Ruto faces Cabinet exit after judgement

Mr Ruto and four other persons face fraud charges over the alleged sale of a piece of land in Ngong forest to Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd for a total of Sh272 million. Photo/ FILE

Higher Education minister William Ruto technically lost his Cabinet position on Friday after the constitutional court ruled that he would face criminal prosecution over a Sh272 million fraud case.

Section 62 of the Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act stipulates that “a public officer who is charged with corruption or economic crime shall be suspended at half pay, with effect from the date of the charge.”

Such a suspended public officer continues to receive the full amount of any allowances, according the law. The law now requires that President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga move to suspend Mr Ruto until the case against him is determined.

The minister’s political career was thrown into a spin on Friday afternoon when a panel of three judges dismissed a petition he filed in 2005 seeking to stop court proceedings against him claiming that his rights had been infringed.

Following the ruling, Mr Ruto through his lawyer asked for certified copies to enable him appeal. The court gave him permission to challenge their verdict but also directed the criminal case be mentioned on October 26.

Judges Jeanne Gacheche, Leonard Njagi and Roseline Wendoh said that they were not convinced that any of Mr Ruto’s rights had been infringed because he was still innocent until the trial court proved otherwise.

Mr Ruto and four other persons face fraud charges over the alleged sale of a piece of land in Ngong forest to Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd for a total of Sh272 million. The minister allegedly received Sh96 million at various intervals during the alleged transaction.

In the case, the Eldoret North MP and Berke Commercial Agencies, a company associated with him, Mr Joshua Kulei, a former aide of retired president Daniel Moi, Mr Sammy Mwaita (Baringo Central MP) and two other firms were sued for allegedly obtaining money from KPC between August 6 and September 6, 2001.

The court observed on Friday that Mr Ruto was granted bail immediately he was charged and the allegation that his right to liberty had been infringed was not true. The judges said in the ruling that Mr Ruto’s attempts were only meant to pre-empt the criminal charges yet the Minister will have a chance of mounting his defence before the trial magistrate.

In the petition, Mr Ruto had filed eight objections as to why the case before the chief magistrate in Nairobi should be terminated. Other than infringing on his constitutional rights, Mr Ruto alleged that the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission (KACC) was discriminatory in prosecuting him.

He argued that many persons had been involved in alleged allocation of the land, its transfer and subsequent sale and was wondering why others were left out. According to him, the State left out 16 government departments and offices that facilitated the transfer of the land.

Through lawyer Katwa Kigen, Mr Ruto said officers such as the chief lands registrar, the director of survey, chief valuer, the director of physical planning and the city council staff had been left out. “All these offices played a role in confirming that the land was available for allotment,” Mr Kigen had said. Further, Mr Ruto questioned why other persons who had been allocated land in similar manner had not been prosecuted.

But in the judgment, the court said that no evidence had been tabled before them to show the others persons Mr Ruto was referring to. The Judges said it was difficult to ascertain Mr Ruto’s allegation. Mr Ruto moved to the High Court in 2005 soon after he and four other persons were charged before a magistrate court with defrauding KPC of more than Sh272 million in the sale of the plot which was part of Ngong Forest.

In the petition, Mr Ruto maintained that he did not receive any money from the sale of land measuring 1.754 hectares and that he was a stranger in the case. According to him, the plot was sold to Kenya Times Media Trust where Mr Ruto was a trustee. Mr Ruto was charged with receiving Sh9.9 million, saying he was in a position to sell the land, belonging to the ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.

He is alleged to have been paid another Sh57.8 million and Sh28 million for land in the same forest. In the dismissed petition, however, Mr Ruto argued that he read malice and “senior officials in the government wanted to finish him off politically” and that he had been warned of the charges in 2003 immediately the Narc government came to power.

According to him, the charges were fabricated to punish him. The court, however, dismissed the allegation saying that Mr Ruto was voted in overwhelmingly — as Eldoret North MP — in 2007. Further, the MP claimed that senior officials in the government had made unfair comments against him regarding the case hence he would not face a fair trial.

The judges said that it was common for ministers and other politicians to make comments before cases were concluded in court. They added that Mr Ruto and his co-accused would be tried by a competent court and he was free to raise the same issues before the trial magistrate but not by filing a constitutional application.

Mr Ruto had also claimed that the charges were defective but the same was dismissed by the judges saying the application should have been raised before the trial magistrate. Mr Ruto and his co-accused filed a constitutional reference after he and his co-accused were charged before the Chief magistrate court, Nairobi. Chief Justice Evan Gicheru had to appoint a bench to hear the case.

The case was concluded in December last year and a ruling date set. His co-accused appeared as interested parties in the petition and supported Ruto’s arguments. Mr Ruto had also questioned why it took long for the prosecution to prefer the charges against him. He argued that the allocation was done in 1995 and the sale was allegedly conducted in 2001 while the case was filed 10 years later in 2005.

Lastly, Mr Ruto asked for compensation now that the land had been taken back by the State but the court told him he cannot benefit from an illegality.