Former Kiambu governor Waititu, co-accused plead for leniency in sentencing

NAIROBI,Kenya Oct 27 – Former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu and his co-accused have asked the court to impose lenient sentences, citing their family responsibilities, limited roles in the companies linked to the case and status as first-time offenders.

During mitigation proceedings before Magistrate Harrison Barasa, Waititu apologised to the court for his wrongdoing and urged it to consider his personal circumstances, as well as those of his wife, when determining their sentences.

“I apologise for whatever wrong I did. I am a first offender together with my wife, so when sentencing, please consider that,” Waititu told the court.

The former governor also sought leniency on account of his position as a director of Saika Enterprises, arguing that the companies associated with the case were already in operation before he assumed office as governor.

He further appealed for consideration for his wife, saying her involvement in Delta Hotel was limited and that she was not directly engaged in the day-to-day running of the business.

The defence asked the court to assess the individual circumstances of each accused rather than impose similar sentences across the board, arguing that some of the women had minimal involvement in the companies and did not participate directly in the financial transactions at the centre of the case.

Lawyers representing Susan Wangare told the court that she was neither a signatory to the company’s bank accounts nor a beneficiary of the transactions in question.

Her involvement, the defence argued, was limited to her position as a business partner, with no evidence that she had actively participated in the financial dealings.

Similar submissions were made on behalf of the fifth accused, whom the defence described as a silent partner who played no active role in the company’s operations.

The lawyer urged the court to distinguish the women’s individual culpability from that of their husbands, arguing that their association with the men should not, in itself, attract comparable punishment.

The defence also invoked the women’s family responsibilities, particularly those of Beth, whom the court was asked to consider as a young mother and the sole breadwinner for her children while her husband serves a prison sentence at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison.

The lawyer argued that sentencing both spouses to similarly severe terms would leave their minor children bearing the consequences of their parents’ imprisonment.

The court was further urged to consider the period the accused had already spent in custody when determining their sentences.

The defence told the court that Waititu had been in prison for more than a year, while the fourth accused had spent nearly two years behind bars.

Charles Chege, a director of Testimony Enterprises Limited, also appealed for leniency for his wife, arguing that her involvement in the company was minimal.

He told the court that she held only one share when the company was registered and was not a signatory to its bank account, referring to a letter from the bank that was presented in court in support of the submission.

Chege further argued that the company had indicated before the lower court that it would take responsibility for the transactions under scrutiny.

He said his wife had previously been fined by the lower court and that the family had struggled to raise the money to settle the penalty.

“I’m currently serving my jail term, the lower court fined her which we struggled to pay,” he told the court.

The accused persons, through their lawyers, expressed remorse and sought forgiveness, maintaining that they had not intended to cause harm.

Their lawyers acknowledged that the matter was before the Court of Appeal but noted that the convictions remained in force as the accused appeared for sentencing.

The mitigation submissions are expected to guide the court in determining the appropriate punishment for each accused, with the defence pressing for consideration of their individual roles, family circumstances, personal responsibilities and time already served in custody.