This is a case of collective conspiracy, flagrant abuse of office and irregular procurement practices relating to a KSH 46 million rip off at the National Youth Service(NYS)!
The prosecution lays bare 8 reasons why former NYS deputy director general Adan Harakhe and Devolution ministry senior secretary Hassan Noor, former PS Peter Mangiti and 21 others including the owners of Blue Star Enterprise, Betty Njoki Mureithi and Jennifer Muthoni Kinoti should be ” found guilty” as charged.
Blue Star Enterprise is as suspect firm believed to have been set up to receive the kick back at its Paramount Universal Bank Ltd account held at Koinange Branch , Nairobi.
Here are the prosecutions eight reasons why the suspects should be nailed.
1.There was no urgency for tender
The suspects requested for authority to use restricted tendering as an alternative procurement method to procure training materials in respect to Automotive Engineering to facilitate training for servicemen/women as envisioned in a five point pillar during the financial year 2014/2015, prosecutor Joseph Riungu says.
They approved the use of restricted tender…purportedly that there was an “urgent” need.
The prosecution has however since learnt that in this particular case in which Blue Star was awarded the tender “there was no urgency as per the Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2005.”
2. Threshold for restricted tender not met
It was also found that the threshold for the use of restricted tendering had not been met.
“There are very clear prerequisites that have to be satisfied before the restricted tendering method is used as an alternative, which at the end will be proven that the strict requirements were not adhered to,” Riungu submitted.
3.User department not consulted
The prosecution case against the suspects will be bolstered with the fact that the NYS user department was “not involved” in the procurement.
“We shall be calling witnesses who shall be testifying to the fact that the user department-Automotive Engineering faculty was not involved,” prosecutor Joseph Riungu said.
He said the procurement of training equipment in the faculty which the case revolves on ” was not captured in the 2014/2015 procurement plan!”
4. No technical evaluation undertaken
The prosecution says that the minutes of the Tender Evaluation Committee which are not dated nor signed, recommended awards to various bidders including Blue Star, whereas no technical evaluation was undertaken as required in law.
“The minutes indicate that no technical evaluation was undertaken but only a preliminary evaluation and financial evaluation,” Riungu submitted.
5. Harakhe authorised payment
The trial court has been told the local Purchase Order and the payment voucher relating to the questioned transaction was authorized by Adan Harakhe.
“In addition, apart from signing the LPO and Payment Voucher, the applicant ( read Harake) was also involved in proposing the agenda for consideration for discussion in the meetings of the Ministerial Tender Committee in respect to supply and delivery of equipment,” the prosecutor said.
He said Harakhe, the then AIE holder, signed the document dated march 3 2016 in favour of Bluestar for the supply of various goods, yet the said goods had not been factored in the procurement plan.
6. Firm awarded tender was not qualified
Blue Star Enterprises was not a “pre-qualified” supplier for goods and services for the Minsitry of Devolution and Planning.
“It was not a specialised firm to supply training materials and had never supplied such type of equipment before and therefore should not have been selected or targeted for the respective restricted tendering, the prosecution says in hoping to nail the suspects.
Irungu said the whole tendering process was rushed, that it lacked due diligence.
“The request to use restricted tender was presented to the Ministerial tender committee on December 16 2014, the tender opening and evaluation committee constituted on January 27 2015 and the bids were opened on January 29 2015 and evaluated and awarded on January 30 2015…it is not clear from the file when the evaluation was done as the tenders were opened on January 29 2015 and awarded on January 30 2015, the notification was thereafter done on February 2 2015,” the prosecutor said.
7. Proof suspect firm received graft millions
The prosecution said the suspect firm, Blue Star, and one of the companies that was awarded the tender in question was run by madam Njoki and Mureithi, the 17th and 18th accused respectively and that it received Ksh 45,137,931.05 on September 24 2015 at an account jointly owned by madam Njoki and Murethi.
The account from its inception on November 12 2014 had only had two cash deposits amounting to Sh 2,000!
8. Duty of trust violated
Riungu further said that at the conclusion of the case the prosecution shall have proved that the suspects violated the duty of trust and responsibility bestowed upon them by the law and created an avenue through which the state would have lost millions through a tender.
“The tender committee had a duty to review the selection of procurement method and where a procurement method other than open tender has been proposed, to ensure that the adoption of the other procurement method is in accordance with the Act, regulations and guidelines stipulated by the Authority,” he said.