Former Kenya National Trading Corporation Managing Director Pamela Mutua.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has secured court approval to discontinue corruption charges against a former senior manager of a State corporation linked to the edible oil and rice import scandal.
This is the latest instance in which the DPP has withdrawn charges in a high-profile corruption case, citing insufficient evidence from investigators.
The Milimani Anti-Corruption Court in Nairobi allowed the withdrawal of charges against former Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC) Supply Chain and Logistics Manager, Mr Amos Juma Sikuku.
The decision leaves former KNTC Managing Director Pamela Nduku Mutua as the sole suspect in the case, where she is defending charges of non-compliance with procurement laws.
The DPP said a review of the evidence revealed that it was no longer sufficient to sustain the accusations against Mr Sikuku.
“If the criminal proceedings were instituted in public interest at a time when investigations revealed evidence sufficient to sustain the charges, it is equally in the same public interest to discontinue the proceedings whenever further inquiries or new evidence show they cannot be sustained,” Principal Magistrate Charles Ondieki ruled.
Principal Magistrate Charles Ondieki.
The case arose from a 2024 investigation into the corporation’s procurement of rice. The former KNTC officials were accused of flouting tendering laws.
Public interest
“This court is firmly persuaded that this application aligns with the principles of public interest, the interests of justice and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process,” the magistrate said.
Mr Sikuku and Ms Mutua appeared in court on July 30, 2024 and were jointly charged with six offences related to corruption. Ms Mutua faced five counts of wilful failure to comply with procurement laws, while Mr Sikuku was charged with a single count of abuse of office.
So far, six of the 33 prosecution witnesses have testified; 27 more are left.
Court records show the proceedings stem from the importation and distribution of rice and other essential commodities by KNTC.
Ms Mutua is accused of failing to report to the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority after awarding a contract to Purma Holdings Limited and starting bulk procurement without the necessary approvals. The alleged offences were committed between November and December 2022. She has denied the charges and is out on bond.
In seeking to withdraw the case against Mr Sikuku, Prosecution Counsel Delroy Mwasaru argued that the accused was charged merely for issuing a professional opinion on the contested procurement.
He explained that the opinion was not binding on the KNTC accounting officer, who bore ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with procurement laws before awarding any tender.
Moreover, he said, the opinion was based on an evaluation report prepared by a procurement committee whose members were never charged.
“Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to show that the second accused acted in bad faith, was improperly influenced, or derived any benefit from issuing a biased professional opinion to the detriment of KNTC,” Mr Mwasaru told the court.
Former Kenya National Trading Corporation managing director Pamela Mutua.
The DPP also sought permission to amend the charge sheet against Ms Mutua, admitting that the initial document contained errors — including a reference to a non-existent Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2006 law.
Mr Mwasaru argued that failure to correct the errors would prejudice justice and amount to abuse of the court process.
Ms Mutua did not oppose the withdrawal of charges against her co-accused. She said the move supported her view that the charges were baseless.
Defective case
However, she noted that the amendment of the charge sheet amounted to substituting a defective case with another, an issue she said she would raise at the appropriate stage.
Magistrate Ondieki noted that prosecutorial discretion lies with the DPP and is not subject to investigators’ opinions.
“The mere fact that the DPP’s decision differs from investigators’ views is not a reason to interfere with the DPP’s constitutional and statutory mandate, as long as the decision meets the test in Article 157(11) of the Constitution,” he ruled.
He added that the power to discontinue a case before judgment serves public interest, especially where further evidence shows a prosecution would amount to malicious prosecution.
The magistrate further distinguished between public agitation and public interest.
