Seven senior parliamentary staff accused of conspiracy to steal over Sh70 million have won an application against the charges at the Court of Appeal.
Samuel Otieno, Mary Gathiga, Keith Musyoka, Alloys Nyambariga, David Mulinge, George Omondi and Benjamin Njathi appealed a High Court decision that overturned their acquittal by a magistrate's court.
On Tuesday, the three-judge bench of William Ouko, Asike Makhandia and Otieno Odek allowed the appeal and set aside a ruling of the High court dated March 2, 2017, which reinstated the charges.
“The judge failed to appreciate the appellants’ right to fair hearing and the right to information as guaranteed under Article 35 and 50 of the Constitution," the Court of Appeal ruled.
The seven are seeking to have the matter discharged at the chief magistrate's court.
Magistrate Francis Andayi on Tuesday said he will first peruse the appeal judgement before making further directions. The matter will be mentioned on June 11, 2019.
The parliamentary officers were charged with nine counts of conspiracy to commit a felony, abuse of office and of making a document without authority.
They allegedly conspired to steal Sh70, 624,900 from Parliament. The Parliamentary Service Commission was the complainant. They denied the charges on November 10, 2015.
The accused were freed on a Sh1 million bond or a cash bail Sh 300,000.
Then magistrate Daniel Ogembo, now judge, acquitted the seven but the decision was overturned by the High Court on appeal by the prosecution.
Director of Public Prosecutions Noordin Haji moved to the High Court seeking reinstatement of the charges.
The High Court ordered that the matter continues in the lower court where the seven had been acquitted.
In her ruling, judge Ngenye Macharia held that the magistrate’s court erred in dismissing the charges against the accused on the basis that they would not be accorded a fair trial due to non-compliance by the DPP with an order to furnish them with documents to be relied on during trial.
“The magistrate’s court had acted against its jurisdiction,” judge said.
The court found that there had been partial compliance and remarked that the duty of disclosure is a continuing one throughout trial.
The judge then proceeded to reinstate the charges against the appellants.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, the accused took the matter to the Court of Appeal.
