The accused Busia County Kenya Governor Sospeter Odeke Ojaamong together with eight accused will know whether they have a case to answer on 29th of May 2020. PHOTO /CORRESPONDENT


By Chris Ojow

While submitting a prima facie case against the

accused Busia County Kenya Governor

Sospeter Odeke Ojaamong and eight co

accused, the State Prosecution informed the

Anti Corruption Court that the accused should

be placed on their defence.

Appearing before Nairobi’s Anti Corruption

Chief Magistrate Douglas Ogoti at Milimani on

Monday 11th May 2020 at 9.13 am East Africa

Time, the State in a humble submission urged

the trial court that the evidence adduced by the

State establishes a case to answer.

A prima facie case, in Mosley and Whiteleys

law Dictionary 11th edition states that : when

the evidence is sufficiently strong for the

opponents to be called to answer it, and can

only be thrown by rebutting evidence adduced

by the opponents.

Elected on Orange Democratic Movement party

(ODM) and serving his second term after

controversially clinching the nomination party

ticket against his party opponents, Governor

Ojaamong together with his eight co accused

were arrested by EACC Detectives on 03rd July

2018 and arraigned before Anti Corruption

Court where they were charged with several

counts of conspiracy to commit an offence of

Economic crime, engaging in a project without

prior planning, abuse of office, wilful failure to

comply with the law relating to management of

funds, fraudulently making payments from

public revenue for service not rendered, failure

to pay taxes and fraudulent acquisition of

public funds.

The Governor is being represented by ODM

elected Siaya Senator James Orengo, where the

Executive recorded a complain that there was

conflict of interest with the representation of

the Suspects before Court of Law and expected

the senate to be watchful of the expenditures in

their respective County’s to stop further theft of

public funds.

The State prosecution during the trial called

twenty witnesses which included former Busia

County Officials, serving Officials, Former

Members of County Assembly and the

Investigating Officers.

Several documentary exhibits were produced

before Court during the trial where, Governor

Ojaamong, Bernard Krade Yaite, Leonard Wanda

Obimbira, Allan Ekwenye Omchari, Samwel

Oseko Ombui, Edna Adhiambo Odoyo, Renish

Achieng Omullo, Sebastian Hallensben and the

Company at the centre of controversy Madam R

Enterprises Ltd were charged and pleaded not

guilty to several counts and freed on hash

conditions by the trial Anti Corruption Chief

Magistrate Douglas Ogoti.

On 01st April the year 2014 Busia Governor

Ojaamong travelled to Germany in the company

of former Busia County elected Members of

County Assembly and other County officials,

there mission was to study new technologies

on solid waste management.

The trip that lasted for seven days in the

developed State was fully paid by the ninth

accused Madam R Enterprises limited which

won the tender of feasibility analysis without

further following the procurement Government


On 07th April the year 2014 Governor Ojaamong

while in Germany tour unlawfully signed

executed MOU between Madam R Enterprises

Ltd and the County Government of Busia, where

the County was to pay a whopping 8 Million

Kenya shillings tax payers to their new business

partner and also the accused for feasibility

study on solid waste management .

A case of direct conflicts of interest taking into

account that the Company facilitated their

travel to Germany and again won a tender

without following the due process of the law.

All were done while in overseas even without

discussing the major development with the

County before the County Assembly floor for


When the Governor Ojaamong initiated the

project while in Germany on 01st of April the

year 2014, the Company that won the tender to

conduct feasibility study easily was not

registered by then by the Country Registrar of


The writing on criminal pleadings, Evidence and

practise (1999 3rd edition) states that : offence

of Conspiracy cannot exist without the

agreement, consent or combination of two or

more persons, there must be an agreement.

Madam R Enterprises Ltd which was paid 8

million Kenya shillings for feasibility study in

early April 2014 was later Registered after a

month on 08th July 2014 according to the

database of the Registrar of Companies in

Kenya and as per annual returns and the

Directors of the Company were the seventh

accused with 920 shares and the sixth accused

with 1000 shares.

The time of signing the MOU by the Busia

County Governor on behalf of County with the

Controversial company MRE Ltd, the company

was not in existence as the same had not been


Procurement section 26 (3) (a) was breached

where it states that : all procurement shall be

within the approved budgets of the

procuring entity and shall be planned by the

procuring entity concerned through an annual

procurement plan.

The County Government of Busia unlawfully

used the budgeted salaries of County casual

workers to pay Madam R Enterprises Ltd the

first instalment of 4 million Kenya shillings and

the second payment to the same company was

done on 25th September 2014.

The trial Court was again informed that the

Company at the centre of controversy deals

with shoes and not solid waste management,

where it was registered on 03rd May 2007 at

Kisumu County and the nature of the business

indicated as general hardware.

While submitting through his Lawyer Siaya

Senator James Orengo, the Governor urged the

trial Court to dismiss the case and acquit him

including all the accused as stipulated in

section 2010 of the criminal procedure code.

The defence through Senator James Orengo

stressed that the prima facie case do not arise

against the charged nine accused.

Referring to a case in the year 1940.

The Magistrate must accept the whole of the

evidence for the Prosecution at it’s face value,

where there might be good grounds for rejecting

some parts, or all of it and therefore it is

necessary to weigh up the evidence and on so

doing may be satisfied if unrebutted, it would

warrant the accused conviction.

About The Author

Leave a Commment

Leave a Comment