Search For Anything In Kenya (Government, Locations, People, etc.)

Rigathi Gachagua Accuse Judge Of Bias After Losing Ksh.202 Million In High Court Rulling

SK 2 years ago 2 min read

Rigathi Gachagua, the running partner of Deputy President William Ruto, has reacted to the High Court decision ordering the forfeiture of his Sh202 million to the state.

Gachagua criticized Justice Esther Maina in a statement and accused her of bias.

“The judgement today by Justice Esther Maina, in my case against the Asset Recovery Agency, did not come as a surprise to me and my lawyers.

“The Judge was biased against us from the word go and threw caution to the wind by conducting a sham trial,” he said.
He said that she turned down our request to question the investigator in a different light in order to verify his claims.

The MP claimed that the judge disallowed oral testimony and mandated that all material be presented through affidavits.

“She refused my request to call witnesses to testify on how I got my money. She has made a ruling relying solely on the allegations by the State without giving us an opportunity to put the allegations to test as per the known practice all over the world,” his statement added.

Gachagua claimed that the judgement was hastily rushed ten days before the elections to undermine his candidature in the coming elections and dent his performance in the recent running mates debate.

“I have instructed my Lawyers to immediately file an appeal in the Court of Appeal to stay the orders and set aside the judgement,” he concluded.

The Mathira MP Rigathi Gachagua’s accounts were blocked, and the High Court ordered that Sh202 million be turned over to the government.

Four accounts created at a neighborhood bank included Sh202 million in cash that was allegedly the profits of corruption.
This is a setback for William Ruto’s running mate, who had previously stated that if he won the lawsuit, he would use the funds to build a house.

While the MP acknowledged receiving money from government organizations, Justice Esther Maina noted that there was no evidence that he gave the government any goods or services.

“I have carefully considered the evidence on record including affidavits, annexures and submissions by all parties and I am satisfied that the funds are liable for forfeiture to the government,” she ruled.