Rashmi Chamanlal Kamani and Deepak Kumar Kamani have petitioned the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn a High Court decision that placed them on their defence after prosecutors established a prima facie case against them.

The duo wants the appellate court to conduct what they describe as an independent and comprehensive review of the lower court’s ruling.

However, Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga has firmly resisted the application, arguing that the trial must proceed without interruption.

Through Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Jami Yamina, the prosecution has maintained that allowing such a review would undermine the integrity of the ongoing trial.

“There are sufficient procedural and evidential safeguards available to the applicants should they proceed to mount their defence, including invoking their right to remain silent if they believe they would otherwise be required to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case,” Yamina submitted to the court.

The DPP’s office contends that such a review by the appellate court would prejudice the trial court’s ability to make independent findings.

Yamina emphasized that the High Court should not be faulted for not providing full reasoning at this stage, as doing so would equally compromise the trial court’s capacity to independently evaluate the evidence.

Yamina further argued that the applicants had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify halting the proceedings, and urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss the application and allow the trial to run its full course.

The current legal battle stems from a January 19, 2024 ruling by a trial magistrate who had acquitted all accused persons, finding that prosecutors had not established a prima facie case.

The DPP challenged this decision, and Justice Benjamin Musyoki of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division subsequently set aside the acquittal, determining that the evidence did warrant placing the accused on their defence.

Justice Musyoki directed that the matter be mentioned before the Anti-Corruption Chief Magistrate’s Court on August 7, 2025, with all accused persons required to appear in person.

The case involves a roster of former high-ranking government officials and businessmen accused of orchestrating one of Kenya’s most notorious corruption scandals.

Among the accused are former Finance Minister David Mwiraria (now deceased), Dave Munya Mwangi (former Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President), Joseph Mbui Magari (former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance), and David Lumumba Onyonka.

The Kamani family members Rashmi Chamanlal Kamani, Deepak Kumar Kamani, and their late father Chamanlal Vrajlal Kamani, also face serious allegations.

At the heart of the case is an allegation that the accused conspired to defraud the Government of Kenya of 40 million Euros through a purported Supplier’s Credit Agreement for the modernization of police security equipment and accessories, dated December 17, 2003.

The offences allegedly occurred between October 30, 2003, and April 14, 2004, in Nairobi.

The three Kamani family members face an additional charge of fraudulent acquisition of public property.

According to court records, on or about April 14, 2004, they allegedly received 1.2 million Euros from the Ministry of Finance under false pretenses, claiming to finance the police modernization project through offshore accounts in Switzerland held under Apex Finance Corporation Ltd. and Apex Finance International Corporation Ltd.

The late Mwiraria, along with Mwangi, Magari, and Onyonka, face distinct charges including engaging in a project without prior planning, willfully failing to follow procurement laws, and abuse of office.

All accused persons entered not guilty pleas when initially arraigned.

The prosecution called 37 witnesses during the trial proceedings.

However, in January, the trial court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient and acquitted all the accused under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Dissatisfied with this outcome, the DPP filed an appeal on January 29, 2024.

Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions George Mong’are argued that the trial magistrate had erred by failing to properly assess the evidence, which he maintained established a case warranting the accused to be placed on their defence.

The Anglo Leasing scandal, which dates back more than two decades, remains one of the most significant corruption cases in Kenya’s history, involving allegations of fraudulent contracts worth hundreds of millions of euros for security-related projects that were either never delivered or grossly overpriced.

The post Anglo Leasing: Kamani Brothers Clash with DPP Over Attempt to Stall Graft Proceedings appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The anti-graft agency has accused the DPP of sidelining it in secret plea bargain negotiations aimed at terminating the high-profile corruption case, despite earlier court orders directing that all parties be fully involved in the process.

Appearing before Milimani Anti-Corruption Court Magistrate Charles Ondieki, EACC lawyers told the court that although the accused persons had formally written to the DPP seeking Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the commission was deliberately locked out of the final plea bargain talks.

