The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Renson Ingonga, has decided to withdraw the highly publicized Ksh7.6 billion fraud case involving Yagnesh Devani, a Kenyan businessman and former managing director of Triton Petroleum Company.
This decision, confirmed by Nairobi Magistrate Harrison Barasa, follows the lack of critical witness testimony, including that of former Energy Minister Kiraitu Murungi, who recently announced his unwillingness to testify.
Murungi’s testimony was seen as vital, as he held key insights into the accusations against Devani, who is alleged to have masterminded a massive fuel scheme in 2008 that nearly destabilized Kenya’s oil industry.
The charges against Devani include fraud and conspiracy to defraud, following a series of alleged illicit transactions involving Triton Petroleum.
Devani was accused of illegally siphoning fuel stocks valued at Ksh7.6 billion from the Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC), which were meant to be held in trust for various oil marketers.
This fuel shortage led to severe disruptions in Kenya’s fuel supply chain, affecting both domestic consumers and businesses.
According to reports, the businessman allegedly orchestrated the fraud by obtaining stocks without proper authorization and selling them at inflated prices, contributing to fuel shortages and inflated costs for consumers.
Devani’s legal troubles have spanned more than a decade.
After fleeing Kenya in 2009 when the fraud allegations emerged, he remained in hiding until his recent extradition from the United Kingdom in January 2024. Upon his return, he faced 11 charges, including conspiracy, fraudulent disposition of goods, and obtaining money through false pretenses.
In August 2024, he was held in custody for nearly two weeks but was later released on a cash bail of Ksh5 million.
Despite the DPP’s determination to prosecute, obstacles such as the absence of key witnesses and the relocation of the primary complainant to Singapore have hampered the case’s progress.
DPP Ingonga filed an application to withdraw the case in October, arguing that the diminished witness pool made it nearly impossible to substantiate the charges against Devani.
Magistrate Barasa ultimately granted this request, stating that it would be inappropriate to continue the trial without sufficient evidence, as doing so would compromise judicial integrity.
However, Barasa left the door open for future prosecution if additional evidence arises, allowing the case to be revisited if new witnesses or findings emerge.
This decision has sparked widespread public debate on the efficacy of Kenya’s justice system in handling high-profile corruption cases.
Critics argue that withdrawing such a magnitude case undermines anti-corruption efforts and could set a precedent for similar cases.
Supporters, however, believe the DPP acted responsibly, as prosecuting without solid evidence could compromise judicial processes.
The conclusion of this case leaves the public with unanswered questions about accountability, but it underscores the complexities facing Kenya’s anti-corruption agencies in pursuing high-stakes cases.
