High Court clears EACC to prosecute lawyer in Ksh.10 million Tuju bribe probe

In a judgment, the court found that Wachira had failed to demonstrate that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) acted unlawfully or violated his constitutional rights in investigating the allegations. The court consequently dismissed the petition, lifted interim orders barring his arrest and prosecution, and ordered him to pay the costs of the case.

Wachira had moved to court following his arrest on March 9, 2026, during an EACC operation at Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary in Karen. The arrest followed allegations that he, Okiri Thomas Awili and the late former High Court judge Joseph Mutava had solicited Ksh.10 million from businessman Raphael Tuju to secure a favourable ruling in a commercial dispute.

According to the EACC, the money was allegedly intended for a sitting High Court judge handling a dispute involving Dari Limited and Raphael Tuju against Garam Investment Auctioneers and others in Milimani Commercial Case No. E636 of 2024.

The commission told the court that it launched investigations after receiving a complaint from Tuju and facilitated the recording of conversations using an audio-visual device. Investigators also provided treated money before accompanying the complainant to the meeting.

The suspects were arrested after investigators received a signal from the complainant, with the EACC stating that Ksh.1 million in treated currency was recovered during the operation.

Wachira, however, denied soliciting or receiving a bribe, arguing that Tuju produced the money without any demand or prior discussion. He maintained that his arrest was part of a pre-arranged entrapment scheme designed to implicate him.

He further relied on a statutory declaration by Awili, who allegedly described the operation as a set-up orchestrated by Tuju for personal gain.

In dismissing the entrapment claims, the court held that the evidence presented did not establish that the EACC had induced the commission of an offence or arranged the meeting to manufacture a crime.

The judge found that the commission's role was limited to facilitating the collection of evidence and that there was no sufficient evidence that investigators had set up the meeting or influenced the discussions.

The court also ruled that the EACC acted within its constitutional and statutory mandate to investigate corruption, bribery and economic crimes after receiving a formal complaint.

It said courts should exercise restraint in interfering with investigations unless there is clear evidence of malice, illegality, abuse of power or a lack of factual basis.

“The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the EACC's probe has crossed the high threshold of malice, clear lack of factual foundation, illegality, or ultra vires action to warrant judicial interference,” the court held.

The judge further declined to determine disputes arising from Awili's statutory declaration, noting that the conflicting accounts raised questions of fact and evidence that would require proper evaluation at trial.

Wachira had also accused the respondents of unlawfully leaking recordings of his arrest and the investigation to the public, arguing that the disclosures damaged his reputation and threatened the fairness of any future criminal proceedings.

He claimed violations of his constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, equality, fair administrative action and a fair hearing.

However, the court found that determining whether allegedly illegally obtained evidence should be excluded from a trial was premature because no formal charges had been preferred against him at the time of judgment.

The judge observed that Article 50(4) of the Constitution does not automatically exclude all evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. Such evidence is excluded where its admission would render a trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice. 

On the seizure and examination of Wachira's mobile phones, the court found that the extraction of evidence was supported by a court warrant authorising the investigation of his devices.

The court concluded that Wachira had failed to establish a constitutional violation warranting the intervention of the High Court.

It dismissed the petition in its entirety, vacated all interim orders and directed Wachira to bear the costs of the proceedings.