The High Court Tuesday declined to grant former Treasury Cabinet Secretary Ukur Yatani anticipatory bail in ongoing probe of graft claims.
Judge Chacha Mwita declined the request and instead directed the matter be heard on June 15.
In the application, Yatani wanted anticipatory bail arguing that ongoing investigations on graft allegations against him are malicious.
The former CS claimed he is apprehensive that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC)’s actions are borne of malice, ill will and bad faith and the court should protect him.
“To this end, the applicant seeks the interpretation of the court of the scope of the third respondent’s (Milimani chief magistrate) duty in considering ex-parte (EACC’s) applications for search warrants and whether the third respondent judiciously exercised its discretion in granting the search warrants in the manner that it did,” read court papers.
EACC opposed the application saying that there was no threat of Yatani’s arrest as investigations into the alleged loss of Sh1.2 billion at the Marsabit County Government are still ongoing.
The judge directed that all parties in the case appear on June 14 for an inter-party hearing.
Yatani together with Marsabit Governor Mohamud Mohamed Ali, top county officials and close family members are under investigation for alleged theft of public funds, abuse of office, procurement irregularities, conflict of interest and unexplained wealth.
Last week, the court ordered that about Sh60 million found in Yattani nephew’s house be preserved at the Central Bank in the ongoing probe.
The freezing order which were issued by anti corruption judge Justice Esther Maina will remain in force for a period of six months.
The money was seized from Yattani’s nephew Ibrae Doko Yatani.
The EACC moved to court seeking orders to retain the cash in the state they are in pending the conclusion of investigations.
EACC says in the petition filed in Nairobi that it is apprehensive that the respondents may demand unconditional release, surrender, access or possession of the cash and alienate the property to the detriment of the public.
“EACC is reasonably apprehensive that, unless court issues orders allowing them to continue to detain the cash, the respondent shall dispose of or transfer all or part of the property in order to frustrate any subsequent proceedings that may ensure after the investigation,” read the court documents.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
