Missing for Days
The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) said his phone was switched off and that investigators initially struggled to access key locations during the search.
Raphael Tuju has personally linked his disappearance and subsequent arrest to what he describes as sustained pressure arising from a long-running property dispute.
He claims the surveillance was connected to efforts to force him out of prime properties owned through his company, Dari Limited.
Tuju has repeatedly stated that police actions against him, including earlier raids on his properties, were not routine law enforcement but rather part of a coordinated effort tied to loan-recovery disputes with lenders seeking billions of shillings.
He says he no longer trusts the police to protect him, which is why he abandoned his vehicle and sought refuge.
DCI’s Response
The Directorate of Criminal Investigations says Raphael Tuju’s arrest is linked to ongoing investigations surrounding his disappearance and related conduct, not an abduction claim.
Also Read: Full List of KUCCPS Degree Courses Across 20 Clusters
According to the DCI, Tuju was the subject of an active probe after his family filed a missing person report on March 22, 2026.
His vehicle was found abandoned in Karen, treated as a potential crime scene, and subjected to forensic examination.
DCI officials have stated that investigations were hindered after detectives were denied access to Tuju’s Karen residence by family members.
The agency said this lack of cooperation raised concerns and became part of the inquiry.
The DCI maintains that Tuju’s disappearance required formal investigation to establish whether any offence had occurred, including obstruction or providing false information.
Security sources say Tuju was arrested to allow investigators to formally question him and record statements under the law, following inconsistencies around his disappearance, movements, and access restrictions during the probe.
Police Procedure After a Missing Person Reappears
When a person reported missing reappears, police do not automatically close the file. Under Kenyan procedure, investigators must first establish the circumstances of the disappearance and confirm whether any offence was committed.
The missing person is usually required to record a formal statement explaining their movements, contacts, and reasons for being unreachable while a police search was underway.
If the person’s disappearance involved an abandoned vehicle, switched-off phone, or claims of surveillance, police treat the case as an active investigation until all facts are verified. Evidence already collected remains valid, and questions of obstruction, false reporting, or misuse of police resources may arise.
The DCI also reviews whether investigators were denied access to key locations or information during the search.
Where inconsistencies or non‑cooperation are identified, police may detain the person for questioning to complete the inquiry and recommend further action under the law.
