NATIONALNEWSPeople Daily

Omollo bid to stop fraud charges flops

Bernice Mbugua @BerniceMuhindi

Former Youth Affairs PS Lilian Mbogo-Omollo has suffered a blow after the High Court declined to stop fraud charges against her.

Judge John Onyiego dismissed her application saying it was not merited and that it is the trial court to rule whether there was sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution.

Omollo had argued there was no sufficient evidence against her and that the charges were defective and thus should be quashed.

She further claimed the charges were unconstitutional and stand to violate her rights as an accused person. However, Justice Onyiego ruled that the fact that the charge is defective does not raise a constitutional issue.

“I am satisfied that the petition is not merited and the orders sought are not applicable and hence dismissed with no order as to cost,’’ he ruled.

Omollo had also claimed she has been lumped in 10 cases each having 30 accused persons and in so doing violated and threatened her rights.

Through her lawyer Stephen Ligunya, Omollo argued  that the 10 cases with minimum of 30 and maximum of 41 co-accused raises the real risk of unreasonable delay in the likely event that one of more accused persons should abscond, be sick or absent for any reasons.

She claimed that it was not possible to have 10 trials begin and end without unreasonable delay and that she was likely to be locked in court battles for up to even five years.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in response to the petititon has argued that framing, consolidating and joinder of charges are matters discourse and determination before trial court hence the petition is premature and an abuse of court process.

According to DPP,  Omollo having been arraigned in court and charged, she understood her rights to a fair trial were safeguarded. The DPP added that the former PS has failed to demonstrate that he acted partially and in bad faith or has abused the legal process.

The judge in his ruling agreed with the prosecution  and ruled that there is no prejudice that she will suffer for being charged separately for offences committed at different times, involving different amounts of money and affecting different companies.

Show More

Related Articles