The decision means the officers will now be required to defend themselves in court as the trial moves to the next stage. The hearing has been scheduled for June 8, 2026.
The case relates to the mysterious disappearance of Brian Odhiambo in Naivasha in January 2025. Odhiambo, who worked as a fisherman, was reportedly last seen near Lake Naivasha before he went missing.
His disappearance sparked public concern and calls for investigations, especially after allegations emerged linking law enforcement officers to the incident.
During the ruling, the court said that the prosecution had presented enough evidence to require the six officers to respond to the charges against them.
At this stage, the judge did not determine whether the officers are guilty or innocent.
Instead, the court found that the evidence on record is strong enough to warrant a full defence hearing.
The six officers are attached to the Kenya Wildlife Service, a government agency tasked with protecting wildlife and managing national parks and reserves.
However, in this case, they are accused of being involved in circumstances surrounding Odhiambo’s disappearance.
The prosecution told the court that witnesses and other forms of evidence placed the officers at the centre of events leading up to the fisherman’s disappearance.
Lawyers representing the state argued that the matter should proceed to the defence stage so that the accused can explain their side of the story.
On their part, defence lawyers have maintained that the officers are innocent and have been wrongly accused.
They are expected to present their evidence and call witnesses when the hearing resumes in June.
The court’s decision now gives them an opportunity to challenge the claims made by the prosecution.
The disappearance of Brian Odhiambo deeply affected his family and the local community in Naivasha.
For months, relatives have been seeking answers about what happened to him.
Human rights groups and local leaders have also followed the case closely, calling for transparency and accountability.
Legal experts say that a ruling of “case to answer” does not mean a conviction is certain. It simply shows that the prosecution has met the basic legal requirement to continue with the trial.
The burden will now shift to the accused officers to respond to the accusations and defend themselves before the court.