Former Kiambu County Governor Ferdianrd Waititu has urged the court to set aside his conviction and sentence in the graft case where he was found guilty of four counts.

Through his lawyer Chris Mutuku, Waititu maintains that the trial magistrate court erred in sentenced him to pay a fine of Ksh53.5 million or, in default, serve 12 years’ imprisonment.

He avers that no evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the funds the former county chief received from the contractor’s account were linked to the monies paid on the impugned contract.

According to Lawyer Mutuku, his client was not involved in either the tendering or award of the tender to the contractor, adding that he was clearly not linked to the said contract.

In addition, he stated that none of the witnesses who testified before court mentioned Waititu or alleged that he influenced the award of the tender to the contractor.

Further, the lawyer cites that the Bank Statements produced by the prosecution respecting the accounts of the contractor show that the account had over Ksh40 million.

He adds that the Ksh40 million was sufficient to pay Waititu for the land transactions he was engaged in with the director of Testimony Enterprises. 

Waititu maintains that there was no loss of public funds, noting that the alleged loss of Ksh147 million claimed by the prosecution was unsupported and that, indeed, the Government sanctioned Audit Report confirms that the project was part-performed, and payments were tied to works done.

“Prosecution witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW15, PW16, PW17, PW18, PW19, PW24, PW27) consistently testified that there were no fraudulent payments; all payments were processed via IFMIS, IBS, KEPSS with statutory compliance,” part of the submissions reads.

Further, he reveals that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) investigator PW32 contradicted himself in that procurement irregularities fall under PPRA/PPAB jurisdiction, not criminal court.

In seeking the court to allow his appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence, Waititu says that his predicament in the case is politically instigated with no evidence to back the accusations against him.

Notably, he avers that the Conflict of Interest Act 2025 (Sections 16-18) recognizes legitimate business backgrounds of leaders and safeguards against malicious claims.

“The impeachment and prosecution weaponized State institutions for political ends, the conviction is rooted in political vendetta, not probative evidence,” part of the submissions reads.

He urges the court to allow his appeal and set aside the conviction, pronounce the sentence imposed on him as unlawful and declare the trial in the lower court a nullity for violation of constitutional fair trial rights.