Sirisia Member of Parliament John Waluke has suffered a major setback after the High Court upheld his 67-year jail term over Sh297million maize scam.
This is after Justice Esther Maina dismissed Waluke’s and his business partner Grace Wakhungu appeals saying the charges against the two before trial Magistrate Elizabeth Juma were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“The sentences were not excessive. They are within the law. Conviction and sentences affirmed,” the judge said.
According to the judge, the two will have to pay the fines or serve the sentences. Wakhungu was sentenced to 69 years in prison.
The two are, however, allowed to appeal the sentence within 14 days.
The duo were in June 2020 convicted of fraud involving Sh313 million in shady maize dealings with the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB).
Wakhungu was sentenced to 69 years in jail with an option of Sh1 billion fine and Waluke was handed a 67-year sentence with Sh1 billion fine.
The prosecution brought the fraud charges against the two on allegations that the award was based on forged documents.
But the two argued it was never identified whether that invoice was an original or fake.
“It was incumbent upon the prosecution and the investigating officer to investigate the issue of the invoice because the officer never produced what was in his opinion an original invoice to counter the same,” lawyer Elisha Ongoya said.
Both were granted the option of paying fines in excess of Sh1 billion each, however, Waluke and Wakhungu appealed saying the payments made arose from an arbitration and not a procurement award.
Through lawyer Paul Muite, the two told Justice Maina that the award had never been overturned and what they received was a fraction of the payment.
“There can be no case of fraudulent acquisition arising from an order of the court, which has not been set aside or overturned. If the appellants had gone to River Road and created a fake order, this would be the case,” he said.
“The money they are accused of fraudulently acquiring is yet to be paid and although the decree did not specify what amounts were for storage, interest or loss of profit, the entire amount received is less than the loss of profit, part which was not a subject of the criminal case,” he added.