•MPs say narrative confirms their fears of powerful individuals behind the multi-billion shilling supplies.
•Members further questioned how a former director became a signatory to Kilig accounts after the company changed hands.
The director of a company implicated in the Sh7.8 billion Kemsa PPE scandal on Wednesday stunned a parliamentary probe committee with claims she could not remember the firm's bank details. https://bit.ly/3etv60T
The director of a company implicated in the Sh7.8 billion Kemsa PPE scandal on Wednesday stunned a parliamentary probe committee with claims she could not remember the firm's bank details.
Ivy Onyango, director of Kilig Ltd, told the Public Investments Committee that she could not remember the details of the firm's bank accounts which it sought to use in trading with Kemsa.
She further claimed she did not know the signatories to the accounts of Kilig when she acquired the firm only saying she remembered the accounts were at Equity and SBM bank.
Kilig was poised for Sh4 billion supplies deal with the medical supplier before sleuths swung into action and stopped Kemsa from further dealings on Covid-19 supplies.
Members of the PIC chaired by Mvita MP Abdulswamad Nassir said Ivy’s assertions confirmed their fears of the existence of powerful individuals behind the firm.
MPs Mohamed Hire (Lagdera), Ahmed Ibrahim (Wajir North), Mary Wamaua (Maragua), T.J Kajwang’ (Ruaraka), Julius Melly (Tinderet), Paul Katana (Kaloleni), Babu Owino (Embakasi), Githua Wamacukuru (Kabete), and Kangogo Bowen (Marakwet East) were present.
They accused her of being an impediment to the committee for refusing to make full disclosure on the Kemsa dealings.
The firm, which got the multi-billion business within three months of its incorporation, was linked to Jubilee vice-chairman David Murathe.
Members questioned Ivy on how she could not remember the account details of a company she claimed to have incorporated and is a shareholder.
“You must have known the people who you were going to deal with now that you were dealing with Sh4 billion,” Nassir said.
The committee further cast doubts on whether Ivy indeed registered the company as she claimed, citing records from the companies’ registrar showing otherwise.
Records showed that the company was incorporated by Wilbroad Gachoka and a Chinese national Zu Jinping who had one share each.
It was later transferred to Collins Bush Wanjala who reportedly transferred the company to Ivy at Sh10,000.
However, MPs said there was no proof that Ivy incorporated the company as her name was missing in the correspondences before her accepting directorship at Kilig Ltd on May 6.
They further questioned how Wilbroad Gachoka became a signatory to Kilig yet the company had changed hands.
Kajwang said there was no proof the lady acted as counsel during the company’s incorporation.
In December, Ivy told MPs she could not disclose the faces behind the company citing client confidentiality.
“The burden of proof rests with her. It is for her to prove that she was indeed the counsel. You prove that by showing you had instructions, retainer, and relationship built between you and the client,” Kajwang’ said.
“She is confirming our fears of powerful forces behind Kilig Ltd,” Ibrahim said, even as Ivy maintained it was a matter of fostering networks with various people.
Kajwang said it appeared the Kilig boss was keen on protecting some people who are more important to her than the PIC.
“You are impeding our efforts to get the truth. The advocate-client privileges don’t exist because you did not have a retainer,” the MP said.
On this, Ivy said she has a retainer agreement but stoked more queries after reporting that she has not been paid for the lawyer job.
“Gachoka facilitated me with his e-citizen details. He is my client and I still have credentials to his e-citizen accounts,” she said.
This was after Nassir said there was no single indication she acted on behalf of Kilig during the incorporation, further questioning whether the partners’ Ivy referred to onboarded as investors.
“The only thing she has is a not-at-par letterhead and a document to the Auditor General,” the Mvita MP said.
Ivy said from her knowledge, “there is no provision on e-citizen requiring one to indicate they are acting as an agent.”
Kajwang said even the registrar’s documents do not indicate the director’s name appearing anywhere as an advocate.
“Until there is a retainer, there is no relationship built with a client. This has caused us some anxiety. For us to call you twice, it means there is anxiety on our mind,” the Ruaraka MP said.
Edited by Kiilu Damaris