Ruto’s Aides Fight Back in Sh292M Spy Software Suit

Three senior aides of President William Ruto have vehemently denied allegations of involvement in a controversial Sh292 million spy software project, urging the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by American software developer Mary Wachuka.

The suit, which seeks $2.2 million (Sh292 million) in damages for breach of contract, has sparked a legal battle over claims of an illegal procurement deal aimed at mass surveillance and suppressing online criticism of the government.

Head of Public Service Felix Koskei, Treasury Principal Secretary Chris Kiptoo, and Attorney General Dorcas Oduor have jointly filed a response through the Office of the Attorney General, dismissing Wachuka’s claims as baseless and illegal.

The trio asserts that they are “complete strangers” to the alleged contract and have no knowledge of the purported spying program.

They have asked the court to throw out the case with costs, arguing that the software’s alleged functions violate Kenya’s Constitution and data protection laws.

Wachuka, the proprietor of Jipe Inc., claims she was contracted by State House officials to develop a sophisticated software system capable of mass surveillance, public deception, and managing social media pages for President Ruto and his deputy.

She alleges the software was intended to suppress online criticism of the government and bolster Ruto’s 2027 re-election campaign. However, the government officials have countered that any such contract would be illegal and unconstitutional, rendering it unenforceable.

In their 22-point rejoinder, Koskei, Kiptoo, and Oduor argue that Wachuka’s admission of developing software designed to violate privacy laws and conduct mass surveillance is an “express admission of illegality.”

They contend that such a contract cannot be upheld by any court of law, as it contravenes Article 31(d) of the Kenyan Constitution and the Data Protection Act of 2019.

“The plaintiff has expressly admitted perpetuating an illegality by proposing to develop and or by developing a system that is in utter contravention of the Constitution of Kenya,” the officials stated in their response, filed by Senior State Counsel Bonn Bett.

They further accused Wachuka of failing to demonstrate compliance with Kenya’s public procurement laws, which require state contracts to adhere to strict legal and procedural standards.

Wachuka’s lawsuit also names President Ruto’s speechwriter, Eric Ng’eno, and businessman Jayesh Saini as respondents. While Ng’eno has yet to respond to the suit, Saini has denied any involvement in the alleged project.

In a 15-point rebuttal, Saini’s lawyers described him as a “stranger to the contents” of the case and urged the court to dismiss the claims, which they termed as baseless and aimed at tarnishing his reputation.

The dispute traces back to a series of meetings Wachuka claims to have had with Ng’eno and Saini in late 2023. She alleges that Ng’eno, acting on behalf of the president, tasked her with developing a “confidential software” to manage strategic communications and spy on targets ahead of the 2027 elections. Wachuka further claims that Saini was introduced as the project’s financier during a meeting at Arch Place on Nyangumi Road.

However, the government officials have denied these allegations, stating that they have never met Wachuka or participated in any discussions about the project. They also refuted claims that Ng’eno acted as their representative in any capacity.

The legal battle has taken a toll on Wachuka, who claims she suffered significant financial losses after the government allegedly reneged on the contract. Court documents reveal that she had to pay $950,430 (Sh123 million) in compensation to a US-based subcontractor, Tesxo, after the Kenyan project collapsed.

Wachuka alleges that she lost her house and other assets in the US to settle the hefty fines imposed on her for breach of contract.

Despite her claims, the government officials maintain that Wachuka’s case is built on falsehoods and lacks merit. They have urged the court to dismiss the suit, emphasizing that no state organ can be bound by an illegal contract.