The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is not required to issue notices to suspects before conducting investigations.

This comes after the Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling by the Appellate Court that required the EACC to issue notices to corruption suspects before launching their investigations.

The Supreme Court made the ruling arguing that notifying the suspects before investigations would render the EACC ineffective in discharging its mandate.

“Requiring EACC to give notice to suspects before some investigative actions would render EACC ineffective in its work. Notably, such notices would, among other effects, eliminate the essential element of “surprise” in criminal investigations,” the Supreme Court ruled.

According to the Supreme Court, failure to notify a suspect about an investigation before it begins does not violate their constitutional right.

Read More

  1. DCI moves to let Mandago off the hook in Sh1.1 billion scholarship fiasco case
  2. Tuju pains as court clears way for auction of Karen property over Sh4.5 billion debt
  3. Court overturns John Waluke’s 67-year jail Term in Sh313 million maize scandal

The Apex Court also said circumstances for notification of such suspects are dependent on what is at stake, the nature of evidence required and the urgency of the evidence acquisition.

“It all depends on what is at stake, the nature of the evidence required, and the urgency with which the said evidence must be acquired. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Commission must always give prior notice to those it intends to investigate before commencing an investigation,” the court ruled.

It was on the same grounds that the court ruled effecting a suspect's arrest or conducting a house search does not infringe on an individual’s administrative action rights.

"Strictly speaking, these powers when exercised cannot be described as ‘administrative action’ within the meaning of Article 47. For example, how can ‘conducting a house search’ or ‘effecting an arrest be considered as an administrative action?" the five-judge bench posed.

This ruling follows a 2015 case in which a court ordered the EACC to launch investigations on the alleged payment Mumias Sugar Company made of Sh280 million to Ojienda’s advocate for legal services not rendered.

 Ojienda moved to court to seek clarification and interpretation on the matter, wanting to know whether a suspect should be investigated before being given notice.