DPP should rethink his decision to withdraw high profile corruption cases
The Mt Kenya Times 
DPP Noordin Haji
By: Joseph Mutua Ndonga
Worth Noting:
- This had been identified as the root cause of sharp disagreements between his office and that of Director of Criminal Investigation George Kinoti during President Uhuru Kenyatta’s tenure. Haji used to send back a number of files back to Kinoti on grounds of lack of enough evidence.
- The DCI would not take this matter lightly as they believed the files contained strong and watertight cases. As tussle continued, the DCI at one point attempted to usurp the role of the prosecution but the efforts failed to bear fruit after the High Court dismissed corruption and abuse of office case DCI had filed against then Kenya Ports Managing Director [MD].
The decision by the Director of Public Prosecution [DPP] Nordin Haji to withdrawn corruption cases he had filed against high-profile personalities has continued to elicit reactions. The discourse has so far left majority of Kenyans more confused and not knowing exactly where the truth lies. This is because they were not well- conversant with matters of the constitution and other laws.
The legal minds defending Haji’s move have been arguing that the law allowed him to withdraw the cases at any stage during the trial. They would cite Article 157 of the constitution but I want Kenyans to note this.
The same Article requires the DPP to convince the magistrate or any other judicial officer handling such cases that his decision is purely informed by the law. It means the court had the power to dismiss that application if turns out the decision was influenced by political considerations or the accused person happens to be his close friend or a relative.
The Law Society of Kenya [LSK] which kicked the ball rolling in faulting Haji cited these provisions. While noting that the office of DPP is created by Article 157 [1] and it is supposed to operate independently, the lawyers believed that the actions of the current holder of this office undermined the same provisions.
The DPP was required to first peruse and look at the files submitted by the investigative agencies and take action once his office is convinced that the evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction.
This had been identified as the root cause of sharp disagreements between his office and that of Director of Criminal Investigation George Kinoti during President Uhuru Kenyatta’s tenure. Haji used to send back a number of files back to Kinoti on grounds of lack of enough evidence.
The DCI would not take this matter lightly as they believed the files contained strong and watertight cases. As tussle continued, the DCI at one point attempted to usurp the role of the prosecution but the efforts failed to bear fruit after the High Court dismissed corruption and abuse of office case DCI had filed against then Kenya Ports Managing Director [MD].
In a ruling, the judge reasoned that the prosecutorial power is exclusively vested in the hands of office of DPP. Again, this would leave Kenyans in a state of confusion, wondering who was on right course to help them slay the dragon of corruption.
Well, for the LSK, the DPP wanted the public to believe that he understood his job. In exercise of my constitutional mandate, the law required my office to file charges against those whose cases had been thoroughly investigated and contained sufficient evidence.
It is worth to note this war erupted when the DCI started pursuing senior politicians and state officers
This is what would prompt the LSK to pose. Could it turn out the DPP was pushing the agenda of certain political forces? If not, one would not have expected him to take the latest move. By withdrawing the corruption cases against high profile personalities, two questions came to mind. How do you withdraw cases filed by your office? What criteria did you use to arrive at this?
The timing was also bound to raise queries coming in the eve of the vetting of those nominated for cabinet secretary positions. A number of these nominees were facing corruption, murder and rape cases in various courts.
The MPs particularly those drawn from opposition Azimio-One Kenya coalition had already vowed to reject those who did not meet the requirements of Chapter Six of the constitution on leadership and integrity.
I do not want believe that the tainted nominees got panicked, reached out to DPP and pleaded with him to white wash them. For now, these claims are yet to be authenticated.
However, I want to say this. The decision by the DPP to reinstate the graft case against former Sumburu governor Moses Lenolkulal was tellingly. It seemed he caved in to mounting pressure.
Joseph Mutua Ndonga is a writer and political commentator based in Nairobi
Similar Posts by The Mt Kenya Times:
- Mt Kenya Times ePAPER September 17, 2026
- Ruto and Uhuru: The rupture at the heart of Kenya’s 2027 election
- Gakoromone traders and rights group demand closure of sewage discharge
- Retirement is not disenfranchisement: Reclaiming the constitutional rights of Kenya’s former presidents
- Kenya’s 2027 election: Can technology strengthen democracy or manipulate voters?
About the Author
