A Super Metro mini-bus. PHOTO/Facebook.. By JOYS MWENI. [email protected]. The tragic death of Gilbert Thuo Kimani, allegedly resulting from an incident involving a moving Super Metro bus, has sparked intense controversy and public outcry.. The circumstances surrounding his death, the conflicting statements presented by his family, eyewitnesses, and the bus company, and the subsequent reaction from Super Metro provide a complex case study in both public accountability and corporate responsibility.. The initial reports surrounding Gilbert’s death painted a picture of a fare dispute between him and the bus tout, with allegations that the passenger was thrown out of the moving vehicle for failing to pay the additional KSh 30 requested by the tout.. Eyewitnesses supported this claim, recounting how a confrontation ensued after Gilbert boarded the Super Metro bus (registration number KDL 125N) en route to Kahawa Wendani.. According to their version of events, Gilbert attempted to pay KSh 50 when the demanded fare was KSh 80, prompting a heated exchange. Subsequently, the bus allegedly ejected him, causing him to fall onto the tarmac, where he was run over by the same vehicle, resulting in his immediate death.. However, these claims were swiftly contradicted by Gilbert’s family, particularly his mother, who rejected the notion that her son had been engaged in a fare dispute.. She asserted that Gilbert rarely carried cash and preferred to make payments through his mobile wallet, suggesting that the accusation of him lacking the necessary fare was unfounded. In fact, upon receiving Gilbert’s mobile phone from the police, his family noted that the phone contained money, which further discredited the allegation of him being unable to pay.. This statement not only challenges the initial narrative but also casts doubt on the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies and the accuracy of the bus company’s initial version of events.. Gilbert Kimani’s sister speaks to the media. PHOTO/Chuma Moto TV/UGC. Super Metro’s response to the incident has been an attempt to distance itself from direct responsibility for Gilbert’s death. The company maintained that Gilbert was not thrown out of the vehicle, but rather, that he attempted to alight while the bus was still in motion and tragically lost his footing, resulting in the fatal accident.. According to a company inspector, if Gilbert had been forcefully ejected from the bus, he would have landed at a distance from the vehicle, rather than being run over by it.. This explanation, while offering an alternative to the earlier claims of wrongful ejection, raises further questions about the bus’s safety practices and the adequacy of its operational procedures.. In response to the public backlash, Super Metro took immediate action by suspending the involved crew members, thereby acknowledging the potential for misconduct or negligence, and signalling its willingness to cooperate with ongoing investigations.. The company also assured the public that it values human life and does not condone reckless behaviour, pledging to implement enhanced safety protocols and training for its staff in an effort to prevent similar incidents in the future.. While these measures may appear to demonstrate corporate responsibility, they also highlight a reactive rather than proactive approach to safety. The incident underscores the need for a comprehensive review of Super Metro’s operational practices, particularly in relation to the conduct of its crew members and the training provided to ensure passenger safety.. The company’s statement, though aimed at mitigating public outrage, inadvertently raises concerns about the adequacy of existing safety measures and the effectiveness of its internal oversight mechanisms.. The role of eyewitnesses in this case is crucial but also fraught with potential inaccuracies. Eyewitness accounts, while valuable in providing insight into the events leading up to the incident, are inherently subjective and prone to distortion.. In this case, the version of events provided by witnesses – that Gilbert was ejected from the moving bus following a fare dispute – contrasts sharply with the family’s assertion that Gilbert had sufficient funds and was not involved in any argument over the fare.. Conflicting statements have emerged over Gilbert Thuo Kimani’s death. PHOTO/Sikika./UGC. The inconsistency between the eyewitness testimonies and the family’s account raises significant doubts about the veracity of the initial reports. It is essential to consider the possibility of cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias or the influence of public sentiment, which may have shaped the way eyewitnesses perceived and recounted the incident.. Moreover, the emotional distress experienced by those who witnessed the accident could have clouded their recollections, further complicating the task of establishing an accurate and objective narrative.. As investigations into Gilbert’s death continue, his family has called for a thorough and transparent inquiry to determine the exact circumstances surrounding the incident. They have expressed a strong desire for justice, urging the authorities to ensure that the responsible parties are held accountable.. This demand for justice reflects broader concerns about the lack of adequate regulatory oversight in the public transport sector, particularly with regard to the conduct of touts and the safety standards of transport companies like Super Metro.. This tragic case highlights the broader systemic issues within Kenya’s public transport sector, where incidents of passenger abuse, negligence, and poor safety practices remain prevalent. In the absence of clear and enforceable safety regulations, companies like Super Metro may continue to operate without sufficient accountability, placing passengers at risk.. Gilbert Thuo’s mum devastated by son’s death. PHOTO/DJ Sonnie/UGC.. This incident, therefore, serves as a critical point of reflection for both regulators and transport providers, emphasising the urgent need for stricter enforcement of safety standards and greater corporate responsibility.. The death of Gilber has not only left his family mourning but has also ignited a larger public debate about the safety practices of private transport companies in Kenya.. The conflicting accounts of the incident, the response from Super Metro, and the ongoing investigation all underscore the complexities of determining liability in such cases.. As the legal process unfolds, the key question remains: can the authorities ensure that justice is served, and can Super Metro and other companies in the sector be held accountable for the safety of their passengers?. Only time will tell if this tragedy leads to meaningful change or if it will remain yet another unaddressed incident in the troubled history of Kenya’s public transport system.
