Trafficking means storing, supplying, or distributing drugs—not just selling them.
In a courtroom in Nyandarua, a man's final legal argument dissolved against the weight of a law that defines culpability more broadly than he had hoped. Alex Opati Chapia, found with 75 rolls of bhang in a house he claimed merely to be visiting, learned that proximity to contraband and the law's expansive definition of trafficking can together close many doors. The High Court's dismissal of his appeal is a reminder that the distance between possession and trafficking is measured not only in intent, but in the language legislators choose to write.
- A man's ten-year sentence hinged on whether 650 grammes of bhang in a house he called someone else's constituted trafficking — or simply being in the wrong place.
- Chapia's defence pointed to missing inventory forms, absent weighing certificates, and an unarrested accomplice as cracks wide enough to collapse the prosecution's case.
- Arresting officers countered that Chapia claimed ownership of the house and turned violent at the moment of arrest, details the court found far more persuasive than his visitor's alibi.
- Justice Kiarie Waweru anchored the conviction in the Narcotic Drugs Act's sweeping definition of trafficking, which encompasses storage alone — making Chapia's precise role almost beside the point.
- The sentence itself was quietly paradoxical: the law demands life imprisonment and a million-shilling fine, yet Chapia received ten years and Sh200,000 — lenient by statute, but untouchable by appeal.
Alex Opati Chapia was arrested on a February afternoon in Magumu, South Kinangop, after police found 75 rolls of bhang — about 650 grammes worth roughly four thousand shillings — in a house he was visiting. He was charged with trafficking, convicted, and sentenced to ten years in prison and a Sh200,000 fine. On Wednesday, a Nyandarua High Court judge dismissed his appeal, closing his last legal avenue.
Chapia's defence was built on a single argument: he was a visitor, not a trafficker, and the prosecution had proven only possession. He pointed to procedural gaps — no inventory form, no weighing certificate, no photographs of the recovery — and noted that a second suspect had escaped without arrest. These omissions, he argued, were fatal to the state's case.
The arresting officers told a different story, testifying that Chapia had claimed ownership of the house and resisted arrest with violence. Justice Kiarie Waweru found their account credible and the charge legally sound, citing the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act's broad definition of trafficking — one that includes storage and distribution, regardless of whether a sale was ever proven.
On sentencing, the judge noted an irony: the Act prescribes life imprisonment and a fine of at least one million shillings, making Chapia's ten-year term considerably lighter than the law demands. Still, the appellate court found no grounds to interfere — no wrong legal principle, no overlooked factor, no manifestly excessive punishment. The conviction stands, the sentence stands, and the appeal was dismissed without merit.
Alex Opati Chapia walked into a house in Magumu, South Kinangop, on a February afternoon last year. When police arrived, they found 75 rolls of bhang—roughly 650 grammes, worth about four thousand shillings—in his possession. He was arrested, charged with trafficking, and sentenced to ten years in prison plus a fine of two hundred thousand shillings. On Wednesday, a Nyandarua High Court judge closed the door on his last legal avenue, dismissing his appeal and leaving the conviction intact.
Chapia's defense rested on a simple claim: he was merely visiting the house, not trafficking drugs. He argued the charge itself was flawed—that the prosecution had only proven possession, not the more serious crime of trafficking. He pointed to what he said were gaps in the state's case: no inventory form documenting the drugs, no weighing certificate, no photographs showing how the narcotics were recovered and handled. He also noted that police had failed to arrest a second person who allegedly fled the scene. These omissions, he contended, undermined the entire prosecution.
The two arresting officers, PC Erick Walubengo and PC Cyrus Kikongo, told a different story. They testified that Chapia claimed ownership of the house and became violent when they announced his arrest, resisting their search. The prosecution counsel, Vena Odero, argued the appeal had no merit and should be rejected.
Justice Kiarie Waweru, delivering his judgment in Nyandarua on Wednesday, found the charge sound and the evidence sufficient. He cited the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act of 1994, which defines trafficking broadly: the importation, exportation, manufacture, buying, sale, giving, supplying, storing, administering, conveyance, delivery, or distribution of narcotics by any person. Under that definition, the judge ruled, the evidence on record proved the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Chapia's claim that he was merely a visitor, the judge wrote, was hollow.
The sentencing question presented a different puzzle. The Act stipulates that trafficking should carry a penalty of either a one-million-shilling fine or three times the market value of the drugs—whichever is greater—plus life imprisonment. Chapia received ten years and two hundred thousand shillings, considerably lighter than the law prescribed. Yet the judge declined to disturb the trial court's discretion. An appellate court, he noted, will not interfere with a sentence unless the trial court acted on a wrong legal principle, overlooked a material factor, or imposed a sentence that is manifestly excessive. Chapia had provided no sufficient reason to show any of those conditions applied.
The court also rejected Chapia's complaints about the chain of custody and the absence of independent witnesses. The appeal, Justice Kiarie concluded, had no merit. It was dismissed. Chapia remains convicted, and his ten-year sentence stands—a sentence that, by the letter of the law, was lenient, but one the court found no grounds to revisit.
Notable Quotes
Trafficking means the importation, exportation, manufacture, buying, sale, giving, supplying, storing, administering, conveyance, delivery or distribution by any person of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.— Justice Kiarie Waweru, citing the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, 1994
The appellant has not provided sufficient reasons to demonstrate that the learned trial magistrate acted upon some incorrect principle or overlooked some material factor.— Justice Kiarie Waweru, on why the sentence would not be disturbed
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the judge think the charge was sound when Chapia argued it only proved possession, not trafficking?
Because the law defines trafficking so broadly. It's not just about selling drugs on a street corner. Under the Act, simply storing them, or having them in your control for any purpose other than personal use, counts as trafficking. The judge saw 650 grammes in Chapia's house and applied that definition.
But didn't the prosecution have real gaps—no inventory form, no photos, no weighing certificate?
They did. And the judge acknowledged those gaps exist in the record. But he didn't think they mattered enough to create reasonable doubt about whether the drugs were there or what Chapia was doing with them. The officers testified, the drugs were found, and Chapia's own behavior—claiming to own the house, resisting arrest—didn't help his case.
The sentence seems light compared to what the law allows. Why didn't the judge increase it?
Because appellate courts have a high bar for overturning a trial judge's sentencing decision. Unless you can show the judge used the wrong legal principle or ignored something crucial, the appellate court stays out of it. Chapia didn't make that case.
What does his defense that he was just visiting actually mean in a place where drugs are found?
It means he's saying he had no knowledge of the drugs, no intent to traffic them, and no responsibility for them. But the judge found that defense unconvincing—especially given that he claimed to own the house and fought the police when they arrived.
Is there any path forward for Chapia now?
Not through the courts in Kenya. This was his appellate review. He could petition for presidential clemency, but that's a different process entirely, and it's rare. Otherwise, he serves his time.