The anti-corruption court sitting in Nairobi has ruled that seven former managers of Kenya Power have a case to answer in a corruption scandal involving Sh150 million.
In a decision delivered by Milimani Chief Magistrate Victor Wakumile, the court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused: engineers Noah Omondi, Daniel Muga, John Njehia, James Muriuki, Benard Muturi, and Evelyne Pauline Amondi.
The magistrate noted that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) successfully provided compelling evidence showing that the former senior employees had been negligent in the procurement process.
This negligence led to the irregular prequalification of bidders, resulting in the fraudulent payment of Sh159 million to contractors.
The seven individuals are charged with conspiring to commit an economic crime by carelessly failing to adhere to the procedures and guidelines governing procurement.
Their actions allegedly facilitated the fraudulent payments related to tender No KPI/9AA-2/58/PJT/16-17, which involved unprocedurally pre-qualified companies providing labor and transport services.
In addition to conspiracy charges, the former managers face separate allegations of willful failure to comply with laws related to the management of public funds, having approved a list of entities that were irregularly pre-qualified for the services in question.
These charges include conspiracy to commit an economic crime, willful failure to comply with procurement law, and abuse of office, all violations under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act of 2003.
The case is set for further directions on October 15, 2024, when the accused will indicate how they plan to conduct their defense.
Notably, the seven were previously charged alongside former Kenya Power managing director Ken Tarus, but in February 2023, the DPP dropped charges against him, citing insufficient evidence linking him to the corruption scandal.
The court officially marked the case against Tarus as withdrawn after the DPP reviewed the evidence and concluded that no offense had been established.
Former trial magistrate Elizabeth Juma affirmed the DPP’s decision to withdraw the case, invoking section 87(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, which states that the court cannot compel the DPP to proceed if it has decided against continuing the case.
