Alex Khisa’s response to detectives about his wife’s income cost her years in court.
Joackim Bwana
In 2017, a husband told the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) that he did not know the source of his wife’s Sh19.6 million, a statement that ultimately led to the freezing and forfeiture of the money.
Alex Khisa, a Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) declaration officer, may have believed he was simply upholding the law. As a tax official, he understood the importance of accountability and compliance.
However, his remarks to investigators would later be viewed by his wife, Pamela Aboo, as a betrayal that triggered years of legal battles over her money.
Khisa informed ARA that his wife operated three accounts at Equity Bank but said he did not know the source of the funds deposited into them.
Aboo told investigators that the money came from her businesses dealing in transport, bananas, sugarcane, perfumes and cereals in Mombasa and Busia.
Unsatisfied with her explanation, ARA obtained preservation orders against Sh19,688,152 under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), arguing that the money constituted proceeds of crime.
The agency said Aboo failed to provide documentary proof such as business permits, licences or compliance records to support her claims. According to ARA, she only provided names and telephone numbers of people who had deposited money into the accounts. Investigators further linked the funds to corruption allegations involving her husband.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) was at the time investigating Khisa over allegations that he received bribes from clearing and forwarding agents to undervalue taxes payable on imported goods.
According to EACC, Aboo’s bank accounts were being used as conduits to receive and transfer bribe money allegedly obtained by her husband.
The commission argued that many of the deposits originated from Mombasa and Embakasi, areas associated with cargo clearance operations. It also noted that the accounts recorded large deposits without corresponding withdrawals, which investigators considered inconsistent with ordinary business operations.
Money legitimate
EACC further claimed that Aboo could not explain the account balances or provide evidence supporting the existence of the businesses she cited.
Although EACC eventually closed the investigations against Khisa without preferring criminal charges, the forfeiture proceedings against Aboo continued.
ARA argued that under Sections 55(2) to (6) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, investigators were not required to prove that Khisa had committed corruption before seeking recovery of the funds.
The agency subsequently obtained forfeiture orders from Justice Hedwig Ong’udi. The judge ruled that Aboo had failed to explain the source of the substantial deposits. The court held that once ARA established the existence of large unexplained deposits through bank statements, the burden shifted to Aboo to prove the legitimacy of the money.
Aboo challenged the decision, arguing that neither EACC nor ARA had linked the funds to any criminal activity or demonstrated that the deposits had been made on behalf of her husband.
She maintained that the money was legitimate and pointed to a tax assessment issued to her in February 2018 as evidence that the funds were genuine.
Aboo also argued that by providing the identities and contacts of her agents and business associates, she had sufficiently discharged her evidentiary burden.
She said the agencies’ failure to investigate or disprove her explanation rendered the forfeiture proceedings unconstitutional and unsustainable.
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.On June 19, 2026, the apex court dismissed ARA’s appeal and upheld a 2023 Court of Appeal decision that had overturned the forfeiture orders.
Chief Justice Martha Koome and Justices Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko held that ARA could not successfully pursue forfeiture proceedings under POCAMLA without establishing a clear connection between the property and criminal conduct.
The judges said the agency had to demonstrate that the property had been used in the commission of a crime or constituted proceeds of crime.
The court found that ARA failed to prove that the money in Aboo’s accounts was linked to bribery, money laundering or any other criminal activity, especially after EACC dropped investigations against Khisa.
“We have come to the conclusion that the record discloses no evidence to link the monies in question to the commission of a crime or that they were proceeds of a crime. Without such a nexus, the forfeiture proceedings ought not to have stood before the trial court,” Chief Justice Koome said.