Ex-Treasury CS Yatani hits back on Ksh.15B theft claims in Controller of Budget WhatsApp messages

In a statement issued on Wednesday, Yatani insists that the necessary provisions of the law were followed in approving the Ksh.15.5 billion funding that is now a subject of public controversy.

In his defense, Yatani cites Article 223 of the constitution that allows the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury to authorize expenditures that have not been appropriated by Parliament in certain situations, adding that once such funds are committed, "Article 223 (2) provides that parliamentary approval is sought post-facto within a period of two months." 

"This is a constitutional fact and practice. For the Controller of Budget to suggest that I pressured her to authorize “some payments” without parliamentary approval is therefore calculated malice," says Yatani in the statement.

According to Yatani, the Ksh.15.5 billion contentious funding was approved in respect of fuel and maize subsidies as well as allocation to the construction of Lamu-Garissa and Garissa-Isiolo Roads which he says contractors had abandoned work and needed their bills paid. 

"The funds were also allocated to the construction of a modern referral hospital facility for Kenya’s Defence Forces. This facility was recently opened by H.E President Dr. William Ruto. If indeed the said Ksh15 billion was stolen, how did the President commission this hospital?" adds Yatani.

The former Treasury CS goes further to point out that the current administration of President William Ruto recently applied the same constitutional provisions of Article 223 to approve a Ksh.127.5 billion expenditure for the national government through a supplementary budget that was passed last week. 

"The expenditure (Ksh.127.5 billion) was approved by the Controller of Budget using the same constitutional provisions that applied to the said Ksh.15 billion that I had approved and which she now says are irregular.

"This begs the question: What makes this approval of Ksh.15 billion ‘sneaky’ and that of the Ksh.127.5 billion before parliament and mostly under the current government legitimate? Yet they both used the same constitutional path. This suggests some form of targeted malice and selective application of her discretion to shield herself from the uncertainty of regime change," wrote Yatani.

He further points out that, on the same parameters, immediately after the 2022 elections a request was made to his office on behalf of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua for approval and disbursement of Ksh.1.59 billion for his office use.

Yatani says he did not grant the request which included Ksh300 million for cars in full due to financial constraints.

"It included Ksh300 million for cars, and Ksh330 million for hospitality, a request that I did not grant in full but considered an amount of Kshs 500 Million due to the financial constraints we had at that time," reads the statement.

On the issue of the WhatsApp messages paraded by Controller of Budget Margaret Nyakang’o to illustrate the alleged coercion by Yatani, the former CS says it was not his fast time to apply pressure on her since "she could not keep up with the speed of the then administration."  

"The purported coercion through WhatsApp messages was a selective device. She should reveal to the public how many times I pressured her because she could not keep up with the speed of the then administration," added Yatani.

The former Cabinet Secretary holds that if indeed the Controller of Budget approved what she now terms as irregular payments then she should accordingly face the law.

"As an independent office, the Controller of Budget owes Kenyans an explanation as to why she released exchequer to the Accounting officers of ministries if in her view they were illegal, not forgetting that she gave her approvals in writing both to the National treasury and in her official communication to the National Assembly," he stated.

Yatani is now threatening to take legal action against the controller of budget for insinuating that he facilitated theft of public funds.

"Allegations by the Controller of Budget that I exerted pressure on her to make “some payments” while serving as the Cabinet Secretary for The National Treasury, are false, malicious and actionable in law. Her submissions to parliament depicted my actions as Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury as designed to facilitate the theft of public funds. 

"This depiction is libelous and defamatory to my character and professional service to the public in many capacities. I have instructed my lawyers to study her utterances and advice on a lawsuit against her person," he stated.