The High Court has dismissed a case filed by the Asset Recovery Agency (ARA), which sought to have millions of shillings in bank accounts belonging to former Nairobi Governor Mike Mbuvi Sonko declared as proceeds of crime and forfeited to the State.
Insufficient Evidence Presented by ARA
In a judgment delivered by Justice Nixon Sifuna, the court found that the ARA had failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the funds in question to any criminal activity. The judge pointed out that the investigators did not verify crucial aspects of the case, including:The properties that Sonko allegedly sold, the purchase prices of those properties, and the identities of the alleged buyers.
Additionally, the court noted that no statements were presented from the buyers—an omission that severely weakened the Agency’s case
I am of the view that suspicion has to be founded and reasonable. It cannot just be from without. Where the Agency’s action arises from a complaint, the complaint should be specified and explained, even if the complainant’s name is not disclosed
Justice Sifuna Reliance on Incomplete Financial Records
Justice Sifuna also criticized the ARA for relying fully on bank statements starting in August 2017—the period when Sonko assumed office as Nairobi Governor. The Agency failed to provide any financial records from before that date, which the court said would have allowed for a fair and objective comparison of Sonko’s finances.
Public Duty to Present All Evidence
The judge emphasized that as a public institution, the ARA has a duty to present both incriminating and vindicating evidence, where available.
Being a public institution, the ARA is under a public duty to provide not only the evidence that incriminates a suspect but also that which exculpates (ESKALPEITS) him if available. Unfortunately, this was not the case here
Justice Sifuna Case Dismissed
In conclusion, Justice Sifuna ruled that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the funds were proceeds of crime. The court dismissed the case with costs and ordered that the funds—previously preserved under an interlocutory order issued in February 2020—be released to Sonko immediately, unless otherwise lawfully held.
This judgment marks a significant moment in the legal battles involving high-profile public figures and raises questions about the quality of investigations conducted by the ARA. It also underscores the importance of due process and adherence to evidentiary standards in asset recovery cases
