The High Court has quashed corruption charges against Trans-Nzoia Governor George Natembeya, stemming from a Sh1.4 billion graft investigation, and awarded him Sh2.5 million in damages for violating his constitutional rights.
In its ruling, the court criticised State investigators, saying M-Pesa statements used as evidence were obtained unlawfully thus infringing on the governor’s right to privacy.
The court further held that the decision to charge Natembeya lacked legal basis and amounted to an abuse of the criminal justice system.
“Allowing the prosecution to continue would constitute an abuse of the court’s process and risk weaponising the criminal justice system for purposes it was never intended to serve, undermining both justice and public confidence in the rule of law,” stated the court.
The case originated from an Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commision (EACC) investigation into alleged irregular procurement and payments within the Trans-Nzoia County Government.
Detectives had accused Natembeya and several county officials of influencing tenders and receiving kickbacks from contractors in projects worth approximately Sh1.4 billion.
Raid and arrest
The probe took a dramatic turn in May 2025 when EACC officers raided Natembeya’s residence in Kitale’s Milimani area, searching for documents linked to the suspected irregularities.
He was later arrested, questioned at EACC headquarters in Nairobi and arraigned at the Milimani Anti-Corruption Court in Nairobi on charges of conflict of interest and unlawful acquisition of public property. He denied the allegations and was released on bond.
In his petition to the High Court, Natembeya argued that investigators violated his rights during the arrest and searches, including denying him immediate access to legal representation. The court agreed, ruling that the investigators’ conduct breached multiple constitutional safeguards.
It subsequently nullified the charge sheet filed on May 20, 2025, and permanently barred the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from pursuing the case based on the same evidence.
“The decision to charge the petitioner, when viewed holistically, lacked a proper foundation,” the court said.
The Attorney-General and the DPP opposed the petition, arguing that the arrest, investigations and prosecution were lawful and carried out within their constitutional mandates. They maintained that investigators had gathered sufficient evidence linking the governor to suspected procurement irregularities in Trans-Nzoia County projects and that the charges were properly before the anti-corruption court.
Infringements were systematic and deliberate
However, the court dismissed these arguments, finding that the investigation violated constitutional rights, including privacy and access to legal counsel.
The court found that described the actions of the investigators and prosecutors as systematic and unlawful. The court said that the decision by investigators and prosecutors also amounted to an abuse of the criminal justice system.
“These infringements were systematic and deliberate, reflecting a disregard for the rule of law, natural justice and human dignity,” said the court, awarding the governor Sh2.5 million in general damages, with interest at court rates, and ordered the respondents to pay the full costs of the petition.
“Denial of legal representation and publicising unverified allegations constitutes a clear abuse of power and malafides (bad faith) under Article 157(11). Constitutional rights are the cornerstone of democracy, of democratic governance, and breaches thereof strike at the heart of the nation’s legal and moral order,” stated the court.
Additionally, it found that key evidence, particularly M-Pesa statements, was unlawfully obtained and thus inadmissible. It ruled that the admission of this evidence would render Natembeya’s trial unfair and be detrimental to the administration of justice, contrary to Article 50(4) of the Constitution.
“A sensationalised public announcement of a Sh1.4 billion loss, followed by charges involving sums that contradicted the petitioner’s contemporaneous documentation, reflected a process driven by considerations extraneous to justice,” the court added.
jwangui@ke.nationmedia.com
About the Author
