In a landmark ruling, the High Court at Milimani has ordered the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to pay Kshs. 2.5 million to Governor George Natembeya.
The court found that his constitutional rights were flagrantly violated during an anti-corruption investigation that had sent shockwaves across the political landscape.
The judgment highlights illegal conduct, abuse of court processes, and irregular procedures by the agencies, reinforcing the sanctity of constitutional rights for public officers. This ruling sets a critical precedent in the fight against procedural overreach by regulatory bodies in Kenya.
High Court Slams EACC and DPP for Rights Violations
Justice Bahati Mwamuye, presiding over Petition No. E338 of 2025, delivered a decisive judgment in favor of Governor Natembeya. The court determined that the EACC’s actions during the May 20, 2025, arrest were unconstitutional. Governor Natembeya was denied access to his legal team, a fundamental right guaranteed under the Kenyan Constitution.
By barring him from meeting his advocates, the EACC violated the core principle of fair legal process, an infringement the court described as both illegal and unlawful. The ruling further addressed how Governor Natembeya’s M-Pesa statements were obtained.
Justice Mwamuye noted that the acquisition of these financial records lacked legal justification and proper procedure, rendering the EACC’s actions irregular. This violation of privacy compounded the breach of constitutional rights and illustrated systemic lapses within the regulatory agencies tasked with upholding integrity and accountability.
Abuse of Legal Process and Quashed Charges
The High Court also criticized the DPP’s handling of the anti-corruption charges against Governor Natembeya. The Anti-Corruption Criminal Cause No. … of 2025 was found to be an abuse of court process.
The court emphasized that initiating prosecution without sufficient legal grounds undermines both public trust and the integrity of the judicial system. Consequently, all charges against Governor Natembeya in the case were quashed, and the EACC and DPP were expressly prohibited from pursuing similar prosecutions based on the same facts.
Denial of Legal Representation
Central to the court’s findings was the EACC’s refusal to allow Governor Natembeya access to his lawyers. Justice Mwamuye underlined that access to legal representation is a cornerstone of constitutional protection.
By denying this right, the EACC not only violated established legal norms but also exposed a pattern of disregard for due process. This judgment sends a strong signal to law enforcement and regulatory agencies that such breaches carry consequences.
Illegality in Accessing Private Financial Data
Governor Natembeya’s M-Pesa statements, crucial to the anti-corruption investigation, were obtained through procedures the court described as “illegal and irregular.” Justice Mwamuye noted that access to private financial information requires strict adherence to legal protocols, failing which any evidence gathered may be deemed inadmissible.
The court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting personal privacy against unauthorized surveillance, even in cases involving high-profile public officials.
Financial Compensation as a Remedy
In addition to quashing the charges, the High Court awarded Governor Natembeya Kshs. 2.5 million in general damages. This compensation acknowledges the violation of his constitutional rights and the personal, professional, and reputational harm caused by the unlawful actions of EACC and the DPP. The payment is a strong reminder to state agencies that accountability extends not only to prosecutorial decisions but also to respecting the legal rights of individuals under investigation.
Implications for Governance and Oversight Agencies
The ruling in favor of Governor Natembeya carries significant implications for Kenya’s governance landscape. It reaffirms that regulatory agencies, including the EACC and DPP, must operate within constitutional and legal boundaries.
Arbitrary arrests, denial of legal counsel, and improper access to personal financial data will now face judicial scrutiny. Analysts say this case sets a benchmark for the protection of civil liberties and signals that even powerful institutions are not above the law.
Governor Natembeya’s victory also raises questions about past investigations conducted under questionable procedures and may influence how future corruption probes are managed. Legal experts argue that this judgment strengthens the principle that public officers are entitled to the same protections as any citizen, ensuring that oversight mechanisms do not morph into tools for harassment or political intimidation.
The High Court’s decision has been welcomed by human rights advocates and legal practitioners, who describe it as a “wake-up call” for oversight agencies to balance their mandate with respect for constitutional freedoms. For Governor Natembeya, the award is not just financial redress but recognition that his rights as a public official were violated.
