How A Fake Firm Was Awarded A Sh230 Million Tender By Kiambu County

A web of forged documents, ghost employees and doctored bank statements has exposed how Kiambu County Government lost millions of shillings in what investigators now describe as one of the most brazen procurement frauds in recent memory.

In the sprawling offices of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission in Nairobi’s Integrity Centre, investigators have been piecing together a scandal that reads like a carefully choreographed heist. At its centre is Filtronic International Limited, a company that allegedly used an elaborate scheme of fabricated credentials to walk away with a contract worth Sh230 million, a contract meant to modernize Kiambu County’s administrative systems but instead became a gateway for systematic plunder of public funds.

The story begins in the early days of March 2023, when Kiambu County under Governor Kimani Wamatangi advertised a tender for an Enterprise Resource Planning system. Such digital platforms represent the future of county administration, promising to streamline operations, improve service delivery and bring accountability to public finance management. For a county government eager to demonstrate technological progress, the ERP system was meant to be a flagship project.

What happened next defied all logic of competitive procurement. Despite the contract’s substantial value, only one company bothered to submit a bid by the April 6 deadline. That company was Filtronic International Limited. Within a mere 18 days, an impossibly short window for proper due diligence, the tender had been evaluated, approved and awarded. By April 24, 2023, the contract was signed and sealed, setting in motion what investigators would later discover was a monumental fraud.

The EACC’s investigation has now blown the lid off this transaction, revealing that Filtronic International and its three directors, Bernard Theuri, Chen Ligou and Martha Wachinga, allegedly constructed an elaborate house of cards built on deception. The commission’s court filings paint a damning picture of systematic fraud that should have been detected at multiple checkpoints but somehow sailed through unchallenged.

At the heart of the deception were the company’s financial statements. The tender requirements were explicit and demanding. Bidders needed to demonstrate an average annual turnover of Sh400 million over three years, profitability of at least Sh100 million per year, positive cash flow and an asset base exceeding Sh500 million. These were not arbitrary figures but carefully calibrated benchmarks designed to ensure only financially robust companies capable of delivering such a complex project would qualify.

Filtronic claimed its financial records for 2020, 2021 and 2022 had been audited by MSM Chris & Associates. The documents looked professional, bearing all the hallmarks of legitimate financial statements complete with audit opinions and financial ratios. But when EACC investigators followed the trail, they discovered something shocking. MSM Chris & Associates had never conducted any such audit. The entire audit trail was fabricated, conjured from thin air to create an illusion of financial credibility that simply did not exist.

The deception went deeper. Bank statements for a US dollar account allegedly held at NCBA Bank were submitted as part of the bid documents. These statements portrayed a company flush with cash, demonstrating the kind of healthy cash flow that procurement officers look for when assessing a contractor’s ability to finance project implementation while awaiting payment milestones. But investigators discovered these too had been doctored, fraudulently edited to present a picture of financial health that bore no relation to reality.

Perhaps most audacious was the fabrication of human resources. The tender documents required bidders to demonstrate technical capacity by listing qualified personnel who would work on the project. Filtronic obliged, submitting detailed curriculum vitae for two employees, complete with academic credentials, professional experience and technical certifications. These CVs were meant to assure evaluators that the company had the human capital necessary to deliver a complex ERP system.

When EACC investigators tracked down these individuals, they discovered neither person had ever worked for Filtronic International. The CVs were complete fabrications, ghost employees created on paper to meet tender requirements. It was fraudulent misrepresentation of the most brazen kind, a calculated gamble that county officials would never bother to verify the credentials of listed staff.

The question that hangs over this entire affair is how such obvious irregularities escaped detection. County governments have elaborate procurement systems precisely to prevent such fraud. Tender evaluation committees are supposed to scrutinize bid documents with forensic attention to detail. Supply chain management officers are tasked with conducting due diligence. Finance departments must verify financial credentials before releasing payments. Yet at every checkpoint, Filtronic’s fabricated credentials passed unchallenged.

The EACC now points fingers at two county officials who allegedly played key roles in this procurement disaster. Phyllis Muiruri, serving as Acting Head of Supply Chain Management, allegedly recommended the award of the tender to Filtronic without conducting the due diligence her position demanded. Zachary Gitau, Chief Officer for Revenue and Supply Chain, allegedly compounded the problem by extending a contract that had not only expired but had delivered absolutely nothing.

The original contract stipulated a six-month implementation period, meaning the ERP system should have been operational by November 2023. During those six months, Filtronic received Sh23 million in two tranches, paid in July and September 2023. November came and went without any sign of the promised system. December passed. January arrived. Still nothing.

Any reasonable procurement officer would have suspended payments and initiated breach of contract proceedings. Instead, in February 2024, months after the contract had lapsed and with zero evidence of project progress, the County Executive Committee approved a 52-week extension. Gitau signed this extension on behalf of the county government on February 24, 2024, effectively resurrecting a dead contract and opening the taps for more public money to flow into Filtronic’s accounts.