“In a letter addressed to the DPP, the accused persons were seeking an alternative dispute resolution. In a response dated May 19, 2025, the EACC indicated that it was not opposed to negotiations, but with a rider that there must be a structured framework under Sections 137A to 137O of the Criminal Procedure Code,” the court was told.

EACC said it later attended several meetings convened by the DPP, with the last sitting held on August 28, 2025. However, during that meeting, the commission was informed that a plea bargain agreement had already been finalized and was only pending signing.

“We were informed that the matter was to be withdrawn under Section 137(1)(d) and Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. We requested to be allowed to peruse the plea agreement before signing, but we were told we could not be given a copy,” EACC submitted.

The commission added that it was shocked when it was told the matter was “unique” and did not follow the ordinary practice of involving investigators in plea negotiations.

“At that point, we were ordered to leave the meeting by the DPP and we never saw the plea agreement,” the EACC lawyer told the court.

EACC further argued that the proposed mode of withdrawal was legally flawed and amounted to an abuse of the court process.

“The plea agreement seeks to withdraw the charges under Section 137 of the CPC, yet at paragraph 12(g) of the same agreement, it clearly states that the prosecution wishes to withdraw all charges under Section 87(a) of the CPC. This creates a legal conflict and confusion. You cannot sneak in a withdrawal through plea negotiations when the law requires a formal application with leave of the court,” the commission argued.

The anti-graft body also dismissed attempts to link the criminal case to civil forfeiture cases that had been settled earlier in the High Court.

“We were informed by the DPP that there was a settlement in two High Court civil forfeiture matters. We confirm that those civil proceedings were independent of this criminal trial, and Section 193A of the CPC allows both to proceed concurrently. The settlement in the civil matter cannot be used as a basis to terminate this criminal prosecution,” EACC lawyer mary Ng’anga submitted.

The commission specifically highlighted Count 12 of the charge sheet, which involves money laundering and the transfer of Sh256,730,688.

“We urge the court to look closely at the charges, including Count 12, where the accused persons are charged with money laundering and the transfer of Sh256,730,688, as this was never addressed in the civil settlements and should not be overlooked,” EACC stated.

“The EACC vehemently opposes the withdrawal of this case and urges that it proceeds to a full trial, as the plea agreement was signed without our involvement and does not address all the charges, including serious money laundering allegations.”

The DPP, through State Counsel Nora, told the court that a valid plea bargain agreement had been entered into between the prosecution and all the accused persons.

“The DPP urged the court to adopt the plea bargaining agreement, saying that the parties had engaged in extensive discussions to explore an alternative dispute resolution, and that the agreement was reached voluntarily with the accused persons to ensure a fair and efficient conclusion to the matter,” Prosecutor Nora said.

She stated that the decision was informed by previous forfeiture agreements reached in two High Court cases involving assets valued at over Sh1.9 billion and Sh75 million.

According to the prosecution, Obado and his co-accused had already forfeited assets worth Sh235.6 million to the government, which included two motor vehicles, a house in Loresho, a commercial block in Suna East, Migori, two five-storey residential blocks in Migori, two apartments and a maisonette in Greenspan, Nairobi, and a residential property in Kamagambo, Migori.

Obado, his children and the co-accused all individually confirmed to the court that they supported the plea bargain agreement.

“I fully understand the consequences of the plea bargaining agreement, including sentencing and compensation if need be. I was not forced or coerced into entering the agreement. I fully support it,” Obado told the court.

The former governor and his four children,Dan Achola Okoth, Susan Scarlet Akoth, Jerry Zachary and Evelyne Adhiambo, are charged with conspiracy to commit economic crimes and money laundering alongside their associates.

Others charged include Jared Peter Odoyo, Christine Akinyi Ochola, Joram Opala, Patroba Ochanda, Penina Auma, and Carolyne Anyango, as well as their companies.

The case has been in court since 2018, and only one prosecution witness, the investigating officer, has testified so far.

Magistrate Ondieki granted EACC and the DPP 14 days to file written submissions on the matter, while the defence was given seven days to respond.

