NO TRANSPARENCY

AG's appointment of lawyer to head Assets agency challenged

CHRJ says there was no public participation either through declaration of vacancy and calling for public views

In Summary
  • The AG said the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and handle the case filed by the Commissioner for Human Rights and Justice last year.
  •  In an affidavit, Julius Ogogoh, the executive director of CHRJ said prior to Mate’s appointment, there has never been an advertisement to fill any vacancy. 
Attorney General Paul Kihara Kariuki.
Attorney General Paul Kihara Kariuki.
Image: FILE

Attorney General Kihara Kariuki wants a case challenging the appointment of Alice Mate as the director of the Assets Recovery Agency struck out.

The AG said the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and handle the case filed by the Commissioner for Human Rights and Justice last year.

Mate was appointed by the AG in April last year. She replaced Muthoni Kimani, a long-term senior solicitor general in the office of the AG, who acted as the director for almost six years. Mate was a navy officer who worked in the legal department of the military for almost 10 years.

But CHRJ said her appointment was illegal as no declaration of vacancy, no applications were invited or interviews done.

It wants the court to issue an order restraining Mate from continuing to discharge the functions and duties of the director for the agency. Also sought is an order restraining Mate from representing herself as the director of the agency.

The agency is in charge of reclaiming assets suspected to be proceeds of crime.  It is a semi-autonomous body under the office of the AG. It was established under Section 52 of the proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act and is funded by the Exchequer and taxpayers.

In an affidavit, Julius Ogogoh, the executive director of CHRJ said prior to Mate’s appointment, there has never been an advertisement to fill any vacancy. 

The said appointment was not subject to public participation either through declaration of vacancy and calling for public views on the suitability of the candidate to be appointed to the said position.

“It is illegal and in violation of the Constitution for such an agency to operate as property of an individual, and without any board and its operation being clandestine while performing public duties and being funded by the taxpayers,” it said.

According to the court documents, the High Court in Mombasa had in May, 2020 made a declaration that the agency cannot operate without a board of directors.

The board of directors offer checks on the activities of the executive director to be able to make sound decisions other than the agency operating as individuals property.

That judgment was delivered by Justice Patrick Otieno on May 26, 2020 in Mombasa.

 The case will be mentioned on March 2. 

(edited by Amol Awuor)

WATCH: The latest videos from the Star