BY NT CORRESPONDENT.
Court of Appeal has discharged seven Parliamentary Senior Staff members who were accused of conspiracy to steal over Sh 70 million.
In their Judgement Appellate Judges Milton Makhandia, William Ouko and Otieno Odek order the discharge of the seven accused person after setting a side lower court decision that had ordered for their retrial.
“It on this premise that we allow the appeal , set aside the ruling and order of the High court dated March 2,2017,” ruled the three Judges.
The seven are Samuel Otieno Obudo (director finance), Mary Gathiga (Accountant), and Keith Musyoka (procurement). Others are David Mulinge (procurement), Alloys Tinega (stores), George Arum (internal audit), and Benjamin Njagi (stores).
They has been charged with nine counts including conspiracy to commit felony, abuse of office and making a document without authority.
The offences are alleged to have been committed between July 2013 and June 30, 2016.
The Seven all pleaded not guilty to the charges before the then Milimani Chief Magistrate Daniel Ogembo now the judge.
The appeal emanated from the high court judgement that reviewed lower court’s decision to acquit them.
On March 2,,2017 Justice Ngenye Macharia of the High Court Criminal division set aside the entire ruling by the trial court striking out and dismissing the charges against the senior officials.
“I therefore set aside the order of the trial magistrate striking out and the charges against respondents. I substitute the same with an order that the charge against respondents is hereby reinstated” ruled Ngenye.
The learned judge said trial court erred in dismissing the charges against the seven senior officials.
This is after DPP challenged a decision releasing the officials working in Parliament before the hearing of the case.
He moved to the High Court questioning the move by Nairobi Chief Magistrate Daniel Ogembo who ordered that their charge be struck out, they be released even without hearing a single witness.
Ogembo who is currently a judge based his decision on alleged violation of the accused persons’ right to a fair trial under Article 50 of the Constitution if the trial was to proceed without availing the requested documents.
The appellants’ main contention was that they would not be accorded a fair trial since the prosecution had failed to supply them with documents which they deemed absolutely necessary for their defence.
According to the prosecuton the documents the accused were demanding before teh hearing of the case commences were classified and contained information that if leaked to the public would expose Members of Parliament dealings and be a matter of national security.
The prosecution also informed the court that his case was not relying on the said documents to prove his case and that they were in safe custody of the Parliamentary Service Commission.
“The Chief Magistrate has no powers to purport to interpret the Constitution as he did in dismissing the charges citing violation of the accused person’s right to a fair trial since he is not a Judge. The Prosecution supplied all the witness statements and documentary exhibits it intended to rely upon during the trial,” ruled Ngenye.
