What the magistrate promised Waititu—And why his penalty was milder

Chief Magistrate Thomas Nzyoki on Thursday fulfilled a pledge made to former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu as he sentenced him following conviction in the Sh588 million case.

During the sentencing, the magistrate ordered the discharge of assured persons and immediately released any securities, cash bail, and passports deposited in court.

"I order that assured persons for the accused are hereby discharged, and the security deposited in court shall be released forthwith. Similarly, any cash bail deposited in court shall also be released to the depositor. I also order that the accused person's passport deposited in court shall also be released forthwith," the magistrate ruled.

Addressing Waititu directly, the magistrate reiterated a prior commitment regarding his title deeds, emphasising that they were still considered exhibits but would be returned for safekeeping.

"I made a promise about the title deeds, Governor, and I ensured that I came with them so that I personally hand them over to you. You can confirm whether they are appropriate. You can keep them on our behalf, and if needed for further proceedings, you will have them," the magistrate stated.

Waititu, alongside his legal counsel, was given the opportunity to inspect the documents before formally receiving them.

Why Waititu received lighter penalties than Charles Chege

While Waititu and his wife received what many see as lighter punishments, the directors of Testimony Enterprises Ltd, Charles Chege and Beth Wangeci, were hit with harsher penalties.

Chege will serve 11 years in prison or pay a fine of Sh297 million while Wageci will serve 3 years imprisonment or pay Sh1.4 million fine.

The Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA), No. 3 of 2003, provides guidelines for sentencing, with penalties based on the nature of the offense and the amount of money unlawfully acquired. 

A closer look at the law explains why the punishments varied.

Waititu was convicted of conflict of interest and dealing with suspect property, both violations of ACECA Sections 42 and 47. 

As governor, he through his company Saika Two Estate Developers, received Sh25.6 million from Testimony Enterprises which had been awarded the Sh588 million contract. 

So the former governor’s direct benefit from the scandal was S25.6 million and not Sh588 million. 

The  Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA), No. 3 of 2003 mandates that a person convicted of benefiting from corruption must pay twice the amount gained, which justifies the Sh51 million fine (2× Ksh25.6 million). 

The court also sentenced him an additional five-year jail term or a Sh2.5 million fine for a separate charge. 

Additionally, he was barred from holding public office for 10 years, in line with Section 64 of ACECA.

Susan Wangari, Waititu’s wife, was convicted for receiving proceeds of corruption, as a co-director in her husband’s companies which received Sh7.2 million from the fraudulent tender. 

His wife’s Sh500,000 fine or one-year jail term suggests the court found her less culpable, likely because she was not directly involved in the tendering process, but benefited from the funds through her business dealings with Waitutu.  

Harshest punishment

The harshest punishment was given to Charles Chege and Beth Wangeci, the directors of Testimony Enterprises Ltd, who fraudulently acquired Sh147 million from Kiambu County. 

They were found guilty of fraudulent acquisition of public property, fraudulent procurement, and forgery. 

The court sentenced Chege to four years in prison or a Sh2 million fine, alongside a mandatory fine of Sh294 million (twice the amount stolen).

Their sentence follows ACECA’s strict requirement that those who fraudulently acquire public money must pay back double the amount stolen.

While Ferdinand Waititu was the most high-profile figure in the case, the harshest penalties were reserved for those who directly executed the fraudulent procurement process and pocketed the most money.

The court’s decision reflects the principle of proportionate punishment—where the biggest financial beneficiaries of a crime bear the heaviest financial penalties. 

Waititu’s role as a facilitator of the corruption scheme led to his conviction, but it was Testimony Enterprises Limited’s fraudulent procurement actions that attracted the largest fines.

Ultimately, this case serves as a landmark ruling in Kenya’s fight against corruption, sending a clear message that those involved in fraudulent tenders—whether public officials or private contractors—will face severe legal consequences.