Gladys Shollei protests her innocence as Willy Mutunga says it’s time for the truth

The former Registrar of the Judiciary, Ms Gladys Shollei, on Monday came out to declare her innocence over allegations of impropriety that led to her sacking last Friday.

And no sooner had she finished addressing a press conference at the Hotel InterContinental in Nairobi than the Chief Justice said the time had come for the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) “to begin telling truths” about her.

Mrs Shollei accused the commission and Dr Mutunga of subjecting her to a “kangaroo court.”

But less than two hours later, Dr Mutunga said: “The fight against corruption is not a public relations exercise, it is a serious undertaking based only on facts.”

Mrs Shollei had said that no money was lost in the numerous transactions that the JSC has raised questions about. She also said there has been no corruption in the Judiciary.

She also said contrary to what her former employer said last Friday, she did not admit to any of the 33 allegations against her in which it was alleged that Sh1.7 billion “was at risk or has been lost”.

ANSWERING QUESTIONS

“The JSC never heard me,” she said. “I have never admitted to any single charge. For the Chief Justice to say that, and the JSC, it is totally dishonest.”

She also gave a detailed version of events and allegations against her, besides answering the queries raised against her.

According to her, the mandate of the JSC did not extend to questioning the management of the Judiciary.

She also questioned the process that led to her sacking, alleging that four of the JSC commissioners were biased against her and were unlikely to give her a fair hearing.

During the Friday meeting, she said, she had sought a public hearing and the opportunity to call witnesses during her defence, both of which had been denied her. She had also asked for a personal assurance from the Chief Justice that he was not at the head of a “war council” targeting her and then asked for an adjournment of the investigations.

“My lawyers requested for the ruling on the issues in writing in order to allow us to appeal their decision on those preliminary issues at the court,” she said.

The matters would have had to be determined by a court, she said, and she had assumed that the JSC would not discuss the matter further until the process of having the matter handled by a court was completed.

“However, two hours later, to my shock, I received a resolution of the JSC terminating my services,” she said. “They did not hear me so the only conclusion I derived is that the ruling was written a long time ago by the so-called War Council.”

She said she was also surprised that the ruling and the allegations against her were ready so fast.

She also claimed that the ruling had been made available to the Nation earlier. (The detailed story in the Saturday Nation was, in fact, based on documents posted on the Judiciary’s website within an hour of the press conference at the Supreme Court Building on Friday.)

Mrs Shollei’s reference to a “War Council” originated from a trove of allegedly leaked emails made available to the press in the two months of drama at the Judiciary headquarters since the allegations against her first emerged.

Declaring that there is a leadership problem at the Judiciary, the former registrar alleged that most of the “young, brilliant, highly motivated, hardworking” administrative staff have been threatened with removal.

She said she was fighting on their behalf.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

When asked what her next course of action will be, she said: “I’m still talking a lot to members of my family, with my friends, my spiritual leaders and my lawyers just to know what will be my course of action. But yes, I have many options but I do not have an exact option now. The only thing we told the JSC is that we have the right of appeal against their ruling.”

In response to Mrs Shollei’s accusations, Dr Mutunga said: “The commission observes that the smear campaign fuelled by misinformation, distortion and outright lies that characterised the two-month disciplinary process against her continues.”

Findings on the allegations against Mrs Shollei would be posted on the Judiciary’s website (www.judiciary.go.ke) on Tuesday, he said.

The conclusions made so far are from the JSC’s internal investigations, Dr Mutunga said, and the truth would unravel as the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and other agencies start working on the case.

Both the CJ and Mrs Shollei said they had invited the EACC to investigate the matter.

Parliament has also turned its spotlight on the Judiciary. The Public Accounts Committee has ordered the Auditor General to conduct a special audit of the Judiciary in regard to the reports that some Sh80 million has been lost, that allowances paid are well beyond the set limits and that there have been large salary advances.

Acting on a petition by a private citizen, the National Assembly’s Justice and Legal Affairs, has asked individual members of the JSC to appear before it. (READ: Women MPs’ threat to strip over Shollei sacking unwarranted)

The JSC has previously refused to honour the committee summons.

In reports posted on the Judiciary’s website on Friday, Mrs Shollei was accused of receiving sitting allowances for meetings she didn’t attend. She denied the allegation, saying, she was not in charge of determining who would be paid for sitting in meetings and didn’t get the documents when she asked for them.

She termed claims that she took an eight-month salary advance of Sh3.5 million as “untrue and incorrect” adding, she took a three-month advance in December 2011 and finished paying it in November 2012. She received another advance of Sh2.3 million, has repaid Sh680,000 and has a balance of Sh1.6 million.

“The salary advance was to enable me to raise the requisite deposit for the Judiciary Mortgage Scheme just like other Judiciary staff. The salary advance is not irregularly acquired money,” she said.

But JSC had said that “regulations state that salary advances should not be for more than two months and should only be granted when an officer has no other outstanding advances.”

On the leasing of Elgon Place, Mrs Shollei said the building was acquired through an open tender, the JSC was depending on draft documents and that everything else had been put in order. (READ: The Judiciary has not lost any money: Shollei)

“There is nothing irregular about making payment in foreign currency equivalent. Standard public bid documents allow bidders to request for payments in foreign currency. For commercial lease agreements within the CBD and its environs, it is common for the rent to be quoted in dollars,” she said.

AGAINST FUTURE WORK

Sealink Holdings, the building’s owners, were reported to have been paid twice, but Mrs Shollei said the money had been taken from the Judiciary Training Institute because of a cash shortage at the headquarters.

But the accountants at the headquarters had already processed the payment and lodged all the information in the technology-based accounting system, and this was detected and it was agreed that the amount would be off-set against future work for partitioning. The first payment was at Central Bank exchange rates and the second at Kenya Commercial Bank rates, she admitted, and the Sh1.1 million difference “has been treated as part of the deposit and is reflected in the register of deposits for all leases.”

Mrs Shollei’s defence for the Sh58 million paid to Lekha Trading Company for cabling that the JSC had said was substandard was that it came at the end of the financial year and had been delayed due to a reorganisation at the procurement department. To avoid sending the money back to the Treasury, Lekha was paid the full amount against a bank guarantee.

She refuted reports that the bank guarantee had expired and said the work had eventually been completed satisfactorily.

She also denied allegations that she acted irregularly in the hiring of staff and awarding them perks and allocating vehicles without the approval of the JSC.

“It is a practice in government that officers who are on secondment move with their salary and benefits from their previous employers as per the circular of the Public Service Commission,” she said.

Mrs Shollei also defended the appointment of a Ms Anne Ng’ang’a, the chief administrator at her office, and a Mr Nicholas Okemwa, a legal counsel in the same office.

She defended issuing cars to them, saying, “it is at the discretion of the accounting officer, but the decision is based on the nature of the job of the assigned officer and the need for them to be available as and when requested at the shortest available time and for those who must work either very early or very late.”

Mrs Shollei said her sacking came just as the transformation of the Judiciary had started gathering momentum, having made progress over the past two years with her at the helm.