Judge rejects State's bid to seize former ICTA managers property

The Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) has suffered a setback after the High Court dismissed its attempt to forfeit two properties it claimed were developed using Sh155 million stolen from the Information and Communication Technology Authority (ICTA).

In a judgment delivered at the Milimani Law Courts, Justice Benjamin Musyoki ruled that ARA had failed to prove that the properties in Ruiru and Kiambaa belonging a former ICTA manager and a businessman were acquired through proceeds of crime

“The originating motion lacks merits. I proceed to dismiss it with costs to the respondents,” Justice Musyoki ruled.

ARA had filed a recovery suit seeking to confiscate L.R No. Ruiru East Block 1/5093 registered in the name of Antony Nyaga Mwangi and L.R No. Kiambaa/Thimbigua/6503 registered under Ernest Githinji Waweru.

The agency also sought forfeiture of all rental income generated from the properties, arguing they were developed using ICTA funds allegedly siphoned between January and July 2017 by two top ex-ICTA managers.

In affidavits filed by investigator Corporal Isaac Nakitare, ARA claimed that Mwangi and his colleague Peter Mukangu Mwangi orchestrated a scheme involving unsupported cash withdrawals and split transactions below Sh500,000 to bypass internal controls.

“The internal audit revealed that between January 24, 2017 and July 24, 2017, the ICTA lost Sh155,838,193 through a carefully crafted scheme involving ICTA employees,” the investigator informed the judge .

ARA further alleged that Wells Fargo security officers delivered millions in cash to the Nyaga and Mwangi at ICTA offices, and that the Kiambaa property was transferred to Githinji as part of a money-laundering scheme meant to conceal ownership.

However, the former ICTA managers and Githinji disputed the ARA’s claims, maintaining that the properties were acquired and developed through legitimate means long before the alleged theft of ICTA funds.

Nyaga told the court he purchased the Ruiru property in 2014 and completed its development in 2016 using lawful loans, business proceeds, and contributions from his spouse, insisting that there was no nexus established between the property and the alleged stolen funds.

He argued that the money received from ICTA in 2017 was for project launches, inspections, and allowances in the course of his employment.

Githinji, through lawyer Emmanuel Awiti denied that he acted as a proxy in a money-laundering scheme, stating that he bought the Kiambaa property from Mwangi through a lawful sale agreement and paid the purchase price in installments through bank transfers.

Awiti told the court that his client financed the development using income from his businesses and that of his wife, adding that he conducted due diligence before the purchase and had no knowledge of any investigations at the time.

In his ruling, Justice Musyoki said ARA had failed to demonstrate a nexus between the stolen funds and the developments.

“I do not think I need to take much time discussing the acquisition of the properties as it is clear to me that Nyaga and Mwangi acquired the properties in 2014 while the stolen funds landed in their hands between January and July 2017,” Justice Musyoki said.