How investigators messed up and gifted Sudi freedom in academic papers case

Kapseret MP Oscar Sudi. [File, Standard]

Confusion over correct names, shoddy investigations and use of photocopied certificates in court could have led to the acquittal of Kapseret MP Oscar Sudi from the charges of forgery of his academic papers.

On June 2, 2024, Chief Magistrate Felix Kombo freed Sudi, ruling that he had no case to answer.

Kombo acquitted Sudi on all nine charges of forgery saying the evidence adduced in court was illegally and fraudulently obtained.

The Magistrate faulted the investigating agencies over how they obtained part of the evidence adding that there was no evidence to support forgery charges.

Weeks after Sudi was set free by the courts, The Standard has pieced together some of the factors that may have led to his acquittal and how the case was bungled.

In the 38-page ruling, the court blamed the investigators for deliberately and intentionally bungling the case by conducting shoddy investigations.

This, the court said, includes a simple mistake of failure to identify the true name of Sudi and another person known as Sudi Kipchumba Ascar, a student from Highway Secondary School records.

Photocopies

The magistrate questioned the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) detectives’ motive for not making an effort to establish the photocopy of the Highway Secondary School leaving certificate from the Kenya High School one, which had a different name of another student known as Sudi Kipchumba Ascar from that of the MP.

“It does not appear from the evidence on record, that the investigator made any effort to correlate the names on the leaving certificate to those of the person charged here in, namely Sudi Kipchumba Oscar,” Magistrate Kombo ruled.

According to the magistrate, the error in the name appears to have been completely overlooked or assumed by the investigators.

Another reason that led to the flop of the nine forgery charges was how the investigating agencies obtained part of the evidence.

The court found that there was no evidence to support forgery charges because part of the evidence that formed the case was said to have been obtained in a city hotel and at Sudi’s former Kenya International Convention Center (KICC) office, which the magistrate said raised issues of credibility.

While declaring the evidence in the case was illegally obtained, the magistrate blamed the EACC investigators for irregularly interrogating Sudi at a hotel called Heron Portico along Milimani Road, an unconventional setting outside the jurisdiction of the anti-graft body offices.

Venue question

The evidence shows clearly that during investigations in June 2015, Sudi lured the EACC detectives to have them interrogate and record his statement in a city hotel of his choice which the court found to be unlawful.

“The fact remains that the investigators purported to conduct official commission’s duties in a hotel is illegal. The interrogation of a suspect at a venue of their choice is dubious,” Kombo stated.

“When the venue is a hotel, in my view it would expose the work undertaken, however legitimate, since it would raise issues of impropriety, and credibility. In the circumstances, I agree with the defence submissions that the conduct of interrogation of Sudi and the recording of his statement at a hotel was an irregular manner of conducting investigations and the evidence obtained thereof is suspicious,” the magistrate ruled.

Another aspect unearthed by the ruling is that during interrogation on September 15, 2015 at his office at KICC, Sudi confessed that he did not have his original academic certificates as they were held in a safe box at an unknown bank and gave them scanned copies of his KCSE and diploma documents.

The court also wondered why the state did not produce in court a further statement made by Sudi at his former office at the KICC building.

The court also put the EACC on the spot over failure to present in court copies of Sudi’s Diploma Certificate in Business Management from Kenya Institute of Management (KIM) as well as a KCSE certificate reportedly issued by Highway Secondary School to prove the allegations of forgery.

“KIM diploma and KCSE certificate, though marked for identification, were not produced in this trial,” the magistrate said.

This is after it was said that Sudi used the counterfeit documents while seeking clearance to run for a parliamentary seat in 2013.

According to witnesses, evidence shows that Sudi dropped out in Class Seven, the certificates had the wrong secondary school name, index numbers belonging to other candidates, the code number of a different school, and falsified signatures on the school leaving certificate.

The witnesses including the investigating officer Derrick Jumba Kaisha stated that their investigation revealed that even the postal address he indicated in the leaving certificate did not belong to the school.

“His name was not anywhere in the records in the schools and institutions he claimed to have attended,” Jumba told the court.

According to Sudi’s former mathematics teacher Simon Cherop’s evidence, the MP did not complete his primary school education.

Cherop told the court that he taught Sudi in classes six and seven. According to him, the politician schooled at Tulwopng’etuny Primary School for two years and then left.

According to the witness, Sudi was admitted to the day school sometime in 1995, and his admission number was 770. The headmaster at the time was Alex Marakwen.

The teacher said Sudi actively participated in games but did not complete his studies. Cherop testified that he did not know where Sudi went, or whether he pursued secondary education. A former Highway Secondary School principal, Patrick Maritim testified that Sudi did not sit KCSE exam at the school in 2006.

Maritim denied that Sudi was one of the candidates in the school saying that the purported index number could not be traced to him.

Complicating the matter further, Maritim told the court there were no records to show that Sudi picked his result slip and school leaving certificate after completing Form Four.

Juma said that the institution also established that the admission number on Sudi’s certificate belonged to another student, Scholastica Adhiambo, who did a different course in management.

The investigator said their next stop was at the Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC) where they presented Sudi’s alleged KCSE certificate.

He said that it was discovered that the MP did not appear anywhere in KNEC’s database as one of the candidates who sat the national exam in 2006.

Juma testified that KNEC disclosed that the serial number on Sudi’s alleged certificate was for Parklands Secondary School and not Highway Secondary School. In addition, Sudi’s certificate indicated that he went to Highway High School, while the school was known as Highway Secondary School.

On the forged documents presented by Sudi at IEBC offices for clearance to vie in 2013 elections, the magistrate noted that there was no endorsement on the same by electoral body officials.

“The Prosecution evidence shows that the exhibits before court are not the actual originals submitted by Sudi to IEBC at Barng’etuny Plaza in Eldoret offices while seeking clearance to vie for Kapseret seat,” the magistrate ruled. He wondered why the state relied on photocopies during the hearing and failed to avail in court the original file containing Sudi’s clearance held at IEBC headquarters in Nairobi.

Sudi had been accused of forging a diploma certificate in business management purporting it to be genuine issued by KIM. The MP was also accused of giving false information to an IEBC officer.