Former National Social Security Fund (NSSF) Investment Manager Francis Moturi yesterday appealed against a 14-year jail term or an alternative fine of more than Sh2.4 billion handed down on him by a court last month after he was found guilty in a graft case.

Through his lawyers, Moturi details what he terms as inconsistencies and lack of independence in arriving at the guilty verdict.

The appeal documents lodged at the Anti-Corruption High Court by Moturi’s lawyers led by Assa Nyakundi indicate that Moturi is currently admitted at the Kenyatta National Hospital after he fell ill while serving the jail term at the Industrial Area prison.

Moturi has also lodged an application under certificate of urgency seeking to be released on reasonable bail terms pending the appeal.

“The Applicant is a retired civil servant and 72 years old, has diabetes and high blood pressure, whose health will likely deteriorate further by continued imprisonment. He fell very ill in prison and had to be evacuated to Kenyatta National Hospital where he is now admitted in serious condition,” says Nyakundi.

Moturi was found guilty of hatching a scheme to defraud the pensioners fund over Sh1.2 billion a decade ago.

He was sentenced together with three stockbrokers of Discount Securities Limited David Githaiga, Wilfred Weru and Isaac Nyamongo after being found guilty of embezzling billions of shillings in fictitious purchase of shares at the fund between 2004 and 2007.

Moturi argues that the Anti-Corruption Court trial magistrate Lawrence Mugambi failed the test of impartiality.

“His findings were a stark contradiction of evidence expressly tendered and the totality of the entire evidence before the court. His reasoning in this regard betrayed a skewed analysis and appreciation of the case before him,” Moturi argues.

He also contends that the prosecution’s case was characterised by inconsistencies and contradictions.

Moturi also accuses the trial magistrate of treating the defence presented with disdain and failing to treat the case as a whole.

“Instead the magistrate considered the prosecution case separately as well as that of the defence and came to biased and legally unsound conclusions,” he adds.