Ouko to challenge petition seeking removal from office

Auditor-General Edward Ouko will on Tuesday appear before a parliamentary committee to challenge a petition seeking his removal from office.

This is after the Finance, Planning and Trade Committee, chaired by Ainamoi MP Benjamin Langat, agreed to move the session from February 23 to give Mr Ouko adequate time to prepare his defence.

Mr Ouko, in a response seen by Nation, dismisses the petition, questioning the speed with which National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi submitted it to the committee.

“The petition was received by the office of the clerk on the February 14, 2017, and the clerk and Speaker appear to have committed it to the committee without a preliminary inquiry as to whether it merits further consideration contrary to the law and the Standing Orders,” he says in his response.

According to the auditor, the petition would have been reviewed for sufficiency and legality by the clerk and subjected to an advisory committee.

He further argues that it contravenes the Petition to Parliament Act and the Standing Orders as it fails to indicate that the subject matter has been dealt with by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

“It is unfortunate that the National Assembly has now been dragged into a malicious and sustained campaign by a group of individuals who have previously sought the removal of the respondent from office through various complaints and which, after inquiry by relevant investigative agencies, exonerated the respondent,” he states.

On Friday, activist Okiya Omtatah lodged a suit at the High Court seeking to shield Mr Ouko from the allegations contained in the petition filed by a Nairobi lawyer Emmanuel Mwagonah. Mr Omtatah argues Mr Ouko is a victim of a malicious campaign even though he is a diligent worker.

On Thursday, Mr Mwagonah failed to make a scheduled appearance before the committee citing security fears.

Among other grounds, the petitioner accused Mr Ouko of wasting public funds by accumulating a Sh1 million phone bill on his iPad while he was abroad. He claimed Mr Ouko frequently travelled out of the country for private reasons and has been managing the office remotely, resulting in high telephone and Internet costs.

“In one trip abroad in 2014, the telephone charges for his iPad line were in excess of Sh1 million. The amount was not captured as telephone expenditure in the accounting records,” Mr Mwagonah alleged.

He further claimed that Mr Ouko had been allocated five cars, some of which are used by his wife and daughter.

“These vehicles include two Mercedes Benz, a Toyota Land-Cruiser VX, a Volkswagen Passat and a Nissan Patrol. All the above vehicles have private plates,” Mr Mwagonah said.

The auditor is also accused of failing to submit reports to the President and Parliament at the end of financial years, giving a firm that was supposed to be auditing his office other work, and buying an office at a cost of Sh10 million in Mombasa, which was never used.

FACES PROSECUTION

Three weeks ago, Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko alluded to machinations to kick Mr Ouko out of office when he rejected a recommendation by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission that he faces prosecution over his alleged role in the Audit Vault technology scandal at his office.

Mr Tobiko took issue with what he termed as “sinister and mischievous” attempts to coerce him to make a decision on prosecuting Mr Ouko over alleged procurement irregularities to the tune of Sh100 million.

“I find it strange that an extreme wave of urgency has been imposed on this matter when the same was not there since 2014 when it was taken up by investigators,” said Mr Tobiko.

In his response, Mr Ouko says the petition is inadmissible as the issues raised have been dispensed with by Mr Tobiko.

He further notes that Mr Muturi ought to have given the committee 60 days to interrogate the petition and report back to the House as opposed to only 14 days.

The auditor denied incurring telephone charges in excess of Sh1 million. He also denied making many private trips at the taxpayer’s expense or wasting public funds.

He also refuted the vehicle claim. “The respondent is allocated two vehicles only. All other vehicles are pool vehicles under the control of the transport manager.”