• The directives were issued after the Director of Public Prosecutions applied to have Moiz Saleem give his evidence virtually.
• Saleem recorded a statement on March 3, 2009, on behalf of Emirates National Oil Company.
Image: FILE
An anti-corruption court has allowed a Singapore-based witness to give his evidence via video-link in the Sh7 billion Triton fraud case.
Magistrate Lawrence Mugambi said video conferencing facilities will be set up in his court and at the Kenyan embassy in Singapore or a courtroom in the country. A judicial officer will administer an oath before the witness' testimony.
The directives were issued after the Director of Public Prosecutions applied to have Moiz Saleem give his evidence virtually.
Saleem recorded a statement on March 3, 2009, on behalf of Emirates National Oil Company. Emirates Oil (Singapore) is one of the complainants in the case.
The DPP said Saleem's testimony was key to their case and an unreasonable delay would occur if he had to present himself in court.
The prosecution had also said that the witness' job is demanding and time-intensive and therefore would not be able to travel to Kenya to testify.
At the time the application was made, the Covid-19 pandemic had not broken out. But Mugambi said current travel restrictions meant it would be safe to use videolink.
Saleem will testify against Yagnesh Devani, Mahindra Pathak, Julius Kilonzo, Collin Otieno and Triton Petroleum.
They are accused of jointly disposing of 13 million cubic metres of diesel worth Sh32,047,783 without consent of Emirates National Oil Corporation (Singapore).
Others charged are Benedict Mutua, Peter Mecha and Phanuel Silvano. They are all charged with conspiring to defraud a number of petroleum companies by purporting that Triton had diesel ready for sale at KPC storage in Kipevu.
Devani is yet to be charged. He has been on the run for the past decade.
In May, the Court of Appeal in the UK dismissed his application for asylum there, setting the ground for his extradition to Kenya.
“While video conferencing does not provide the physical presence of the witness, it does provide real-time virtual presence through technology where the courtroom is in effect remotely extended to the witness. Giving evidence through video conferencing is permitted under the Evidence Act,” Mugambi said.
He said that the failure of the witness to testify could possibly inflict a fatal blow to the prosecution's case.
“Technology cannot replace a face-to-face courtroom environment but if it is done well, it can come very close to almost a real-life experience,” he said.