Denied Justice: A Case of Ultimate Political Persecution And Elusive Justice Per Excellence

Whether you ask a Mathare resident in the City County of Nairobi or you enquire from a local native of Cherab village, Isiolo County, no one will dispute that Hon Mwangi Wa Iria is no doubt one of the most accomplished devolution chiefs this country has seen since Constitution of Kenya 2010.

With his professional record spanning decades, having served in various capacities before he became governor, at some point as Head of Marketing for EABL and then pioneering remarkable transformation at NEW KICC, Wa Iria is a man with unmatched reputation.

And even during his stint as governor, Wa Iria made history as the only first county boss who secured re~election, with a resounding win, in the entire Mt Kenya region, as all his peers lost in 2017.

And most likely, it is out of his remarkable success that Mwangi Wa Iria has now attracted the envy and ultimate political persecution he is now subject of.

It is no doubt one of the most disturbing episodes of political persecution in Kenya’s recent history. It is political blackmail of unprecedented proportions, dressed up as a criminal prosecution.

The allegation is devastating: that state institutions have taken an ordinary county procurement dispute and transformed it into a prolonged political weapon against one individual. Yet, this is not simply a story about a tender.

It is a story about who was involved, who was not involved, who was charged, who was converted into a witness, what those witnesses said under oath, what the prosecution subsequently told the court, and why the prosecution appears to have taken a dramatically different position thereafter.

At the centre of the controversy is an allegedly irregularly awarded county contract.

But the principal question is brutally simple:

If the tender was illegal, why are the people who actually conducted the tendering and procurement process not standing in the dock?

Instead, according to the account advanced by the defence, the officials directly involved in procurement, tendering, finance and the user departments were turned into prosecution witnesses.

And then something remarkable happened.

They testified.

Under oath.

And their testimony, according to the defence, did not produce the devastating case against Mwangi wa Iria that the prosecution apparently expected.

Instead, the witnesses reportedly confirmed that the procurement process was lawful, that payment was made for work undertaken, that the county received value for money, and that Mwangi wa Iria had not participated in the procurement process.

They reportedly further stated that the former Governor had no relationship with the tenderers.

If that evidence is accurately reflected in the court record, the prosecution’s case faces an uncomfortable question of basic logic.

How can the principal accused be responsible for an allegedly illegal procurement process when the officials who actually conducted that process say he was not involved?

And then there is another question that demands public attention. The Office of the Auditor-General is constitutionally mandated to audit public entities, including county governments, and to examine the use of public resources.

According to the defence position, the relevant audit authorities did not flag the transaction in the manner now alleged by the prosecution which raises a fundamental question.

If the transaction represented an obvious loss of public funds or an unlawful expenditure, where was the contemporaneous audit objection? And if the transaction was not flagged as the criminal transaction it is now alleged to have been, why did the prosecution subsequently construct its case around an allegation that appears to contradict the oversight record?

The defence further maintains that the Auditor-General’s officials were initially part of the evidential picture but were subsequently removed from the proceedings as witnesses.

If that account is correct, the public is entitled to ask why.

Was their evidence no longer considered relevant?

Did their evidence contradict the prosecution’s theory?

Or did the evidence simply become inconvenient?

These are questions that cannot be answered through silence.

Perhaps the most fundamental question concerns the alleged victim.

Who is the complainant in this matter?

According to the defence account, the County Government of Murang’a has never sworn that it lost public money through the transaction.

County finance officials are said to have testified that the county received value for money.

The defence further maintains that the County Government itself is not the complainant in the criminal proceedings.

If that is the position established on the record, another question immediately follows:

Who is alleging that Murang’a County lost money? And on what evidential basis? There is an even more troubling allegation.

The amount repeatedly associated with the case is said, according to the defence, to have been clearly established as having no connection with the Murang’a County Government.

If that position is supported by the court record, then the public deserves to know why a figure unrelated to the county is being used to construct a narrative of financial loss against a former county Governor.

This is not a minor discrepancy.

A criminal case involving alleged loss of public funds should have a clearly identifiable public loss, a clearly identifiable complainant, and a clearly identifiable evidential trail.

EACC  also confirned the contract a legal. EACC's own witness who was brought to court  to give an expert testimony on behalf of investigating officer and who introduced himself as Procurement Forensic Expert said in a sworn testimony that the contract was legally warded

There is no way DPP and EACC can concure on legality of contract and payments and go ahead to charge on the same.

New alliances are emerging. Traditional political assumptions are weakening. And voters are becoming increasingly sensitive to the perception that state institutions can be deployed against political figures.

Attempting to destroy one politician through prolonged prosecution can therefore have an unintended consequence.

It can create sympathy.

It can create solidarity.

It can transform an individual into a symbol.

It can turn a courtroom into a political theatre.

To be continued .....

When the story is to be told again. Part Two Coming Soon

Alvan Kinyua Is A Digital Communication Scientist/Consultant, Political Analyst & Former Spokesperson For H.E. Mwangi Wa Iria