Murang'a County Governor Mwangi Wairia. PHOTO | EVANS HABIL | NATION MEDIA GROUP
The High Court has temporarily halted the prosecution of Public Procurement Regulatory Board chairperson Mwangi Wa Iria over the alleged loss of Sh543 million during his tenure as governor of Murang’a County.
Justice Benjamin Musyoki issued the order pending the determination of a petition filed by Mr Wa Iria, who is challenging the legality of the investigations conducted by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), as well as the use of what he claims is illegally obtained evidence.
In his petition, Mr Wa Iria is contesting the validity of search warrants used by anti-corruption detectives to access private information belonging to him and his close associates, including bank account and M-Pesa details.
He argues that the warrants were fundamentally flawed and failed to meet the legal threshold required for such intrusive investigations.
Mr Wa Iria was arraigned at the anti-corruption court in April 2024 alongside his wife Jane Waigwe, brother-in-law Solomon Mutura, Patrick Kagumo Mukuria, Jane Wanjiru Mbuthia, David Maina and Peter Karanja.
Top Image Media Consultants and Value View Limited companies were also charged.
All the accused denied charges related to conspiracy to commit corruption in the procurement of media and publicity services from Top Image Media Consultants Ltd, an entity allegedly linked to Mr Wa Iria’s close associates and family. They were released on bond.
The prosecution alleges that Mr Wa Iria and his co-accused unlawfully contracted the company for media services at a cost exceeding Sh543 million. The tenders were allegedly awarded irregularly during the financial years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
However, the former Murang’a county boss now argues that the search warrants used to gather evidence against him and his associates were defective. He claims they omitted critical information such as the name and rank of the judicial officer who issued them and whether they were granted by a competent anti-corruption court.
“The applications for warrants made and subsequently issued on diverse dates omitted the name of the judicial officer and their rank, rendering them fatally defective,” he states.
He adds that it was impossible to determine whether the warrants were issued by a sitting judicial officer or whether the officer had the authority to issue them.
Furthermore, Mr Wa Iria says the warrants failed to identify specific individuals who were the targets of the corruption investigations. He contends that the EACC unlawfully accessed private information, including details about his family and the financial accounts of the accused, without justification or proper legal authority.
“There was no nexus between the procurement process under investigation and the bank accounts or M-Pesa numbers accessed. The search warrants did not establish any specific transactions that would support a reasonable suspicion of corruption,” he states in his affidavit.
Former Murang'a Governor Mwangi Wa Iria. EACC is seeking to recover over Sh542 million from his family.
He argues that the EACC violated the Data Protection Act, the Evidence Act and the Public Audit Act by obtaining financial information, personal records and private data belonging to third parties who were not part of the alleged corruption scheme.
Among the personal data allegedly collected were family health insurance records, travel and accommodation details and Mr Wa Iria’s previous employment records from Kenya Cooperative Creameries. He says this constituted a violation of privacy and an abuse of legal processes.
He also contests the seizure of documents related to property purchases, claiming they were illegally obtained and should be excluded from the criminal proceedings.
“All agreements, transfer instruments, title documents and related records concerning land in Mweiga/Thungare (Nyeri), a Nairobi plot in Umoja Innercore and two houses known as Batian 4 and Nellion 88 were unlawfully acquired. These are privileged documents protected under advocate-client confidentiality,” his legal team, Njoroge, Gilbert & Associates Advocates, argues.
Additionally, he faults the EACC for not providing the accused with copies of all the evidence seized during the investigation. He says the commission failed to consult or involve key institutions such as the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) and the Auditor-General, both of which have constitutionally mandated roles in procurement oversight and auditing.
He argues that since the investigation centred on procurement, the PPRA should have been consulted to determine whether irregularities occurred. He also notes that the Auditor-General was not involved in auditing vouchers, tender documents, books of accounts, or other relevant financial documents.
According to his advocates, this omission was a violation of Article 229 of the Constitution. They claim that in determining a monetary figure to base the charges on, five years after the contracts were executed, the EACC must have conducted an audit, something they say only the Auditor-General has the authority to do.
“The Auditor-General is the sole independent office with the mandate to track a transaction into the account of any person, through court orders, if it is suspected that public funds were misappropriated,” the advocates argue, citing Section 22(1) of the Public Audit Act, 2015.
They assert that the EACC overstepped its mandate by tracking bank transactions and collecting personal data without involving the Auditor-General. The petitioners now want the court to declare the search warrants invalid and unlawful and are seeking damages for emotional distress and the infringement of their constitutional rights.
In its response, the EACC claims that Ms Jane Wanjiru Mbuthia and David Maina, the directors of Top Image Media Consultants, were close associates of Mr Wa Iria. The commission alleges that the former governor and his wife directly benefited from the Sh543 million paid to the company by the Murang’a County Government.
It is alleged that some of the funds were transferred to the Mwangi wa Iria Foundation, and another portion was used to repay a loan at CFC Stanbic Bank.
Furthermore, EACC claims that Value View Limited, allegedly directed by Mr Wa Iria’s wife, Jane Waigwe Kimani and her brother, Solomon Mutura, also benefited from the funds.
According to the commission, funds paid to Top Image Media Consultants were funnelled to Value View Ltd, which then used the money to acquire land in Nairobi and Nyeri, as well as two holiday homes in Nanyuki.
The case is scheduled for mention on September 16, 2025, to fix a date for the court’s ruling.
