{"id":121509,"date":"2025-09-16T13:06:18","date_gmt":"2025-09-16T13:06:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/index.php\/2025\/09\/16\/high-court-quashes-dpps-decision-to-withdraw-corruption-charges-against-cs-oparanya\/"},"modified":"2025-09-16T13:06:18","modified_gmt":"2025-09-16T13:06:18","slug":"high-court-quashes-dpps-decision-to-withdraw-corruption-charges-against-cs-oparanya","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/high-court-quashes-dpps-decision-to-withdraw-corruption-charges-against-cs-oparanya\/","title":{"rendered":"High Court quashes DPP\u2019s decision to withdraw corruption charges against CS Oparanya"},"content":{"rendered":"

NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 16 \u2013 The High Court in Nairobi has nullified a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to withdraw corruption charges against Cabinet Secretary Wycliffe Oparanya, terming it unconstitutional, irregular, and void.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The former Kakamega boss was facing charges over allegations of conflict of interest, abuse of office, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit corruption involving a Sh56.7 million linked to companies contracted by the county government.<\/p>\n

Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Benjamin Musyoki held that the DPP acted outside the law when he unilaterally reviewed and withdrew the charges without consulting the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the body mandated to investigate corruption.<\/p>\n

The court found that the DPP failed to adhere to the Guidelines on Decision to Charge (2019), which require consultation with both the investigating body and the victim before declining to prosecute.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 1st respondent\u2019s decision was shrouded in mystery and worked against public interest, thereby violating Article 157(11) of the Constitution,\u201d Justice Musyoki said, adding that the process fell short of transparency and accountability.<\/p>\n

The judge ruled that upon receiving new evidence from Oparanya\u2019s lawyers, the DPP should have referred it back to the EACC for investigation instead of closing the file unilaterally.<\/p>\n

By failing to do so, the DPP usurped the investigative mandate of the anti-graft agency.
While Article 157 shields the DPP from external interference, the court emphasized that prosecutorial powers must still align with constitutional principles.<\/p>\n

\u201cHaving said the above, the inevitable conclusion is that the 1st respondent usurped the powers of the 2nd interested party when it received alleged fresh evidence and unilaterally decided to review its decision to charge without reference to the 2nd interested party,\u201d Justice Musyoki said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt assumed powers it does not possess either in the Constitution or statute.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court issued an order of certiorari quashing the DPP\u2019s July 8, 2024 letter that had directed the closure of the case.<\/p>\n

The ruling effectively reinstates the earlier consent to prosecute the Cabinet Secretary on charges including conflict of interest, abuse of office, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit corruption.<\/p>\n

Despite nullifying the withdrawal of charges, the High Court declined to invalidate Oparanya\u2019s appointment as Cabinet Secretary, noting that his nomination and vetting followed constitutional procedures under Article 152(2).<\/p>\n

The judge said there was no evidence presented to suggest impropriety or irregularity in the appointment process and that interfering with the President\u2019s powers of nomination without such proof would amount to judicial overreach.<\/p>\n

Each party was directed to bear its own costs.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 16 \u2013 The High Court in Nairobi has nullified a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to withdraw corruption charges against Cabinet Secretary Wycliffe Oparanya, terming it unconstitutional, irregular, and void. The former Kakamega boss was facing charges over allegations of conflict of interest, abuse of office, money laundering, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121509"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121509\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}