A Nairobi court will rule whether the DPP can bring additional evidence in the Sh226 million NYS case against PS Lilian Omollo and 36 others.
The DPP made an application to disclose five more documents. Principal prosecution counsel Caroline Kimiri told chief magistrate Douglas Ogoti her team should be allowed to disclose the documents in the interest of justice.
She said the disclosure of material is a continuous process throughout the trial. The DPP side said two payment vouchers the prosecution intends to disclose had been misplaced during document examination at the DCI, but are now available.
In an affidavit, prosecution counsel Kenneth Kemei said several documents were recovered, including payment vouchers and bank statements for the period in respect of Ngiwaco, Jerry Cathy, Njewanga and Annwaw Investments enterprises.
Kimiri said they had informed the accused persons’ lawyers the vouchers were missing in an inventory signed on August 13 by their lawyers.
“The inventory bears markings signifying that the said vouchers were not available at that date when disclosure was done,” the court heard.
The court further heard there was an omission to serve specimen signatures of the accused persons which were subjected to forensic examination and the prosecution will serve them to the accused.
Kimiri also told the court a bank statement for Phylis Ngirita for an account held at KCB Naivasha for the period August 13, 2016, to April 20, 2018, was not disclosed to the defence lawyers.
“A written statement of the bank official at the KCB Bank Naivasha branch was subsequently obtained upon the retrieval of the bank statement and would form part of the intended disclosure,” Kimiri said.
Other documents to be produced as evidence include a further statement for Marylynn Bitengo, a bank official at KCB Bank Gilgil branch.
However, defence lawyer Steve Ligunya opposed the application by the prosecution, arguing the state has a duty to disclose evidence at the pre-trial stage which they failed to do.
According to the defence team, the court should exclude the evidence or give them time – an adjournment to prepare for the case.
He said this was because it was a day-to-day hearing and it would be prejudicial to them if the court allowed the documents but declined to adjourn the matter.