A petitioner has moved to court seeking to quash the appointment of Wycliffe Oparanya as the Cabinet secretary for Cooperatives, and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development.
Mr Fredrick Mulaa says in the petition lodged at the anti-corruption division of the High Court that the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DDP) Renson Ingonga to review plans to charge Mr Oparanya was illegal and not made in public interest.
Mr Mulaa argues that the decision to drop the charges of corruption, conflict of interest, money laundering and abuse of office lacked adherence to the basic principles and tenets of law, including transparency, accountability, social justice, good governance and integrity.
“Consequently, the 1st interested party’s (Mr Oparanya) nomination to the position of a Cabinet secretary disregards the relevant material that is vital to the legislative and constitutional purpose of integrity which ought to have been taken into account during the nomination,” he says.
Mr Mulaa says the DPP decided to charge Mr Oparanya with corruption-related charges on December 18, last year after concurring with the investigations conducted by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).
Mr Ingonga, however, reviewed the decision on July 8, 2024, and decided to drop the plans of charging Mr Oparanya.
Mr Mulaa pointed out that the decision was conspicuously made the same time Mr Oparanya was nominated to the Cabinet.
He says the DPP’s action to evaluate alleged new evidence without calling for further investigations from the EACC was against the law and amounts to usurping the investigative mandate of the anti-graft body.
He adds that the decision not to charge Mr Oparanya violates the DPP’s guidelines on the decision to charge since the investigative agency was not consulted.
The decision was made without regard to the public interest and the interest of the administration of justice, especially since the money alleged to have been embezzled was taxpayers’ money, he avers.
The EACC had recommended the prosecution of Mr Oparanya for allegedly irregularly receiving a benefit of Sh56.7 million from a contractor, hired by the county government of Kakamega.
But the CS later defended himself saying the money wired to his account was a loan granted to him by one of the contractors’.
Mr Mulaa adds that the explanation that the funds in question were a loan advanced to Mr Oparanya by persons contracted by the Kakamega county government, speaks of gross violation of the tenet of objectivity and safeguarding the integrity and confidence of the office of the governor.
This is because, if is true, Mr Oparanya then accepted a personal loan in circumstances that compromised the integrity of the state office contrary to Article 75 of the constitution, he argues.
“That a declaration does issue that the 1st interested party’s(Mr Oparanya) nomination to state office in light of the illegal, irrational and irregular review of its decision to charge, is inconsistent with the law and the constitution on matters of leadership and integrity thus devoid of procedural propriety and legality,” he said.
