Sonko and co-accused acquitted in Sh 20 million graft case

Mombasa gubernatorial contester Mike Mbuvi Sonko at Milimani Law Courts during the filing of his case at the East African Court of Justice on 18th July 2022. Photo/Sam Alfan.

Former Nairobi County Governor Mike Mbuvi Sonko has been in the Sh 20 million corruption case.

Sonko was charged alongside ROG Security Limited and Anthony Otieno Ombok alias Jamal with conspiracy to commit an offence of corruption, namely bribery in the sum of Sh 20 million as an inducement to facilitate payments to Web Tribe Limited by Nairobi City Government in 2019.

Sonko was also charged with conflict of interest by acquiring an indirect private interest in a contract connected with a public body, to wit, contract for the supply, implementation and maintenance of an electronic revenue collection and payment solution issued by the county government to Web Tribe, by receiving a sum of Sh 20 million from Web Tribe, through ROG Security.

Trial Magistrate Douglas Ogoti ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case adding that the charges against the accused persons were fatally defective in want of substance.

“The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against all the accused persons and they are acquitted under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code,” the magistrate ruled.

According to the magistrate, there is a manner in which charges are drawn to bring out the facts clearly.

“If the facts in the charge sheet are wrongly brought or wrongly stated, this goes into the root of the substance of the charges. It is the substance that will lead a court to making a finding on the merits of the case,” he added.

It was the court’s finding that the facts of the charges against Sonko and his co-accused persons do not bring out who among them was the Governor, the director of the limited liability company and the company itself.

There was also no evidence supporting the fact that the Governor of Nairobi City County was a private limited company and its director.

The magistrate added that there was also no evidence that the Governor was a public body nor was there evidence to support the fact that the contract was a public body.