Supreme Court Registrar Esther Nyaiyaki is under investigation over a report on documents tabled at the Supreme Court for the presidential election petition.
Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) CEO Halakhe Waqo confirmed that teams from the Ethics Commission and the Office of Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) met on Monday morning to start investigations into the conduct of Ms Nyaiyaki.
“We have written to the DCI expressing our interest and willingness to work together to tackle this matter and we hope that at the end of the meeting, we will be able to know the direction that we will take,” Mr Waqo stated.
On Saturday, EACC was ordered to investigate and punish judiciary officers including the Supreme Court Registrar by a voter identified as Rashid Mohammed.
Mr Mohammed, through lawyer Kioko Kilukumi, wrote a letter to the EACC, Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko, the Inspector General of Police and Director of Criminal Investigations, indicating that the court officials did not verify the report submitted to the registry.
“The two contrasting viewpoints cannot be factually correct. The forms 34A and 34B examined by Justice Ndung’u were certified copies deposited by IEBC within 48 hours of the filing of the petition challenging the presidential election," read the letter.
“Any person or persons found to have committed offences should be speedily brought to book,” Mr Mohammed added.
Read Also: Supreme Court Officials in Trouble Over Report on Forms 34A and 34B
This was after Justice Njoki Ndung'u, in her dissenting ruling, revealed that some of the contested forms 34A and 34B were signed and had security features, contrary to the findings of the report.
During the reading of the full ruling, Justice Njoki faulted her colleagues who ruled in favour of National Super Alliance (NASA) leader Raila Odinga for not scrutinising the forms deposited in the Court's registry.
“The basis of their determination is that there was no plausible explanation when Immaculate Kassait had indicated that all forms 34A and 34B bore these features.
"The court, however, had the option to examine the original forms deposited in the registry personally; the majority did not do so,” she noted.
“Having looked at all the forms 34A and 34B (290 constituencies and one Diaspora), I am satisfied that all the forms met the required threshold in form and content," she stated.
