Two recent rulings by the Milimani Anti-Corruption Court have brought into focus emerging coordination challenges between investigators and prosecutors in the handling of corruption and economic crimes cases.
In one case, the court on April 13 allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to withdraw charges against Kisumu City Manager Michael Abala Wanga before plea-taking, effectively halting prosecution in a matter that had stemmed from extensive investigations by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).
Chief Magistrate Harrison Barasa upheld the prosecution’s application to withdraw the charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, noting that the move did not amount to an acquittal and left room for future reinstatement of the case.
The charges were part of a broader prosecution approved in November 2025 and included allegations of forgery, fraudulent acquisition of public funds, and irregular facilitation of travel for a private individual posing as a county official. EACC investigations had also linked Wanga to the use of allegedly forged academic certificates to secure public office, with claims that he fraudulently earned nearly Sh10 million in salaries and benefits.
The case had faced repeated delays, including failed plea-taking, reported illness, and legal challenges seeking to quash the charges.
Just a day later, in a separate matter involving former Nairobi Governor Evans Kidero and 12 others, the court declined a prosecution request to terminate proceedings in a Sh58 million graft case.
Senior Principal Magistrate Celesa Okore dismissed the application, which had cited lack of cooperation from the EACC, and instead directed the prosecution to proceed with the case and call the remaining witnesses.
EACC had opposed the attempt to close the case, maintaining that additional witnesses were available to testify. An investigating officer told the court that while some witnesses had been secured, others were unavailable, including two who had died, information he said had been communicated to the prosecution.
In her ruling, Magistrate Okore pointed to a breakdown in communication between the prosecution and investigators, but held that the circumstances did not justify terminating the case.
The contrasting outcomes in the two cases highlight the delicate and sometimes strained interplay between the EACC, which is mandated to investigate corruption, and the DPP, who independently exercises prosecutorial authority in court.
While the two institutions are designed to complement each other in the fight against corruption, the latest developments raise questions about coordination in high-stakes prosecutions, particularly in cases where decisions to withdraw or discontinue proceedings come after significant investigative work.
The rulings are likely to renew scrutiny on how prosecutorial discretion is exercised in corruption cases, and the extent to which investigative and prosecutorial agencies align in pursuing accountability.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
