Deputy President William Ruto’s running mate Rigathi Gachagua has responded to the High Court ruling which ordered the forfeiture of his Sh202 million to the state.
Rigathi Gachagua slams judge after losing Sh202 million in high court ruling
Rigathi Gachagua responds to high court ruling surrendering Sh202 million to the state
In a statement, Gachagua criticised Justice Esther Maina accusing her of being biased.
“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 stated that she refused our application to cross-examine the investigator in order to test the veracity of his allegations.
The MP argued that the judge ruled that all evidence should be through affidavits and rejected oral evidence.
“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 High Court has ordered that Sh202 million which had been frozen at accounts belonging to Mathira MP Rigathi Gachagua be surrendered to the government.
The four accounts opened at a local bank held Sh202 million cash suspected to be proceeds of corruption.
This is a blow to Deputy President William Ruto’s running mate who had already declared his plans to build a house with the money if he wins the case.
Justice Esther Maina found that while the MP acknowledged receiving cash from government agencies, there was no proof that he provided any services or commodities to the government.
“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.
One of the accounts had Sh165 million, the other had Sh35 million and the third held Sh773, 228.
JOIN OUR PULSE COMMUNITY!
Eyewitness? Submit your stories now via social or: