Bullet from 2017 Eastleigh shooting can’t be linked to officer Ahmed Rashid’s gun - Court told

A senior police ballistic expert has told a Nairobi court that a bullet recovered from a 2017 shooting incident in Eastleigh could not be conclusively linked to any of the pistols submitted for forensic examination.

The Staffing Officer Administration (SOA) at the Regional DCI Office in Kisumu, testified that he had previously worked at the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) headquarters as a firearms examiner for over 20 years.

He was testifying in a case where police officer Ahmed Rashid has been charged with the murder of two men along Eastleigh’s 4th Street on March 31, 2017.

Rashid, who has long been known as a tough crime buster in Eastleigh, is accused of executing the suspects in broad daylight; an incident that was partly captured on video and later went viral, sparking public debate on extra-judicial killings.

The expert told the court that on April 13, 2017, exhibits were received at the DCI Ballistic Laboratory from PC Joseph Owenga and registered under Lab Reference No. 215/2017.

A second batch of exhibits was later submitted on May 9, 2017 by PC Reuben Mwaniki and registered as Lab Reference No. 261/2017.

“I conducted a microscopic comparative analysis of the test bullets fired from the submitted pistols, coded PA2 and PA3, against the recovered exhibit bullet marked ‘A’,” the officer said.

According to his findings, bullet (A) bore six polygonal rifling impressions with a right-hand twist, similar to those fired from pistol PA2.

However, he explained that the bullet was too deformed—on its base, rifling surface and tip—after hitting a hard surface, making it impossible to conclusively match it to that specific gun.

“The deformation strained the dimensions and orientation of the rifling impressions. While similarities were observed, they were not sufficient for me to give a conclusive opinion,” he testified.

The officer further noted that polygonal rifling features can appear in multiple firearms, but each weapon leaves unique microscopic markings that must be clear and consistent to allow positive identification.

In total, 7 complete bullets and four bullet fragments were submitted for analysis. The expert told the court that based on his examination, he could not determine how many firearms had been used in the incident.

He said only pistol PA2 displayed characteristics that came close to those on exhibit (A), while another pistol, coded C1, had polygonal features but was unsuitable for reliable comparison.

“In conclusion, my analysis established that although bullet (A) shared some similarities with test bullets fired from PA2, the available evidence was insufficient to conclusively prove that it was fired from that particular firearm,” he told the court.