The case will be mentioned on January 21, 2026.

The post EACC clashes with DPP over withdrawal of Sh505m Obado graft case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

This is after the court on Wednesday December 3,2025 granted the prosecution more time to seek directions from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Ingonga.

Abala had been expected to plead to two criminal cases before Milimani Chief Magistrate Harrison Barasa, but his lawyer, Steve Ogolla, sought a deferment pending a review of the charges.

Ogolla told the court that the defence had written to the DPP, Renson Ingonga, on November 26, 2025, requesting the recall of the file for further review, citing alleged gaps in investigations conducted by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).

“We have written to the DPP requesting intervention by way of recalling the file and satisfying himself that the file is complete and ready for plea. We are yet to receive a response on the same,” Ogolla told the court while seeking a four-week deferment.

The defence accused the EACC of failing to record statements from several key Kisumu County officials during the investigations.

“In our letter, we have accused the EACC of failing to interview the following officials, namely the County Human Resource Director, the Kisumu City Human Resources Officer, the County Payroll Manager, the Governor’s Chief of Staff, the County Travel and Logistics Officer, and even Abala’s own secretary,” Ogolla said.

The prosecution confirmed that the DPP had indeed received the defence request seeking a review of the charges and sought seven days to allow the DPP to issue formal directions.

In his ruling, Magistrate Barasa emphasized that the court could not interfere with or direct investigative agencies on how they should conduct their work.

“From the onset, this court must emphasize that it cannot instruct any investigating agency, including the EACC, on the manner in which it should conduct its investigations. Such authority is granted to the Office of the DPP,” Barasa ruled.

He observed that investigations into the case had already been completed and that two charge sheets had been prepared, which was why the accused had been presented in court for plea-taking.

“Upon listening to the prosecution in this case, investigations into the matter have concluded and that is the reason the charge sheets in both cases were drafted and filed. However, the defence counsel has informed the court that he has written to the DPP and raised issues touching on the complaint before this court,” Barasa stated.

The magistrate further acknowledged that the prosecution had received the defence letter and required time to obtain directions from the DPP as mandated under Article 157 of the Constitution, which empowers the DPP to oversee and direct criminal prosecutions.

The court also addressed an earlier request by the defence for Abala to be allowed to record a statement.

Barasa ruled that the request had been overtaken by events after it emerged that the suspect had already recorded statements on two different occasions.

“Indeed it is true that this court had earlier directed that the suspect be provided a chance to record a statement. However, in light of new information indicating that the relevant statement has already been recorded on two different occasions in November 2021 and February 2025, it would be inappropriate for this court to direct that the suspect record another statement prior to the taking of plea,” the magistrate ruled.

Barasa then granted the prosecution’s request for more time and set December 19, 2025, as the date for plea-taking. Abala was released on a Sh500,000 personal bond pending his next court appearance.

According to the charge sheets filed in court, Abala is accused of fraudulently acquiring Sh8,701,091 from the Kisumu County Government between September 22, 2020, and November 30, 2024, while serving as Kisumu City Manager, a position he is alleged to have obtained using a forged KCSE certificate.

He is further accused of forging and uttering a KCSE certificate bearing serial number 268532 and presenting it to the Kisumu County Public Service Board in order to secure employment.

In a separate case, Abala is accused of forging an invitation letter dated June 10, 2024, purportedly issued by the University of Lagos, inviting him to attend the CLEAN Air Forum in July 2024.

EACC investigators allege that he used the forged letter to claim Sh283,402.50 in excessive daily subsistence allowances.

He faces additional charges of forging the letter, uttering a false document, fraudulently acquiring public funds, abusing his office to confer a benefit on himself, and acquiring proceeds of crime.

Abala is also accused of facilitating the travel of a woman who is not a Kisumu County employee to Lagos, Nigeria, allegedly using falsified documentation.

He is expected to answer to all the charges when he returns to court for plea-taking on December 19, 2025.

The post Abala Wanga to Face Plea Over Forged KCSE, Sh8.7m Salary Scam appeared first on Insider Bits News.