DPP to appeal anglo-leasing papers rejection ruling

Director of Public Prosecutions Noordin Haji intends to challenge decision of the anti-corruption court rejecting several documents to be used in the trial Anglo Leasing suspects.

Mr Haji, says he is dissatisfied with the ruling rendered by Chief magistrate Felix Kombo, which barred admission of evidence obtained from Switzerland through Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA).

The DPP says he will make an application at the High Court to overturn the magistrate’s decision that blocked his intention to produce 11 documents obtained through two requests for MLA to Switzerland 13 years ago.

The documentary evidence involve the Sh3.5 billion contract for modernisation of police security equipment and accessories.

Mr Kombo rejected struck out the documents obtained more than a decade ago, saying they were not properly preserved before they were transmitted to Kenya.

The requests to UK and Switzerland were made by Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission director Aaron Ringera between 2007 and 2008.

“In conclusion, it is my finding that so much of the evidence sought to be admitted herein, which was obtained through an MLA Request by the Republic of Kenya to the Swiss Confederation, fails the test of integrity and its value may have been degraded from tampering, as a result of an MLA process that was mishandled,” said Mr Kombo.

The Swiss government said it opened an inquiry against the Kamani’s for money laundering, after receiving the legal assistance request from the defunct KACC in 2008.

The contracts were for the supply of security equipment to Kenya Police, immigration security document control system and computerisation of the security system.

In the case, the Rashmi and Deepak Kamani have been charged alongside former government officials Joseph Magari, Joseph Onyonka and Dave Mwangi.

They have denied charges of conspiracy to defraud the government through the Anglo Leasing contracts.

The Kamanis objected to the use of the documents, citing legal flaws in the acquisition, retention and manner of presentation.

They argued that the documents, which were obtained from Switzerland, stayed in a private law firm of Dr Marc Henzeline for three years and who shared them with his staff members before they were sent to Kenya’s Attorney-General.

“I also find that the defence has demonstrated that a number of anomalous things happened during the time the material in the custody of Dr Marc Henzelin of La Live Attorneys Geneve, and before their transmission to the Republic of Kenya,” the magistrate said.

The magistrate said while it can be said at that point of transmission had been completed, and technically the materials were in “Kenyan hands”, a serious issue concerning the state of preservation and integrity of the materials at the time, arises.

“Based on the foregoing, I have come to the conclusion that the material received by Dr Marc Henzelin of La Live Attorneys Geneve, on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Kenya, via power of attorney, were not, while in the custody of Dr Marc Henzelin and La Live Attorneys, properly preserved so as to ensure their integrity and evidentiary value in this trial,” he said.

The court, however, allowed the use of several documents obtained from the UK saying they are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 68(2)(c) of the Evidence Act.

The case was adjourned to October 8.