BY SAM ALFAN .
Director of Public Prosecution has a suffered a major blow in his attempt to seek revision of trial court decision to admit Equity bank statement.
Trial Magistrate Peter Ooko rejected nine uncertified Equity Bank statement in the case in which former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko is charged with graft allegations.
Justice Sifuna dismissed Prosecution application adding that the Constitution has deliberately and jealously guarded an accused person’s right to a fair trial.
He said this cannot be now not be sacrificed for expediency, as attempted by the DPP in this Application. Courts need to protect the integrity and sanctity of the judicial process. In any case, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.
“For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Applicant’s revision Application dated 26/4/2023, is for dismissal. I therefore hereby dismiss it, as deciding otherwise, will be a miscarriage of justice and a mockery of the judicial process,” ruled Judge Sifuna.
The judge directed the hearing of Milimani Anti-Corruption case and be proceeded with and be concluded in good time.
Justice Sifuna faulted prosecution argument that even the prosecution is entitled to a fair trial.
“In response to this, I need to clarify that whereas the Constitution has in Article 50(1) reserved for all a generalized right to fair trial, Article 50(2) has expressly accorded to accused persons such as the 1″ to the 4 Interested Party, a right to an extensive. elaborate, and purposive menu of rights attendant to their right to fair trial,” Judge observed.
This is after Prosecution challenged the decision by Anti-Corruption Magistrate Peter Ooko.
Magistrate Ooko ruling declined to admit certain Equity Bank’s bank account statements and account opening documents (nine in number).
While declining to admit the uncertified bank statement into evidence, the magistrate stated that the documents lacked certificates required under Section 106B of the Evidence Act Cap 80 Laws of Kenya.
Further that they had not been certified or signed by the bank’s officers.
Prosecution urged the High Court to review, vary, reverse aor alter the said orders of the said magistrate’s orders that rejected the following nine (9) documents from Equity Bank.
However,Sonko and co-accused vehemently opposed the prosecution application to review the trial court decision.
The former county boss and co-accused in their opposition to the application maintained that the prosecution application was misconceived as that prosecution’s grievance is not a proper subject of revision, but appeal.
Sonko lawyer submitted that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is distinct from its appellate jurisdiction and that unlike appeals where the court has the power to review and re-evaluate the entire decision and arrive at its own finding and conclusion, that is not the case with revision.
” As that the scope of revision is such that the Court does not deal with the merits of the decision, but its legality and correctness,” submitted Sonko lawyer.
Hearing before trial court to proceed.
