The media has recently been awash with sensational stories pertaining to my purported ownership of offshore companies registered in the British Virgin Islands. Though some media outlets have asked questions on the same to which I have dutifully responded with salient information, I feel some facts have been obfuscated either by accident or by design to create a sense of wrongdoing on my part. To respond to the cause of justice, is a calling for any judge and
therefore I must respond where inaccuracies and insinuations are being presented to the public.
I have worked in the judiciary for the past 16 years when I first joined as a High Court judge. Prior to this, I had served as an advocate from 1975.
Regarding the companies registered abroad, I would like to shed some clarify on the issue. I was a director and shareholder in two companies, incorporated in 1994 and 1995 respectively, when I was a practicing advocate. They were wound up prior to my appointment as a judge. In relation to the two other companies, these were incorporated in 2001 without my knowledge. My husband submitted my name as a passive director without any control or interest on my part. The reason for so doing was at the relevant time, the requirement was that there should be at least two directors in a company. I only became aware through the pending sale of both companies in the course of 2003.
I resigned immediately from both the companies by filing undated resignation letters so that appropriate steps could be undertaken to formalize the process. However, I came to later learnt that the resignation from the directorship of one of the companies, was effected in 2007 instead of 2003 when the company was being wound up.
At this juncture, it is important to note that in 2003, by the time public officers were to declare their income and assets as per the Public Officer Ethics Act, I had for all intents and purposes, effectively resigned from the directorship of all the companies in question.
Also Read :I must reiterate that I have neither received any benefit nor any monies at all in relation to these companies. I have at all times complied with Articles 73 and 75 of the Constitution, which govern the conduct of state officers.
Regarding the offshore companies, I would like to categorically state that it is perfectly legal to own and operate such companies. Thus, my family members are within their rights to have such companies as long as they operate within the ambit of the law. Certainly my children do not need my permission to do so. As such, they owe no one including myself, an explanation. Though on a light note, in the case of my husband, open consultations would be ideal.
I understand that the vice of corruption has captured our society and unfortunately ingrained itself in nearly all aspects of public life. However, this should not let the media remove from itself, objectivity when reporting on such matters. I find it odd that I should find myself on the front covers of the news outlets when in reality, there is nothing news worthy about me in the stories. The said companies have not been alleged to have broken any laws. It is in the public domain that there are vicious succession wars currently ongoing in the judiciary. Perhaps that has something to do with it. It is not by coincidence that since I challenged the retirement age before the courts in January this year, I have been subject to virulent attacks on my integrity and competence. The sensationalisation of these offshore companies is the latest of such attacks. Sixteen years into my career as a judge, my character has never been questioned.
I would like to inform Kenyans that I have served both as an advocate and as the deputy chief justice of the Republic of Kenya with integrity and distinction for a combined period of over forty years. I expect to continue doing the same while serving on the Supreme Court bench. At the end, I will leave my legacy intact and spotless. I am only saddened that all the hard work I have put into serving my country, is in danger of being smeared not only to my detriment but also to that of the judiciary and the public service as a whole. But at the end, the truth shall prevail.