DPP Ingonga defends withdrawal of high-profile corruption cases

According to Ingonga, such decisions are based on the evidence presented and the need to safeguard public funds when cases do not meet the evidential threshold for a conviction. 

The DPP is urging investigative bodies to ensure that evidence is robust and beyond reproach so his office can mount a spirited fight for conviction.

His office has recently faced sharp criticism and legal battles over its move to withdraw some high-profile corruption-related cases. DPP Ingonga has defended these decisions, stressing that the law allows for withdrawal when there is insufficient evidence to sustain a case.

"Some of the charge sheets we normally get the charges are framed the chrges may bev riught particulars may be right but the quontam in more often they may not be right because someone just thinks he stole this this must be this much more often that not the actual amount will never be what you have seen in charge sheets," DPP stated. 

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and the DPP’s office have at times clashed in court, raising questions about the fight against graft. Ingonga faulted the EACC for not conducting thorough investigations in some of the cases.

"If you follow some of the cases you will find we review them and give the right figure. if you remember very well the case of natembea what eacc said Ksh.1.4 billion when we went through the evidence we were able to establish evidence for Ksh.3 million someone also thinks its Ksh.1 billion when you come to actual evidence what do you get it would be wrong somebody has stolen this much even if you have facts and figures no you will fail," he noted.

According to Ingonga, his office approves charges based on the evidence provided. He says, investigators must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a conviction is likely.

DPP said that when issues arose during trial casting doubt on a case, he may have no choice but to seek withdrawal.

"You should ask the DPP what the advantage is of withdrawing a case as opposed to going to full trial when I know very well this is an acquittal because after that acquittal under section 2,10 lack of evidence that person can sue the state for malicious prosecution," he stated.

Ingonga adds that withdrawing cases with insufficient evidence protects the public interest and the administration of justice, avoiding billions of shillings in potential compensation claims.

"We lose billions in compensation but when you withdraw before acquittal, you cant sue for malicious prosecution you can only sure when you have been acquitted."