A witness has said documents used by a company to secure a multi-million shilling road construction contract from the county government of Kiambu were forged.
Josphat Onsongo, the legal officer at China Wu Yi Company Limited, told the court that Testimony Enterprise Limited forged their documents to claim that they were in partnership in order to be awarded the Sh588 million tender for road repairs in Kiambu.
“The document alleged that China Wu Yi Company Limited had entered into a sub-contract with Testimony Ltd. The letterhead in the document was not authentic and the signatures were not from our staff,” said Onsongo.
Onsongo was testifying in the case in which the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is seeking to recover Sh147 million irregularly paid by the county government to Testimony for upgrading gravel roads in Thika, Limuru, Gatundu North, Juja and Ruiru between 2017 and 2018.
EACC also named former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu as a respondent and accused him of receiving Sh25 million as a kickback after influencing the tendering award in favour of Testimony Ltd.
The commission alleged that the company forged the document from China Wu Yi Company Limited to lie that they were capable of doing the road works.
“We supplied EACC with a copy of our official letterheads to prove that what the company used claiming we were in partnership with them was a forgery,” said Onsongo.
The commission is seeking to recover Sh147,274,055 paid to Testimony Ltd claiming it constitutes proceeds of crime and for Waititu to refund Sh25,640,500.
According to EACC, Testimony Enterprises Ltd directors Charles Mbuthia and Beth Wangeci hatched the plot to rip off Kiambu county by presenting false certificates to prove that their company was capable of undertaking the road construction work.
The county’s tender committee then approved the company’s bid without subjecting it to scrutiny.
Waititu in his response admitted to receiving the Sh25 million but denied that it was a kickback. He claimed it was payment for a piece of land he sold to one of the company’s directors.
He added that there is no way he could have abused his office since he was not the one in charge of awarding contracts.