Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Mike Sonko graft case to proceed, High Court rules

Mike Sonko

Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko.

Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group

The Sh357 million corruption case facing former Nairobi governor Mike Mbuvi Sonko will proceed as scheduled after the High Court declined his request to have it postponed.

Mr Sonko wanted the court to suspend proceedings until a petition in which he accuses the government of violating his right to a fair trial is heard and determined.

Justice James Wakiaga threw the application out yesterday on grounds that Mr Sonko did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances surrounding his prosecution.

“An order for stay of proceedings, particularly stay of criminal proceedings is made sparingly,” the judge said, adding that postponing the case would be interfering with the work of the lower court.

He said Mr Sonko would not suffer prejudice if the case continues, pending the determination of his petition in which he is challenging the decision of Director of Public Prosecutions to put some witnesses under protection.

In the petition, Mr Sonko wants the court to declare that directors of Web Tribe Ltd – trading as Jambopay – Danson Muchemi and Robert Muriithi cannot be witnesses against him “as they are accomplices”.

Mr Sonko wants their testimony denied, negated and expunged and that it should not form part of any official court record.

He is also challenging DPP’s decision to withdraw charges against the directors of the online payment services firm.

According to the former governor, he risks suffering prejudice as a result of the protection orders granted to the prosecution side under Witness Protection Act, which compels the court to admit electronic evidence.

He says the computer-printed testimony was tabled in violation of the Evidence Act and that it was obtained illegally.