The former PS moved to the High Court accusing the DPP of lumping her 10 cases together with those of more than 40 accused persons, a move she claimed threatens to violate her rights.
She argued, through lawyer Stephen Ligunya, that the move raises the risk of delay in the event one of the accused persons absconds, falls sick or is absent from court for any reason.
A judge has rejected a plea by former Youth PS Lilian Omolo to suspend her trial, saying she was properly charged.
Further, Justice John Onyiego said charges are a prerogative of the Director of Public Prosecutions who cannot be directed on who to charge or which case to prefer. The former PS moved to the High Court accusing the DPP of lumping her 10 cases together with those of more than 40 accused persons, a move she claimed threatens to violate her rights.
She argued, through lawyer Stephen Ligunya, that the move raises the risk of delay in the event one of the accused persons absconds, falls sick or is absent from court for any reason.
Ms Omolo further said the lumping of her cases with other accused persons also violates her rights by denying her time and facilities to prepare her defence. The 10 cases, she said, are scattered in three different courts, a move that might cause confusion in tracking them.
She also stated that being a former PS in the Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender, she was not directly involved in every transaction undertaken by staff.
Ms Omolo has denied charges of abuse of office and failure to place checks, which led to loss of money, and conspiracy to commit an economic crime.
In her argument, she says all charges should have been stated in one charge sheet because splitting them amounted to an assault on her fundamental rights.
She said drafting the charges separately was meant to embarrass, intimidate and cause her mental anguish. Mr Ligunya told Justice Onyiego that she cannot be accused of failure to put in control measures in a ministry, which is a ministerial function. He also said there was a likelihood of one court acquitting her and another doing the opposite.
In defence, the prosecution said the charges arose from different transactions and were committed by different entities or companies and could not therefore be lumped together.
Justice Onyiego said that considering the nature of the charges and the colossal sums involved, it will not be in the interest of justice to withdraw some of the charges or hold them in abeyance.
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
