Suspended Judge Chitembwe fights back tribunal findings

Suspended High Court Judge Said Chitembwe now wants the Supreme Court to overturn the findings of the tribunal formed to investigate him, saying it relied on stage-managed video recordings by former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko.

Chitembwe through lawyer Peter Wena has faulted the tribunal which recommended for his removal from office, saying it erred in law and fact by failing to hold that the video and audio recordings were inadmissible for having been obtained in a deliberate scheme of entrapping him.

He contends Sonko was on a revenge mission against him as he was a member of the three-judge bench that dismissed the consolidated petitions regarding his impeachment. He says the video and audio clips were modified or edited by Sonko who also coached the parties in the video recordings prior to the recording.

Sonko had exposed the judge in an amateur video, receiving a bag full of money from a female lawyer for the purpose of defeating justice.

In the exposé, a man alleged to be George Kariuki and believed to be the Deputy State House Comptroller, claims to have been sent by “State House” to convince Chitembwe not to stop Sonko’s impeachment. The video showed the events leading to Sonko’s impeachment and Chitembwe’s alleged involvement in fraudulent dealings in his chambers.

Video recordings

Chitembwe in the appeal to the Supreme Court however claims the video recordings were stage managed and that the person posing as an Advocate of the purchaser who introduced himself as Sam in the video was not an advocate.

“His name is Brian Yongo and he is not an Advocate. The woman who identifies herself as Rose and claims to be an Advocate is not an Advocate. Neither Brian Yongo nor Rose were called to testify as to why they were impersonating as Advocates,” argued Chitembwe in court documents.

He argues that the tribunal failed to find that the video and audio recordings produced were not obtained in contravention of the Appellant Right to privacy as enshrined in Article 31 as read with Article 50(4) of the Constitution and where therefore admissible.

 “The Tribunal erred in law and fact by relying on the alleged video and audio cell phone recordings produced by Mike Mbuvi Sonko and Francis Wambua to reach the findings and recommendations the Tribunal made yet there was clear, cogent and unchallenged evidence by Amana Said Jirani and Jane Mutulu Kyengo that they had been coached by Mike Mbuvi Sonko on what to say prior to the said recordings being made,” Chitembwe argues in court documents.

Chitembwe further argues that the Tribunal erred in law and fact by failing to uphold the doctrine of Judicial Independence by allowing the Tribunal proceedings to interrogate the merits of the orders, rulings and judgment he delivered by the in Malindi Succession Cause.

He says Tribunal erred in law and fact by finding that his relationship with Sonko was such that there would be a reasonable apprehension that he would be biased against him in the hearing of the consolidated petitions.

According to Chitembwe, the tribunal erred in Law and fact by finding that he had dealings with Sonko with regard to the sale of Kwale/Galu Kinondo/779 during the pendency of the Consolidated Petitions.