The Anglo-Leasing graft trial has taken a decisive turn after Chief Magistrate Harrison Barasa declined to split the joint case involving businessman brothers Deepak and Rashmi Kamani and three former Permanent Secretaries (PSs).
The ruling on Tuesday followed submissions on whether the trial should proceed jointly or await the outcome of an appeal filed by the Kamanis.
In his decision, Magistrate Barasa emphasised that the matter remained a joint trial, as directed by the High Court when it quashed an earlier acquittal in July.
He noted that the High Court had explicitly required the case to be mentioned before his court for directions on the defence hearing.
He said the request to sever the proceedings or stay the trial was not supported by any binding order.
This came after former PSs Joseph Magari, Dave Mwangi, and David Onyonka, through senior counsel Fred Ngatia, argued that they were ready to take directions for the defence hearing and should not be tied to the Kamanis’ appeal.
Ngatia submitted that continuing jointly would amount to “two trials in one” and warned that if proceedings were stayed, the PSs would be left “waiting for an unknown number of years” for a decision in an appeal they were not party to.
He stressed that criminal proceedings should conclude within a reasonable time and that the prosecution had a duty to ensure the matter progressed.
Counsel for the Kamanis, however, insisted that a stay was necessary to prevent embarrassment should the appellate court overturn the High Court’s order for a retrial.
They said they did not oppose arguments for separating the trial but maintained that the brothers’ right to a fair hearing would be compromised if the defence case proceeded before the appeal was determined.
The prosecution opposed the stay, pointing out that neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal had issued any orders suspending the case.
They urged the magistrate to set directions for the defence hearing without further delay.
In his ruling, Magistrate Barasa observed that no stay orders had been issued by the superior courts.
“The intended appeal is not against the orders of this court. The Court of Appeal has its own rules under which it can make orders, including orders of stay of proceedings,” he said.
“In the circumstances of this case, it is advisable for the 4th and 5th accused persons to move the High Court, which delivered the judgment in question.”
By declining the request, Magistrate Barasa held that his court was bound by the High Court’s directions.
The matter was adjourned to November 17, 2025, when directions on the defence hearing are expected.
