A Legal Victory for Waluke and Wakh'ungu

The Maize Scandal - A Look Back

The charges against Waluke and Wakh'ungu stemmed from an alleged botched deal dating back to 2004. Their firm, Erad Supplies, received Ksh 313 million from the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) as compensation for a failed agreement to supply 40,000 metric tonnes of maize. The prosecution argued that the claims were fraudulent, but the defense maintained that the payments were lawful, resulting from an arbitration process rather than a procurement deal. This distinction between a business dispute and criminal misconduct became a key argument in the appeal.

Defense Strategies - Arbitration, Not Fraud

During the appeal, Wakh'ungu’s defense team, led by Lawyer Paul Muite, argued that the payments made to Erad Supplies resulted from a legitimate arbitration award. According to the defense, the NCPB had failed to fulfill its part of the contract, which led to the arbitration process that awarded Ksh 313 million. Muite emphasized that the arbitration decision had never been overturned and that the payments were a fraction of what was initially awarded. He urged the court to consider the commercial nature of the transaction, rather than viewing it as a criminal act.

Inconsistencies in the Prosecution's Case

One of the turning points in the appeal was the argument that the prosecution's case was riddled with material inconsistencies. The defense pointed out that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not definitively prove that the payments were fraudulent. They argued that the nature of the dispute was civil and commercial, not criminal. This undermined the prosecution’s fraud claims and made a compelling case for the charges to be dropped.

Justice Aroni's Refusal to Sign Judgment

The Court of Appeal’s ruling came after Justice Abida Ali Aroni declined to sign the earlier judgment that convicted Waluke and Wakh'ungu. Justice Aroni expressed reservations about the case, suggesting that the evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution’s allegations of fraud. This hesitation from the judiciary played a pivotal role in the ultimate decision to quash the jail terms and fines, signaling a lack of confidence in the initial ruling.

Bail and Release

Grace Sarapay Wakh'ungu and John Koyi Waluke were released on a cash bail of Ksh 20 million and Ksh 10 million, respectively, following the court’s ruling. They had already served three months in prison before being granted bail. Their release marked the end of a tumultuous period in which they faced the prospect of lengthy jail time and hefty fines. The Court of Appeal’s decision has given them a new lease on life, though questions still linger over the broad implications of the case.

Implications for Future Corruption Cases

The overturning of the sentences in this high-profile case raises questions about handling corruption cases in Kenya. The decision has sparked public debate on the effectiveness of the judicial system in tackling graft. While Waluke and Wakh'ungu have been set free, the case serves as a reminder of the complexities in prosecuting white-collar crimes. It also underscores the importance of due process and the need for presenting clear evidence in securing convictions. Click here to learn more.

Click here to follow our WhatsApp channel.