The Milimani Anti-Corruption Court has made a significant ruling by dismissing an application filed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking to withdraw a high-profile graft case involving Gabriel Bukachi Chapia, a former Nairobi County employee. Chapia is accused of forging academic certificates to secure senior-level positions in several public institutions, a case that has garnered significant public attention due to the severity of the alleged offenses.
In a ruling delivered on Monday, Chief Magistrate Ondieki upheld the objection raised by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), stating that the DPP failed to provide convincing reasons for the withdrawal of the case. The decision emphasizes the court’s commitment to upholding justice and ensuring that individuals facing serious charges, especially those involving public service corruption, are held accountable.
The case revolves around Chapia, who is charged with forging both his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree certificates, which he allegedly used to secure positions as an ICT Manager at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in 2009, ICT Manager at the Kenya Investment Authority in 2010, and Ward Administrator at Nairobi City County Government in 2014. These roles, which were in key public institutions, placed Chapia in positions of significant responsibility, and his alleged fraudulent actions have raised questions about the vetting processes within Kenya’s public service.
The DPP had previously consented to the prosecution of Chapia in 2020, after independently reviewing the investigation file and agreeing with the EACC that there was enough evidence to proceed with the case. However, the DPP recently sought to withdraw the charges, citing a request from the accused to review the decision to charge him. In its application, the DPP did not offer sufficient grounds for discontinuing the case, leading to the EACC’s firm opposition to the move.
EACC’s affidavit, filed on November 4, 2024, strongly opposed the DPP’s request, labeling it as “arbitrary, capricious, abuse of prosecutorial power, and a complete disregard of public interest.” The Commission argued that the decision to withdraw the case was made in bad faith, particularly given that 14 out of the 15 witnesses had already testified. The only remaining witness was the Commission’s Investigating Officer, making the DPP’s application to withdraw appear suspicious, especially after such significant progress in the trial.
In its response, EACC reminded the court that the DPP had, in the past, concurred with their findings that there was substantial evidence to proceed with the case. This included the discovery of forged academic certificates that had been presented by Chapia as genuine. The Bachelor’s degree certificate, purportedly issued by Maseno University in 2002, was found to be a forgery, and investigations revealed that Chapia had never been a student at the university. Additionally, the Master’s degree certificate from Daystar University was also forged, as the university confirmed that they had never issued such a certificate and do not offer the course listed on the document.
EACC also pointed out that Chapia had used these forged credentials to fraudulently secure employment in three public institutions, earning a total of Sh9,790,694 in salaries over the years. The Commission has expressed its intention to recover the money earned through fraudulent means.
The court’s ruling is a clear signal that public interest and the integrity of the justice system will not be compromised. The decision ensures that the trial will continue, and Chapia will have to face the charges against him in court. This ruling also highlights the role of the judiciary in curbing corruption and ensuring that those who misuse public resources are held accountable, regardless of attempts to avoid prosecution.
In conclusion, the court’s rejection of the DPP’s application to withdraw the case serves as a strong reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in Kenya’s public service. As the trial proceeds, it is expected to have significant implications for how cases of corruption and fraud are handled in the country, with the public eagerly watching the outcome.
