The Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI) has alleged that Mathira legislator Rigathi Gachagua used various youth groups to secure multi-million tenders from government agencies.
In a statement dated Saturday, July 30, the DCI welcomed the court verdict that ordered the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) presidential candidate to forfeit Ksh202 million to the state.
The investigative agency detailed intrigues behind the case, claiming that the legislator formed over 10 companies through youth groups which were used to circumvent tender rewarding processes.
DCI added that Gachagua maintained control of the companies through one of his proxies.
"Using proxies who had registered over 20 companies, Rigathi obtained over Ksh1.7 Billion from close to 10 government ministries, state departments, parastatals and county governments.
"One of the legislator's trusted confidants and a personal assistant was made a signatory in all the accounts opened by the suppliers at the micro-finance," read the statement in part.
The DCI further alleged that they discovered that an associate of the legislator also received over Ksh200 million.
"After the tenders were paid to the proxies’ accounts one of the proxies would immediately transfer the money to other accounts belonging to the MP, who would then deposit the monies in other accounts to avoid detection," the statement added.
The detectives discovered that one of the proxies had received over Ksh254 million which they could not account for.
However, on his part, the legislator has termed the investigation and the case as a witchhunt for his support for DP Ruto.
He states that the money was from his business adding that he was legally paid by various state agencies for services rendered.
After the court ruling, Gachagua expressed that he would file a petition to bar him from refunding the money.
"The judgment today in my case against the Asset Recovery Agency (ARA) did not come as a surprise to me and my lawyers.
"The Judge was biased against us from the word go and threw caution to the wind by conducting a sham trial. Against the rules of evidence, she refused our application to cross-examine the Investigator in order to test the veracity of his allegations," Gachagua responded.
