The High Court has thrown out a petition seeking to declare Lands Cabinet Secretary Alice Wahome unfit for public office over alleged corruption, a Sh120 million Karen mansion and irregularities in government housing projects.
Justice Patricia Nyaundi dismissed the petition lodged by Francis Awino, finding he had not supplied evidence to support the allegations or sufficiently explained how Ms Wahome personally breached the Constitution.
“Upon a careful reading of the pleadings, it becomes immediately apparent that the petitioner made no effort whatsoever to substantiate the grave allegations levelled against the respondent,” the judge said, dismissing the petition with costs.
The judge reckoned that it was "disconcerting, indeed unacceptable, that the petitioner placed before the court nothing more than unadorned accusations, expecting the court to stitch together a case from silence."
"Constitutional petitions are serious undertakings; those who invoke the Constitution must do so with seriousness and with evidence," stated Justice Nyaundi.
Filed on May 13, 2025, the petition focused on the Affordable Housing Programme, the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme and the Southlands housing redevelopment project in Lang’ata, Nairobi.
Mr Awino alleged the ministry had strayed from Southlands’ original aim of improving living conditions for low-income residents, excluding affected families and favouring politically connected contractors.
He claimed that the award of key construction and consultancy contracts for the Southlands project was done in breach of the Constitution and the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (PPADA).
Mr Awino alleged that several politically affiliated firms were preselected through non-competitive procurement practices. Further, reports indicate that certain companies lacked technical qualifications, submitted inflated budgets, or had been flagged by the Auditor General for poor performance or financial improprieties.
He also claimed Ms Wahome acquired a Karen mansion worth more than Sh120 million without explaining the source of the money. He alleged shell companies and proxy buyers were used to hide the true owner. The court said these claims were not proved.
“The petitioner has presented an avalanche of allegations against the respondent, she has irregularly acquired property in Karen; but provides no evidence as to the existence of the property and the respondent's acquisition of it,” said the judge.
The court said the petition also accused Ms Wahome of presiding over a “fraudulent enterprise” involving housing programmes, but provided no evidence of alleged irregular procurement, favouritism or other breaches.
Mr Awino sought declarations that the Cabinet Secretary violated constitutional standards on integrity, public finance, procurement, equality, dignity and adequate housing.
He wanted Ms Wahome compelled to disclose the source of funds for the alleged property, the Southlands project suspended pending an independent audit, and displaced residents resettled or compensated.
He also sought an independent investigation into procurement and public spending, possible disciplinary or criminal action against those found responsible, and a declaration that Ms Wahome was unfit for public office.
Ms Wahome opposed the petition, describing it as “broad, generalized and unsubstantiated allegations”. She said it failed to identify the specific duties she had breached or actions linking her to the alleged violations.
She argued that the claims about procurement, financial impropriety and property ownership lacked records or evidence of her personal involvement.
The ministry also disputed the allegations. Its head of procurement, John Maina, said affordable housing tenders were advertised through open tendering and evaluated under prescribed procedures.
Mr Maina said procurement records, including evaluation reports and award documents, were available for inspection and the petitioner had not requested them before filing the petition.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) also opposed the suit, saying Mr Awino had not lodged a complaint to trigger investigations into alleged misconduct, unexplained wealth or procurement irregularities.
Justice Nyaundi said constitutional litigation required specific allegations and evidence, not accusations that left the court to assemble a case.
“The court cannot be invited to roam through bare assertions in search of evidence that a litigant has declined to place before it. The court cannot chase shadows, constitutional litigation demands disciplined presentation, not rhetorical flourish,” she said.
The judge said petitioners must identify the constitutional provisions allegedly breached, explain how they were violated and prove the supporting facts.
She also said the Constitution provides procedures and institutions for investigating integrity concerns and deciding whether a public officer should face disciplinary action.
The court concluded that Mr Awino had failed to meet the required standard of precision and proof. It dismissed the petition with costs to Ms Wahome.
