BY SAM ALFAN.
Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has suffer a major blow after it has failed to stop it’s former legal officer from acting for three companies being investigated over the purchase of Wajir Governor Mohammed Abdi two luxury vehicle worth over Sh 26 million.
Justice John Onyiego of High Court Anti-corruption division dismissed the application by the EACC seeking to disqualify lawyer Edwin Waudo from representing three companies under probe namely Daayo Construction & Supplies LTD, Fine Trust Construction Co.ltd and Cosmos Cars limited.
“The prayer to disqualify Edwin Waudo from representing the respondents in this particular case is unmerited and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs,” ruled Onyiego.
However, the court found that Edwin Waudo is a former EACC employee is deemed to be state officer under section 28 of leadership and Integrity Act by dint of section 52 (1) of the said Act.
” A former state officer shall not be engaged by or act for a person or entity in a matter in which the officer was originally engaged in as a state officer , for at least two years after leaving the state office”, state section 28.
In the case, the Bank accounts of Daayo Construction and General suppliers has since been frozen pending investigation into purchase of two motor vehicle for Wajir Governor Mohamed Abdi.
Earlier Justice Hedwig Ong’undi ordered the said company accounts at Kenya Commercial Bank Wajir branch be frozen for six months pending investigation on alleged misappropriation of money meant for purchase of two motor vehicles for Wajir Governor at a cost of Sh 26 million.
Further, the court also ordered bank account of Fine Trust Construction Limited at Kenya Commercial Bank Wajir branch to be frozen for six months.
This is after Sh 12 million paid for the purchase of governor vehicle was transferred to the company.
Justice Ong’undi further ordered Toyota Land cruiser VX 8 LC 200 SERIES KCQ 004U should not be disposed of in any manner whatsoever for six months.
The commission filed application seeking to block participation of lawyer Edwin Waudo saying he was still a state officer until a period of two years since he ceased to be the agency employee.
They also claimed the conduct of the lawyer being involved in the EACC matter and persons under enquiry by the commission on behalf of the three companies violates the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) Code of Standards of Professional and Ethical Conduct and ought to be barred from representing the companies which under investigation on account of the alleged conflict of interest.
The commission contended that the subject matter proceedings which the commission is investigating the three companies over tender to purchase two motor vehicle for wajir Governor emanated frim investigation carried by the EACC during which period Edwin Wangwe Waudo was still in the commission employment holding senior management positions which gave him an opportunity to access confidential information.
The agency also argued that Waudo was actively engaged in most litigation involving investigation , recovery of assets and compensation and by the virtue of advocate/ client relationship between Edwin Waudo and EACC , his participation in the present matter raises conflict of interests to his former employer.
In his response, Waudo former assistant director in civil litigation and asset recovery department dismissed the commission application and termed it as bad in law and lacking merit.
He said upon receiving instructions from his clients, he sought from the commission to be supplied with the freezing order issued against his clients and he was supplied the same with relevant documents.
Waudo argued that there was no evidence that he was originally engaged in the investigation carried by the commission in the purchase of Wajir Governor vehicles.
“The commission had not produced any evidence to show that the investigation of the subject matter in these proceedings commenced when he was in the office to infer privity ti confidential information”, added Waudo.
He dismissed allegations that he may have come across confidential information while in office a fact he termed as speculative, idle talk, reckless and malicious.
He added that it’s not the duty of the commission to chose who represents which client and that a client is entitled to legal representation by the advocate of his choice.
