EACC Arrests Five Over Sh95 Million Nakuru Land Acquisition Scandal

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) arrested five current and former senior Nakuru County Government officials and a land vendor over alleged irregularities in the acquisition of land valued at Sh95 million for the proposed Lanet Umoja Health Centre.

The suspects were arrested on Monday following investigations into the purchase of the property in Bahati Sub-County during the 2019/2020 financial year.

According to the EACC, the county government had allocated only Sh23 million for the acquisition of the land but eventually paid Sh95 million, creating a Sh72 million variance between the approved budget and the purchase price.

Investigators also established that the property failed to meet key requirements contained in the procurement specifications.

The land was required to be free of encumbrances but was found to have a Sh3 million charge registered in favour of Family Bank.

The property was also supposed to be undeveloped. However, investigators found existing educational structures and other developments on the land at the time of acquisition.

The EACC said it forwarded its investigation file to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) after concluding its inquiry.

The ODPP subsequently approved the prosecution of the suspects on various charges, including abuse of office, conspiracy to commit an economic crime, wilful failure to comply with procurement laws and engaging in projects without prior planning.

Those arrested are former Chief Officer in charge of Lands, Housing and Physical Planning Judyleah Gathoni Waihenya; former Acting Director of Supply Chain Management Services Samuel Wachira Gachigi; departmental accountant Ann Wangui Muya; former Deputy Director of Administration and Chairperson of the Opening Committee Sammy Munga Nyagah; and land vendor Samuel Githure Maina.

The five were processed at the EACC South Rift Regional Office in Nakuru and were expected to be arraigned before the Nakuru Law Courts.

The case is expected to shed further light on how the county approved and implemented the controversial land purchase despite the significant difference between the budgeted amount and the eventual acquisition cost.