NAKURU, Kenya — The prosecution on Thursday called its 137th witness in the Sh1.1 billion Finland Education Scholarship case as hearings resumed at the Nakuru Law Courts, underscoring the Director of Public Prosecutions’ determination to account for public funds allegedly lost through the controversial scheme.
The case, which involves Uasin Gishu Senator Jackson Mandago and his co-accused Joshua Lelei and Meshack Rono, came before Senior Principal Magistrate Alloys Ndege. The three are charged with graft and embezzlement linked to the Uasin Gishu Overseas Education Trust Fund.
Prosecutors Moses Macharia and Dan Smith Mbalasi presented testimony from a bank official who detailed a series of cheques allegedly signed by the accused persons.
The witness explained standard banking procedures, traced the movement of funds, and produced documentary exhibits linking the transactions to specific bank accounts under scrutiny.
According to the prosecution, the financial trail forms part of a broader case alleging that public monies meant to sponsor students to pursue higher education in Finland were unlawfully diverted.
The Overseas Education Trust Fund was established to facilitate international education opportunities for students from Uasin Gishu County.
The alleged misappropriation, prosecutors argue, not only exposed public resources to abuse but also denied intended beneficiaries a critical opportunity to study abroad. Several students were reportedly left stranded after paying fees under the programme, triggering investigations into the management of the fund.
The DPP has maintained that the case is central to enforcing accountability in the management of devolved public resources.
The prolonged trial, marked by a large number of witnesses and extensive documentary evidence, reflects the complexity of tracing financial transactions in large-scale corruption cases.
Senator Mandago and his co-accused have previously denied the charges and insist the funds were managed lawfully.
The defence has argued that the prosecution’s case relies on administrative decisions rather than criminal conduct, a claim prosecutors dispute.
The hearing continues as the court receives further evidence from the prosecution, with additional witnesses expected to testify in the coming sessions.
