The former PS further argued that the prosecution had failed to establish any link between him and Blue Star Enterprise, the alleged beneficiary of the tender.
He also argued that the decision to charge him with conspiracy to commit an economic crime and abuse of office was arrived at without following the proper procedures of law.
Mr Mangiti was charged together with 15 former senior officials of NYS who included former senior deputy director-general Adan Harakhe and former chairman of the ministerial tender committee Hassan Noor Hassan.
Former Planning Permanent Secretary Peter Mangiti will have to face his accuser after the High Court dismissed a plea to stop the trial against him.
Mr Mangiti had challenged the trial against him, arguing that his only role in the National Youth Service scandal was to appoint a ministerial tender committee and signing of the contract. He said that he acted within the law and he committed no crime.
The former PS further argued that the prosecution had failed to establish any link between him and Blue Star Enterprise, the alleged beneficiary of the tender. He also argued that the decision to charge him with conspiracy to commit an economic crime and abuse of office was arrived at without following the proper procedures of law.
Mr Mangiti was charged together with 15 former senior officials of NYS who included former senior deputy director-general Adan Harakhe and former chairman of the ministerial tender committee Hassan Noor Hassan. They have since denied the charges. But Mr Mangiti challenged the prosecution, saying he executed the tender in his capacity as the accounting officer and in compliance with the Act and regulations.
Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko, however, opposed the case saying Mr Mangiti failed to comply with procedures required in the tender process. The DPP said everything involving the said tender was rushed and signed within one day.
And since it was his duty to ensure that the procedures are adhered to, he is then culpable. He further stated that Mr Mangiti’s acts and omissions lead to the conclusion that he was bent on the conspiracy or was “willfully ignorant”.
In her decision, Lady Justice Hedwig Ong’udi said although Mr Mangiti defended why the committee opted for restricted tender, he never stated why. “As an accounting officer, the action of placing his signature... signified that he was satisfied that the process had been complied with. He cannot run away from it,” the Judge said.
The Judge said all the matters Mr Mangiti has raised in the petition, can be addressed by the trial magistrate. “It is only the trial court, upon hearing the witnesses that will determine whether there was any conspiracy and if so, whether the applicant was involved or not,” Judge Ong’udi ruled.
She dismissed the case saying Mr Mangiti has failed to demonstrate why he deserves court’s protection. “My finding is that the exparte applicant has failed in that duty,” she added.
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
