NOT ME!! DPP Shifts Blame on Missing Prosecution Files

After getting a bashing on social media over the stolen prosecution documents relating to the KPLC corruption case, the office of the director of public prosecution has come out to clear the air on the same.

On its official twitter account, the office of the DPP says that it does not keep original documents relating to matters under investigation and that it is the investigating agencies that do.

The office of the DPP further states that it has always opposed accused persons being released on bail since most of them later go and interfere with investigations and evidence hence watering down the investigation process.

“Please note . does not keep original documents relating to matter under prosecutions. Investigative agencies do. Further, this is reason DPP has been opposing release of accused persons on bail as they interfere with investigations & even evidence,” tweeted the office of the DPP.

The Director of Public Prosectutions Noordin Haji had earlier ordered for investigations into circumstances under which documents meant for prosecution of KPLC corruption cases went missing. The office of the DPP  confirmed that the said documents were under the custody of KPLC.

Top KPLC managers including the immediate former MD Ken Tarus, his predecessor Ben Chumo and 12 others were charged with conspiracy to defraud the parastatal of over Ksh409 million.

They have been accused of procurement of defective transformers and the irregularities in prequalifying 525 companies for labour and transport contracts.

Through the two contracts, for transformers and labour and transport, Kenyans lost Sh470 million besides the inconvenience the defective transformers have caused.

Dr Chumo and three directors of Muwa Trading Company Limited, which supplied the defective transformers,were charged with three offences of conspiracy to defraud contrary to Section 317 of the Penal Code, conspiracy to commit an offence of economic crime contrary to Section 47 A(3) as read with Section 48 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act 2003 and fraudulent acquisition of public property contrary to Section 45(1)(a) as read with Section 48 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act 2003.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *