The High Court has temporarily barred the arrest and prosecution of a Nairobi lawyer over alleged Sh1 million bribery claims linked to a judge handling a commercial case involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju.
The court, however, allowed the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to continue investigating the allegations, including summoning the lawyer, Joseph Kimani Wachira, to record statements.
It barred the EACC from arresting, charging or prosecuting him, ruling that State agencies must respect constitutional safeguards even as they pursue corruption claims.
The court restrained the EACC and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from arresting, charging or prosecuting Mr Wachira pending further directions.
“The restraining order does not suspend any lawful investigations into allegations of bribery or corruption,” the judge ruled.
The case arises from an alleged meeting on March 9 at Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary in Karen involving Mr Tuju, former High Court judge Joseph Mutava and businessman Thomas Awili, where a Sh1 million cash sum was allegedly placed on the table by Mr Tuju.
Mr Wachira claims the money was introduced without prior discussion in what he terms a staged attempt to fabricate a bribery case, insisting he neither solicited nor accepted any bribe.
Legal claim
The court said EACC investigators remain free to summon the lawyer to record statements.
It further directed Mr Wachira to comply with all investigative requirements, except appearing in court to answer any charges linked to the allegations until further orders are issued.
The ruling marks a shift from an earlier decision where the court had declined to certify the matter as urgent, forcing the lawyer to formally serve all parties before seeking interim relief.
Mr Wachira moved to court in March, seeking to block what he termed an imminent arrest and prosecution over the alleged Sh1 million bribe linked to a sitting High Court judge.
He claims the accusations stem from the meeting at Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary, whose agenda was to discuss legal issues relating to disputes involving Mr Tuju.
According to his filings, Mr Tuju allegedly placed Sh1 million on the table without prior discussion, which the lawyer describes as a staged attempt to fabricate a bribery case.
He maintains that he neither solicited nor accepted any bribe and was arrested shortly after stepping out to his car to pick a notebook.
“The production of the said money was unilateral, unsolicited and unexpected,” Mr Wachira states in his affidavit.
Evidence dispute
The lawyer argues that the alleged bribe had no connection to any judge and that there was no communication or arrangement involving judicial officers.
Mr Wachira also accused EACC investigators of acting in bad faith, alleging that they ignored what he describes as exculpatory evidence.
The High Court did not determine those claims but focused on the legal threshold for interim protection.
Instead, the judge noted that the petition raises issues similar to another case pending before the Anti-Corruption court involving related parties and facts.
She found that a separate petition filed by Dr Kennedy Ngumbau Mulwa involves comparable allegations, the same complainant and similar circumstances of arrest.
The judge ordered the transfer of Mr Wachira’s petition to the specialised division “to avoid different courts of concurrent jurisdiction issuing inconsistent decisions in similar matters.”
Judicial stance
The judge also noted that in the parallel case, the court had already granted temporary orders blocking arrest and prosecution for a limited period while allowing investigations to proceed.
By aligning the current orders with that position, the court signalled a consistent judicial approach to handling such disputes.
Mr Wachira, in his petition, accuses investigators of acting in bad faith and ignoring exculpatory evidence, while also raising concerns over reputational damage following the circulation of videos of his arrest.
He argues that the criminal process is being misused to advance private interests linked to property disputes associated with Mr Tuju.
The respondents, including the anti-corruption agency and the prosecution office, are expected to defend their actions as part of their statutory mandate.
The judge emphasised that the agencies retain full authority to investigate.
“Having appreciated the constitutional and statutory mandates of the respondents,” she said, the court would not interfere with lawful investigations.
The orders will remain in force until the Anti-Corruption court issues further directions, setting the stage for a consolidated hearing that could determine the trajectory of the case
