Murang'a Ex-Governor Arraigned in Court Afresh Over Ksh351 Million Case
Former Murang’a Governor Mwangi wa Iria and six co-accused have been charged afresh after prosecutors amended the charge sheet in a long-running corruption case involving more than 351 million shillings.
The revised counts centre on a media-buying contract awarded by the county government to Top Image Media Consultants Limited. Prosecutors allege the arrangement led to the loss of precisely 351,097,491.15 shillings in public funds through fraudulent dealings that spanned several years of the former governor’s administration.
Wa Iria faces a charge of conspiracy to commit an offence of corruption. The prosecution claims that between late October 2014 and mid-June 2017 he and others colluded to defraud the county through the media contract. He is also accused of conflict of interest for allegedly acquiring a direct private interest in the same contracts and receiving 31.8 million shillings from the company over a slightly longer period beginning in May 2014. Additional money-laundering counts detail how portions of the funds were allegedly channelled into property purchases and other transactions designed to obscure their origin.
The amended sheet names six individuals alongside Wa Iria: David Maina Kiama, David Maina Njeri, Jane Waigwe Kimani, Solomon Mutura Kimani and Peter Muturi Karanja. Two companies, Top Image Media Consultants Limited and Value View Limited, are also listed as accused entities. Specific transactions cited include 7.5 million shillings directed toward a property in Umoja, Nairobi, 4.5 million shillings used to acquire two houses through a housing firm, and 600,000 shillings spent on borehole blasting at a site in Mweiga, Nyeri. All the accused have denied every allegation.
The decision to amend the charges has practical consequences for the trial. At least thirteen prosecution witnesses who have already testified will have to be recalled so they can face further cross-examination under the revised counts. The move reflects the prosecution’s determination to refine its case while ensuring the defence retains a full opportunity to challenge the evidence. For the former governor the fresh charges reopen a legal battle that has already drawn sustained public attention to questions of accountability in county contracting.
As the court process resumes with the expanded indictment, the case continues to test the mechanisms designed to recover public resources and deter similar conduct. The coming hearings will determine whether the amended allegations can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while the wider community watches for signals about the effectiveness of ongoing efforts to police the use of county funds.
