Muhoro takes on Ahmednasir over Tatu City claims

March 21, 2016 3:55 pm
Shares
The CID boss has been accused of sending two contradictory files in the case over ownership of Tatu City which he refutes/MIKE KARIUKI
The CID boss has been accused of sending two contradictory files in the case over ownership of Tatu City which he refutes/MIKE KARIUKI

, NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 21 – The Director of Criminal Investigations Ndegwa Muhoro has asked his advocates to institute legal proceedings against lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi and publications accusing him of meddling with the Tatu City case.

The CID boss has been accused of sending two contradictory files in the case over ownership of Tatu City which he refutes, saying he only sought legal advice on six pertinent legal issues from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Overview
  • Muhoro gave lawyer Abdullahi three days to issue an "unreserved and unqualified apology to be published and circulated to all relevant and concerned persons and also issue a full and unconditional admission of liability in writing whereof the quantum of damages can be dealt with."
  • Muhoro also wants the lawyer to issue an "unconditional confirmation and commitment in writing not to publish or cause to be published any further words or statements injurious to or defamatory to him."

“I have instructed my lawyers to institute proceedings against all those people that participated in authoring the articles,” he said.

“I would like to make it clear that the said articles have been authored in the most uncivil, barbaric and atrocious language and it is not in my intention to sink that low by responding to each and every one of it.”

Muhoro, who was accompanied by the Head of the Economic Commercial Crime Unit Odhiambo Kamlus, during a media briefing at the CID headquarters on Monday said the DPP did not respond to their legal queries, six months after they sent the files.

He said it was clear that the matter was still under investigation and there is no way he could have issued recommendations favouring either of the rival groups claiming ownership of Tatu City.

“Until last week, when two files were referred to the Multi-Agency Team (MAT), my office was still waiting for the DPP to advice us on the way forward,” he explained.

“This office is therefore functus officio. We have no control of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions who has the final say on who should be prosecuted or not.”

Besides the Tatu City files, Muhoro noted that there are many others” yet to find their way back to our end, to allow conclusion of investigations.”

Among the issues the office of the DCI wanted clarified according to the Head of the Economic Commercial Crime Unit includes the legal status of the case and whether the matter of lawful shareholding can be probed while a determination was pending in the High Court on the same.

“I personally sent the case report regarding those two files to the DPP and it was clear to me that even as we were sending these files, investigations were still ongoing,” Kamlus said. “I framed those questions.”

Other pertinent legal issues according to Kamlus include whether detectives were supposed to carry out two different probes on the matter.

“Following incorporation and registration of Purple Saturn, did it become completely divorced from Kofinaf and Allied Companies capable of transacting its business including transfer or sale of its assets or shares?” a query directed to the DPP reads.

They also sought to know whether the prospective majority shareholders can assume the powers of directors as set out in the articles and memorandum of association in transacting the business of the company.

The other query was, “Could Galba Mining own shares in Purple Saturn without registration of the said shares with the registrar of companies?”

Detectives also wanted to know whether directors and shareholders of Purple Saturn – one of the rival companies – can be held liable for acts done “in compliance and due execution of their mandate as prescribed in the company’s articles and memorandum of association.”

Muhoro gave lawyer Abdullahi three days to issue an “unreserved and unqualified apology to be published and circulated to all relevant and concerned persons and also issue a full and unconditional admission of liability in writing whereof the quantum of damages can be dealt with.”

Muhoro also wants the lawyer to issue an “unconditional confirmation and commitment in writing not to publish or cause to be published any further words or statements injurious to or defamatory to him.”

Shares

Latest Articles

Most Viewed