The payments continued like clockwork. Between the original contract and the inexplicable extension, Kiambu County has paid out Sh63.7 million to Filtronic International in six separate instalments. The most recent payment, a staggering Sh10.6 million, was disbursed as recently as June 2025. This was money leaving public coffers for a project that existed only on paper, an ERP system that remained stubbornly invisible despite millions in payments.

For perspective, Sh63.7 million could have built multiple health centres in underserved areas of Kiambu County. It could have equipped dozens of schools with modern learning resources. It could have upgraded water infrastructure serving thousands of residents. Instead, it allegedly vanished into the accounts of a company built on fabricated credentials, payment after payment approved despite the glaring absence of any deliverable.

The EACC is now seeking to recover every shilling paid to Filtronic and its directors. The commission’s court papers invoke the common law principle that no one should profit from their own illegal acts, arguing that all money received by Filtronic should be forfeited to the state as proceeds of corruption. The commission also wants damages from Muiruri and Gitau for breach of fiduciary duty, arguing they betrayed the public trust placed in their offices.

Pending the determination of the recovery suit, the High Court has frozen the remaining balance of Sh166 million, preventing further hemorrhaging of public funds. But questions remain about how this situation was allowed to develop in the first place.

The case exposes systemic vulnerabilities in county procurement systems. The fact that only one company submitted a bid for such a lucrative contract should have immediately raised red flags. Single-bidder tenders are notorious breeding grounds for corruption, often indicating collusion between officials and predetermined contractors. Procurement best practices demand that when competition is suspiciously absent, the tender should be re-advertised to attract more bidders.

The lightning-fast evaluation and award process, completed in just 18 days, suggests corners were cut in the rush to execute the contract. Proper evaluation of technical bids, financial credentials and company track records requires time. Auditors need to be contacted to verify financial statements. Banks must confirm account balances and transaction histories. Professional bodies should verify the credentials of listed staff. None of this can be responsibly accomplished in 18 days.

The extension of an expired contract that had delivered nothing represents perhaps the most inexplicable decision in this entire saga. Standard procurement practice demands that contractors who fail to deliver face penalties, not extensions. Performance bonds exist precisely to protect public entities from contractor non-performance. Yet somehow, a company that had spent six months doing absolutely nothing was rewarded with an additional 52 weeks and continued payments.

This case also highlights the weakness of oversight mechanisms meant to protect public funds. County assemblies have committees specifically tasked with scrutinizing procurement and expenditure. Where were these oversight bodies as millions were paid out for an invisible project? Internal audit departments are supposed to flag irregular payments before they happen, not discover them years later. External auditors reviewing county accounts should have questioned payments for undelivered projects.

EACC CEO Abdi Ahmed Mohamud has been vocal about the commission’s focus on asset recovery, recognizing that Kenyans want to see stolen money returned to public coffers. Dozens of similar cases are pending in court, each representing another chapter in Kenya’s seemingly endless struggle with procurement fraud. But recovery is always harder than prevention. Money disbursed tends to disappear quickly, dissipated through multiple accounts, converted to assets in different names, or simply moved offshore beyond the reach of Kenyan courts.

The Filtronic case also raises uncomfortable questions about the broader ecosystem that enables such fraud. Who are the enablers who help companies fabricate audit reports? What about banks where doctored statements originate? Professional bodies that should be verifying credentials? The web of complicity extends beyond the primary actors to include all those who facilitate document forgery and fraudulent misrepresentation.

For ordinary residents of Kiambu County, this scandal represents a betrayal of the social contract between citizens and their government. County governments were created to bring services closer to the people, to ensure local needs were met efficiently using locally generated revenue supplemented by national allocations. When corruption diverts these resources into private pockets, it is not just money that is stolen but the promise of development itself.

The matter is scheduled for hearing on November 13, 2025. Filtronic International and the accused officials have not yet filed their responses to the suit. Whether they will mount a defence or settle remains to be seen. But regardless of the legal outcome, the damage to public trust has already been done.

This scandal serves as a stark reminder that devolution’s promise can only be realized when accompanied by robust systems of accountability. All the legislation in the world means nothing if procurement officers do not verify credentials, if finance departments release payments for undelivered projects, if oversight bodies fail to scrutinize expenditure, and if corrupt actors face no meaningful consequences.

As Kenya continues its fight against corruption, cases like Filtronic International demonstrate that the battle must be fought on multiple fronts. Stronger procurement systems, enhanced verification mechanisms, vigilant oversight bodies, swift prosecution of offenders and meaningful asset recovery must all work in concert. Only then can public resources be protected from those who view county coffers as personal ATMs, there for the taking by anyone brazen enough to forge the necessary paperwork.

The Sh63.7 million already lost represents just the visible portion of a much larger problem. For every fraud that gets detected and prosecuted, how many more sail through unnoticed? For every corrupt official who faces consequences, how many continue operating with impunity? These are the questions that haunt every discussion of public sector corruption in Kenya.

As the case proceeds through the courts, all eyes will be on whether the EACC can successfully recover the stolen funds and whether those responsible will face meaningful consequences. The outcome will send a signal about whether Kenya is finally getting serious about protecting public resources or whether corruption remains a low-risk, high-reward enterprise for those connected enough to exploit the system’s weaknesses.