By Sam Alfan.
The battle for supremacy between Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and Director of Public Prosecution Renson Ingonga has once again played out in court as each party sought to assert itself.
In the latest case, EACC invited a trial magistrate in the graft case agajbst former Migori governor Okoth Obado, to find that the DPP Igonga has exercised his powers arbitrarily in a plea agreement, seeking the withdrawal of the case.
EACC says the court should reject the bid in totality.
In submissions filed in court, said the bid should be rejected for not complying with Sections 137A-1370 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for failure to meet the public interest threshold.
The court heard that the attempt by the DPP to withdraw the criminal case under section 87(a) of the CPC under the guise of plea negotiations is an abuse of the court process and the court should disallow the same.
The anti-graft body submitted that the court under Article 165(7) of the constitution is mandated to safeguard the law and to keep public bodies, state and public officers within their constitutional and statutory mandates and boundaries.
“Where a public body is apparently in breach or violation of the law and established constitutional principles, this court has jurisdiction and powers to intervene. We invite the court to exercise its constitutional mandate and find that the DPP has arbitrarily exercised his powers in the impugned plea agreement,” court heard.
EACC submitted that the DPP’s has enthusiastically submitted on Article 157 of the Constitution which provides that powers to prosecute are vested in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
“Whereas we acknowledge that the DPP is constitutionally mandated to prosecute, the said powers are subject to scrutiny,” court heard.
The commission submitted that corruption and economic crimes are matters of public interest. Corruption deprives citizens of essential services, undermines socio-economic rights and it is directly linked to developmental stagnation and inequality.
The anti-graft body said it was paramount that corruption cases are treated with caution and the seriousness that they deserve.
The EACC added that various considerations like the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, accountability of offenders, protection of victims and the community and maintaining public confidence in the justice system should come into play in the determination of corruption and economic crimes cases.
“We respectfully submit that the plea agreement before court fails to meet the public interest threshold. Whereas plea agreements play an important role in the efficient administration of justice, efficiency cannot override legality, proportionality, accountability, and public confidence in the criminal justice system,” the commission submitted.
EACC told the court that Obado and his co-accused are facing corruption charges and the proposed plea agreement substantially understates the gravity of the offences the accused persons are charged with.
“Admitting such an agreement will erode public confidence and send a message that serious corruption and economic crimes can be resolved through undue leniency, thereby undermining deterrence,” court heard.
The commission invited the court as the guardian of the public interest to consider that the plea agreement filed in court inadequately serves the interests of the Kenyan society and it undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system and consequently reject the same in totality.
