The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Noordin Haji was not genuine in his fight against substandard fertiliser imported into the country last year, Kahawa Tungu can reveal.
Sources within intimate to this desk that the fertiliser which was nabbed last year did not have mercury as alleged by the DPP, but the prosecution was part of frustrating business in which Haji was involved.
This desk learns that 109,380 bags of fertilizer were imported while 43,423 bags were released to the market.
This is when the allegation of contamination by mercury arose with Kenya Bureau of Standard (Kebs) officials being charged in court with attempted murder.
The owner of the fertilizer demanded re-testing for mercury, but Haji refused, raising questions whether he was genuine with the charges. Previous tests were done in the absence of the accused persons, hence their integrity were put to question.
This year, the court ordered the re-sampling and re-testing of the fertiliser, but Kebs acting managing director Bernard Nguyo told the court he was unable to conduct the tests as earlier ordered due to the Kenya Revenue Authority seals.
In a new twist, the DPP said that he was not sure whether the fertiliser which they held in Mombasa was the same one nabbed last year.
“There is no reliable documentation so far provided to confirm that fertiliser impounded on June 2018, forms part of the consignment released in March 2018,” said the DPP.
The DPP even appealed the order issued to have the fertiliser re-tested, further putting to question why he was determined to ensure that the tests were never done.
After a cat and mouse games the DPP has today withdrawn the case against the owner of fertilizer and released the remaining 65,957 bags to the owner.
It still remains unclear whether the fertiliser was contaminated or not, or whether Haji was playing tender wars with traders in the country.
The DPP and the lawyer representing the company Paul Muite entered into a plea agreement that was adopted by the court.
The prosecution through state counsel Alexander Muteti said that that the plea agreement had been reached after the accused persons provided new facts in relation to the case.
However, there is no evidence that there were new facts presented by the parties.