Both Bomet and Bungoma counties are now in the spotlight after the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions moved to charge senior figures with corruption-related offences.
These cases raise serious questions about how county resources are used and whether those entrusted with power respect the laws meant to protect taxpayers.
The Bungoma case against Wycliffe Wangamati and associates
Former Bungoma Governor Wycliffe Wafula Wangamati and several of his close associates have been linked to companies that allegedly benefited from county contracts. According to investigations, many of the firms were run or influenced by individuals connected to the governor’s family.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) recommended charges of conflict of interest, fraudulent procurement practices, and acquisition of proceeds of crime. The ODPP has since directed that Wycliffe Wangamati be charged with conflict of interest contrary to section 42(3) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA), read with sections 38 and 48. Members of his family, including Michael Wangamati, Nicholas Wangamati, Edward Barasa Wangamati, and companies like Nabwala Construction, face charges of acquiring proceeds of crime under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.
The charges also extend to other individuals and firms accused of fraudulent procurement practices contrary to section 66 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015.
The Bomet County Case
In Bomet, investigations have pointed to irregular procurement deals involving county officials and contractors. The allegations are similar to Bungoma’s in that they involve questions of inflated contracts, conflict of interest and breaches of procurement law. The ODPP is preparing cases against officials alleged to have benefited from the contracts unlawfully.
While details are still unfolding, the allegations paint a picture of systemic abuse of procurement processes, where county officials and contractors colluded to siphon public resources.
The legal framework
These cases are grounded in Kenyan anti-corruption laws. Section 42 of ACECA makes it a crime for a public official to take part in matters where they have a personal interest. The Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2009 targets those who benefit from ill-gotten wealth. The Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act requires strict adherence to transparency in government contracts.
Kenyan courts have previously handled similar matters. In Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Moses Leoluca (the Samburu Governor case), the court affirmed that governors could face trial for conflict of interest where companies linked to them benefited from county contracts. In Michael Waweru Ndegwa v Republic, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a conflict of interest arises even where the benefit is indirect. These precedents will likely guide the courts when weighing the charges against the Bungoma and Bomet officials.
What the public needs to watch
The key issue is whether these cases will be prosecuted to their conclusion or whether they will collapse under political pressure. The cases also test the effectiveness of the anti-corruption framework that Kenya has built over the years. If county bosses and their associates can be convicted for misusing public resources, it will mark a turning point in how devolution is managed.
The other issue is restitution. The law allows for the recovery of proceeds of crime. This means that if the courts find the accused guilty, assets obtained through the alleged fraudulent contracts can be seized and returned to the state.
Why these cases should concern us
Bomet and Bungoma are not the only counties that have faced questions over procurement, but these cases involve former and current political heavyweights, making them especially significant. They test whether the law can reach into the highest county offices. They also emphasize the challenge of “tenderpreneurship,” where companies linked to politicians or their families are awarded public contracts.
What happens next
The trials will take time, but their outcomes will shape how Kenyans view accountability in county governments. The Constitution promises devolution that brings resources closer to the people. If those resources are misused, the promise is betrayed. Kenyans will be watching closely to see whether the courts hold the powerful accountable and whether justice will serve as a deterrent to future abuse.
Leave a Reply