The High Court has dismissed a case seeking to seize millions of shillings from former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko’s bank accounts, ruling that investigators failed to present sufficient evidence linking the funds to corruption or money laundering.
The Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) had pursued forfeiture orders for more than Sh16 million and USD 67,906 in Sonko’s accounts, claiming the money was proceeds of crime during his tenure at City Hall. The application was anchored on preservation orders issued in 2020.
Investigators alleged that Sonko’s accounts received suspicious cash deposits and transfers between 2017 and 2019, some of which they believed originated from county government accounts and other public entities. They also cited his pending criminal cases on money laundering and acquisition of proceeds of crime.
Sonko, however, countered the claims, insisting the funds were derived from legitimate ventures he operated long before joining politics. He outlined business activities dating back to 1999, including matatu operations, entertainment clubs, cyber cafés, and real estate. He also produced documents showing multi-million-shilling property sales that explained the flagged transactions.
The former governor further pointed out that some deposits predated his swearing-in as governor in August 2017, undermining the link to alleged corruption at City Hall.
In his ruling, the judge faulted ARA’s approach, describing the investigations as incomplete and biased. He criticised the selective analysis of bank records, noting that investigators only focused on transactions after August 2017 while ignoring earlier financial records that could provide context.
The court also found that ARA had failed to present witness statements or verify Sonko’s supporting documents, instead relying solely on a single affidavit. The judge stressed that forfeiture applications under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA) require thorough, professional, and balanced investigations.
Concluding that the evidentiary threshold had not been met, the court dismissed the application with costs and ordered the immediate release of the preserved funds, unless they are lawfully held for other reasons.
The ruling is a notable development in Kenya’s anti-corruption framework, highlighting the need for investigative agencies to conduct robust and impartial inquiries before seeking civil forfeiture of assets. It also reinforces the principle that suspicion alone cannot substitute for evidence in matters of asset recovery.
