• Businessman says even though he instructed lawyers to file the petition, he now wants to withdraw the matter.
• He claims that Sanghani took a loan from him in 2015 that has since accrued to Sh240 million, which he has refused to pay.
Jack and Jill supermarket proprietor has formally withdrawn his petition that sought the removal of DPP Noordin Haji from office.
In a new affidavit filed at the Public Service Commission, Schon Noorani says after much thought, he has decided to abandon the petition he filed on Monday.
Noorani was at the Milimani law courts on Monday accompanied by lawyers Danstan Omari and Shadrack Wambui when he said he wanted Haji out of office for refusing to charge his former business associate who owed him Sh240 million.
It was the third petition seeking the removal of Haji. However, in a new turn of events, the businessman says even though he instructed the lawyers to file the petition, he now wants to withdraw the matter.
“I am aware that I instructed the firm of Musyoki Mogaka and Co advocates to file a petition for the removal of the DPP," the affidavit reads.
Noorani said he had come to the conclusion that the matter was civil, not criminal.
“I have, after taking further legal advice and a lot of reflection, come to the conclusion that the issue was more of a civil debt than a criminal case. I have, therefore, decided to withdraw the petition,” he says.
Noorani had accused the DPP of gross misconduct, saying he should be removed from office. He accused Haji of refusing to charge his former close ally and business associate Rajendra Sanghani.
He claimed that Sanghani took a loan from him in 2015 that had since accrued to Sh240 million, which he refused to pay, thus amounting to obtaining money by false pretences.
The DPP had said it was a civil matter not a criminal case. But Noorani had disagreed.
"The DPP willfully, recklessly, negligently and deliberately was incapacious and limited in the approach of discharging his mandate as the DPP, limiting himself to only the offence of issuance of post-dated cheques," he said.
"And failing to take into account the glaring provisions of the law in which the conduct of Sanghani in the cancellation of the cheques issued to the petitioner establish the ingredients of obtaining money by false pretenses."