The recent decision by the High Court to dismiss the case brought by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) seeking the forfeiture of over Sh643 million in assets and funds belonging to Wilson Nashon Kanani, a Nairobi County employee and co-director of club 1824 on Lang’ata Road, has sparked controversy. Justice Nixon Sifuna ruled in favor of Mr. Kanani and his spouse, stating that they had provided satisfactory explanations for the acquisition of their assets and funds.
The EACC had alleged that Mr. Kanani, a development control officer at the city county, had accumulated assets worth millions that were inconsistent with his monthly salary of Sh85,630. They accused him of abusing his position by diverting revenue meant for the Nairobi County government into bank accounts held by his private companies and spouse. The Commission claimed to have uncovered unexplained assets totaling Sh643.2 million, including properties such as an apartment in Nairobi, a house in Busia, and land in Naivasha.
However, Justice Sifuna noted that the evidence linking Mr. Kanani to corruption was weak, citing a previous criminal case in which he was convicted but later acquitted on appeal. The judge also disagreed with the EACC’s argument that Mr. Kanani’s salary was insufficient to justify his assets, stating that wealth should not be solely determined by one’s income. He emphasized that individuals can generate additional income through investments and other means.
The EACC highlighted Mr. Kanani’s purchase of high-end vehicles and substantial cash deposits in his bank accounts as further evidence of corruption. Nevertheless, Justice Sifuna commended Mr. Kanani and his spouse for providing detailed statements explaining the source of their wealth. He also criticized the EACC for implicating Mr. Kanani’s spouse in the case solely based on their marital relationship, stating that there was no evidence of her involvement in any wrongdoing.
Overall, the court’s decision to dismiss the case against Mr. Kanani reflects the importance of thorough investigation and solid evidence in corruption cases. It also serves as a reminder that individuals should be given the opportunity to explain the source of their wealth before facing forfeiture of their assets. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving allegations of corruption and asset forfeiture, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in public service.
