Documents hitch stalls hearing of Sh3.8bn Anglo Leasing case

The hearing of the Sh3.8 billion Anglo Leasing case hit a snag Tuesday over missing documentation.

Defence lawyers accused the prosecution of failing to provide “basic documentation” relating to the controversial security contract, which they say is critical and could influence the outcome of the suit.

They are demanding documents, including an inventory detailing the controversial contract the government entered into with two foreign firms for the supply of a proposed police surveillance systems upgrade.

Subsequently, the proceedings were adjourned and a witness stood down to Thursday July 21 after defence lawyer Kioko Kilukumi accused the DPP Keriako Tobiko of being “ill prepared” for the case.

The lawyer demanded, among others, an inventory detailing the contract. The Anglo Leasing affair, which involved contracts being awarded to phantom firms, was revealed in 2004. A previous legal case fell apart in 2005 because of a lack of evidence.

Anglo Leasing Finance was paid about 30m euros (Sh3.4bn) to supply Kenya with a system to print new high-technology passports; other fictitious companies involved in the scam were given money to supply naval ships and forensic laboratories. None of the contracts were honoured.

READ: Anglo Leasing-linked firm loses bid to avoid prosecution

Earlier, Mr Benson Noah Kariuki, an auditor who was involved in investigations, told the court that the government has been tight-lipped on who cancelled the contract it signed with suppliers.

Mr Kariuki, a principal auditor said on December 7, 2014 the government signed a contract between Sound Day Corporation and Apex Finance Corporation but it was later found to have been cancelled.

He was testifying in one of the Anglo leasing cases in which former Finance minister David Mwiraria and former provincial administration Permanent Secretary Dave Mwangi, and eight others are charged with corruption related to the Anglo leasing contracts.

The suspects are charged with conspiracy to defraud contrary to Section 317 of the penal code.

They are also charged with fraudulent acquisition of public property contrary to section 45 as read with section 48 of the anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act and engaging in a project without prior planning contrary to section 45(2).