Advertise

Advertise

George Kinoti accuses Noordin Haji of fraud, forgery over terror guidelines

 

The country’s top detective George Kinoti has accused the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Noordin Haji of forgery and fraud in an escalation of a supremacy battle that began three years ago.

The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) boss also accuses Mr Haji of hiring a “faceless” professional consultant during the drafting and formulation of guidelines for the inter-agency war on terrorism. The guidelines were launched by Mr Haji on April 12 this year.

The differences between the two key figures in the criminal justice system were further fuelled by a recent High Court declaration that the police have no powers to draft charge sheets in the prosecution of criminal suspects.

In the latest bare-knuckle attack, Mr Kinoti says Mr Haji forged details of chief inspectors Joseph Kipchumba and Stephen Ngereso Khamisi, creating the impression that the two officers fully attended a workshop at a Naivasha hotel during the formulation of the contentious inter-agency terrorism guidelines.

In his response to the DPP’s claim that the DCI officers fully participated in the exercise, Mr Kinoti says signatures of the two senior officers were falsified.

The latest spat plays out in a court case filed by Mr Memba Ocharo challenging the legality of the said guidelines.

“Investigations have established that Mr Haji equally forged the said officers’ residence entries in the hotel where the disputed workshop took place,” says Mr Kinoti in the court papers.

Liable for perjury

In a replying affidavit filed in court by senior superintendent of police Martin Otieno on behalf of Mr Kinoti and the Anti-Terror Police Unit (ATPU), the chief detective says Mr Haji and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions should be held liable for perjury, forgery and fraud.

Mr Otieno says the DCI scrutinised and noticed discrepancies in the attendance list that indicated that all the participants were involved in the exercise.

 Mr Kipchumba and Mr Khamisi, both experts in countering terrorism and terrorism financing, are indicated to have represented the DCI and the ATPU in all the forums.

However, the DCI says on January 17 and March 14 and 18, Mr Kipchumba did not attend any of the sessions indicated in the list as he had been recalled to his station to attend to other pressing matters. The DCI further says that on January 21 and 31, February 3 and March 30, Mr Kipchumba did not attend some of the morning and evening sessions.

“On all the dates indicated above, the attendance list captures Mr Kipchumba as present at all material times at the venue having purportedly signed against his name in the attendance list,” says Mr Kinoti. He has attached call data records to support his claim.

“Mr Kipchumba’s details were fraudulently entered and his signatures forged. Attached here is a copy of a forensic document examiner’s report. Signatures purportedly appended in the stated attendance list on diverse dates between February 21 and March 2022 were not in fact authored by Chief Inspector Stephen Ngereso Khamisi,” says the DCI.

Mr Kinoti has rubbished the guidelines and asked the court to declare them unlawful and unconstitutional.

“It is a dishonour and an abuse of power for an officer of the court to audaciously present criminally prepared and concocted evidence through deceit, fraud, making of false documents, forgery and uttering the same in desperate attempts to justify his cause,” says Mr Kinoti.

“It is not only the DCI and the Anti-Terror Police Unit who have suffered from the manipulative acts of the DPP in an attempt to convince this court that there was consensus and full participation by relevant stakeholders in the entire formulation and validation exercise. Also, several stakeholders may have suffered the same fate,” says the DCI.

The DCI wants the listed workshop participants to be enjoined in the court case to prove their full attendance, understanding and concurrence on the guidelines.

“The court should hold the DPP personally liable for perjury and fraud perpetrated by himself, his office and his officers/agents in the entire formulation and validation exercise of the disputed guidelines,” says the DCI.

He further says Mr Haji hired “an unqualified scholar in investigation of terrorism and terrorism financing and yet was hired by Mr Haji and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions as the lead and only consultant”.

He says the DPP could have hired a more qualified expert, adding that the country has many researchers, scholars and security experts.

“We are apprehensive that these guidelines were developed/drafted elsewhere by agents who (subscribe) to (a) certain religion and adopted by the DPP purporting to have been formulated by key stakeholders,” Mr Kinoti adds.

Fully-fledged inquiry

The DCI wants the court to order a fully-fledged inquiry by a competent authority into the intention, driving factors and ultimate objective of the said guidelines.

During the launch of the guidelines titled Cooperation and collaboration in investigation and prosecution of terrorism and terrorism financing in April this year, the DPP said the document aimed at enhancing accountability and efficiency in dealing with terrorism-related cases.

But the DCI boss is unhappy with the guidelines as they obligate him to disclose any information or intelligence in respect of terrorism and terrorism financing to the DPP.

“The obligation on disclosure goes against the provision under section 28 of the Evidence Act. It provides that a police officer shall not be compelled to disclose the source of any information that came into his knowledge in the course of investigation and whose disclosure may prejudice impending or ongoing investigation,” says Mr Otieno.    BY DAILY NATION   

No comments

Translate