EACC Appeals Rulling Allowing City Hall Employee To Keep Sh643.2M

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has filed a Notice of Appeal seeking to overturn a High Court Judgment delivered on Thursday.

The judgment allowed Wilson Nahashon Kanani, a junior City Hall employee, not to forfeit to the State his Sh643.2 million assets, which EACC had declared unexplained wealth.

In his judgment, Justice Nixon Sifuna stated that the Commission had failed to prove that Kanani had engaged in corruption.

He added that Kanani had satisfactorily explained how the impugned assets and funds were acquired without corruption.

The commission wanted the Court to order forfeiture to the government for allegedly being proceeds of corruption.

In a Notice of Appeal filed on Friday, EACC says that it is dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the High Court and wants the Court of Appeal to set them aside.

“Take notice that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission is dissatisfied with the judgement and Decree of the High Court Anti-Corruption Court at Nairobi (Nixon Sifuna J.) given on November 7, 2024, in originating summons no. E022 of 2023, intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the whole of the said decision,” the notice reads.

EACC Spokesperson Eric Ngumbi said the Commission considers the judgment a step backwards in the fight against corruption and that allowing it to stand will set a bad judicial precedent.

“With tremendous respect, we disagree with the High Court Judge in this matter and we will be challenging the entire decision at the Court of Appeal to overturn the whole judgment,” Ngumbi said.

He said the judgment reversed the current jurisprudence and legal position regarding the burden of proof in asset forfeiture cases, removing the legal burden from graft suspects unable to explain the sources of their wealth.

“The current legal position as affirmed by the Supreme Court is that where a person is unable to explain to EACC how they acquired their assets, the burden of proof shifts to them to demonstrate that the assets were not acquired through corruption,” he said.

“When they fail to discharge this burden, the assets are deemed to be proceeds of corruption whereupon the High Court issues orders for their forfeiture to the State.”

He stated that the rationale of vesting the burden of proof on the person claiming ownership of assets is that they are the ones with the knowledge and information on how they got the assets and no one should have any challenge accounting for what they claim to legally own.