NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has terminated criminal proceedings against Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya, ruling that the investigations leading to his prosecution violated constitutional safeguards.
In a detailed judgment delivered at the Milimani Law Courts, Justice Bahati Mwamuye found that officers from the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) breached the governor’s fundamental rights at the point of arrest.
Justice Mwamuye held that denying Natembeya immediate access to legal counsel on May 20, 2025, undermined his right to a fair trial and due process as guaranteed under the Constitution.
“The denial of immediate access to legal counsel undermined his right to a fair trial and due process,” the judge ruled.
The Court was also critical of the manner in which investigators accessed the governor’s financial records. Justice Mwamuye found that the procedure used to obtain Natembeya’s M-Pesa statements did not comply with constitutional safeguards and statutory requirements governing privacy and financial data.
He ruled that the evidence was improperly obtained and could not form the basis of a lawful prosecution.
In the judgment, the Court concluded that the decision to charge the governor on the basis of the impugned investigations amounted to an abuse of the court process. It consequently barred both the EACC and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) from pursuing any prosecution founded on the same facts.
The anti-corruption charges were quashed, effectively bringing the criminal case against Natembeya to a close.
The Court further awarded Governor Sh2.5 million in general damages for violation of his constitutional rights.
Natembeya had been arrested last year and arraigned before the Milimani Anti-Corruption Court over alleged financial irregularities, including transactions he maintained were lawful per diem payments.
The charges followed a public announcement of an alleged Sh1.4 billion loss. Justice Mwamuye observed that the figure had been sensationalised and contributed to a process “driven by factors unrelated to the fair and impartial administration of justice.”
During the proceedings, Natembeya moved to the High Court challenging the legality of his arrest, detention and the collection of evidence. He argued that the actions taken by investigators violated his constitutional rights to liberty, privacy and fair administrative action.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing procedural safeguards in criminal investigations. It also signals that anti-corruption agencies must strictly adhere to constitutional standards when gathering evidence and effecting arrests.
