Petitioner Seeks to Quash Wycliffe Oparanya’s Appointment as Cabinet Secretary

A legal petition has been filed in the anti-corruption division of the High Court challenging the appointment of Wycliffe Oparanya as the Cabinet Secretary for Cooperatives, and Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development.

The petition, lodged by Mr. Fredrick Mulaa, contests the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mr. Renson Ingonga, to review and drop plans to charge Mr. Oparanya with various corruption-related offenses. Mr. Mulaa argues that this decision was unlawful and not in the public interest.

According to Mr. Mulaa, the charges against Mr. Oparanya, which included corruption, conflict of interest, money laundering, and abuse of office, were initially pursued by the DPP after the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) conducted investigations. However, the DPP later reviewed and decided to drop the charges on July 8, 2024, coinciding with Mr. Oparanya’s nomination to the Cabinet.

The petitioner asserts that the DPP’s decision to drop the charges lacked transparency, accountability, and adherence to legal principles, and did not involve further investigations by the EACC. He further contends that this decision disregarded the public interest and compromised the integrity of the justice system, particularly concerning the alleged embezzlement of taxpayer money.

The EACC had recommended Mr. Oparanya’s prosecution, alleging that he irregularly received a benefit of KSh 56.7 million from a contractor hired by the Kakamega County Government. Mr. Oparanya, however, defended himself by stating that the money was a personal loan granted by the contractor.

Mr. Mulaa argues that if the loan explanation is true, it represents a gross violation of ethical standards, as it compromises the integrity of the state office, contrary to Article 75 of the Constitution.

The petitioner is seeking a court declaration that the decision by the DPP to drop the charges and Mr. Oparanya’s subsequent nomination to a state office were inconsistent with the law and constitution, and thus should be nullified.