On Monday August 4, at Nairobi’s Milimani Law Courts, digital forensic analyst Boniface Machibi delivered expert testimony in the case of Moi University student David Oaga Mokaya.

Prosecutors allege that on November 13, 2024, Mokaya used his X account ‘Landlord @bozgabi’ to share a digitally altered image depicting a casket draped in the Kenyan flag and escorted by military officers, captioned so as to imply it showed President William Ruto’s funeral procession.

Senior Principal Magistrate Benmark Ekhubi presided over the session which focused on whether the forensic evidence could definitively link Mokaya to the disputed content.

2025-08-04T07:34:26+00:00

Machibi told the court that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations had supplied him with a Samsung Galaxy A23 smartphone and a laptop on November 28, 2024 for data extraction.

Using the Israeli-developed tool Cellebrite he retrieved approximately 1.2 Gigabytes of data in 26 minutes and 10 seconds, uncovering a screenshot of the viral post and three user profiles on the phone – Bozgabi (Landlord), Urban Trend KE and Masillas.

Mokaya is accused of making the publication under the X handle @bozgabi (Landlord).

On the laptop, files in a DVR (Digital Video Recorder) folder were found to bear timestamps matching the date the image circulated online.

During cross-examination by defence lawyers Danstan Omari and Ian Mutiso, Machibi conceded that forensic linkage to a device does not equate to proof of individual authorship or use.

He stated “I did not interact with the owner of the devices. I can only link the data to the gadgets, not to a specific individual,” emphasising that he had no means to verify who operated the devices when the post was made.

The defence further challenged the integrity of the evidence by querying the possibility of artificial intelligence generation or bot activity.

Mokaya’s lawyer Danstan Omari asked “Are you aware that robots also generate and circulate content?” to which Machibi agreed it was possible but maintained the extracted data indicated Mokaya’s involvement.

Nonetheless, he acknowledged that no conclusive forensic marker such as biometric or login records had been produced to unequivocally tie Mokaya to the content.

Magistrate Ekhubi granted the defence’s request to adjourn proceedings until September 8, 2025 to accommodate Mokaya’s academic commitments and allow both sides to consolidate further evidence and address questions over the admissibility and reliability of digital material.

The prosecution did not object to the postponement but signalled its intent to deepen its examination of the forensic process.

Since Mokaya’s arrest in March 2025, the case has catalysed a national conversation on digital free speech and misinformation, with activists rallying behind the hashtag #DropDavidMokayaCharges to argue against criminalising online expression.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions maintains that the post constituted harmful misinformation likely to incite public alarm, noting that legal clarity on AI-generated content remains an urgent priority in Kenyan jurisprudence.

As the next hearing approaches, observers will watch closely to see how the courts navigate evolving standards for digital and AI-related evidence.