Kenya Pipeline Company Ngong Forest land case that dates back to the late 1990s and early 2000s is now being labelled as testament of infestation of corruption in the Kenya judiciary.

Nearly 35 years since that matted was filed in court, President William Ruto still faces charges of state land-grabbing in total contravention of Chapter Six of the 2010 Constitution on Leadership and Integrity. The chapter establishes the principles of leadership, integrity and ethical conduct for all state officers.

The judiciary, apparently has left the matter in abeyance.

It remains a mystery how President Ruto was cleared by Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to be former President Uhuru Kenyatta running mate in the 2013 and 2017 presidential elections. In 2022, it also cleared Ruto to run for presidency.

The controversy centred on a parcel of land that was originally part of Ngong Forest, a protected public forest reserve.

The key legal question was whether the land had been properly degazetted (legally removed from forest status) before it was subdivided, allocated and later sold.

The land was eventually sold to the Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC) – a state corporation – for approximately Ksh272 million ($2.106mllion). Around Ksh96 million ($743,616) from the transaction was linked to William Ruto in the prosecution’s case.

William Ruto, then Member of Parliament for Eldoret North, was formally charged in court with:

Obtaining money by false pretences

Conspiracy to defraud

Alleged fraudulent sale of public land

Other individuals, including Sammy Mwaita and Joshua Kulei, were also charged in relation to the transaction.

Ruto pleaded not guilty and was arraigned in court. At the time, he was suspended from his ministerial position due to the corruption-related charges.

Core Legal Issues:

Degazettement of forest land

Under Kenyan law, forest land cannot be legally sold or converted to private ownership unless it has been officially degazetted through a lawful government process.

The prosecution argued that proper degazettement had not occurred before titles were issued and the land was sold to KPC.

Proof of fraud

To secure a conviction, the prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

The land was illegally allocated.

The accused knowingly participated in fraudulent dealings.

The accused personally obtained money unlawfully from KPC.

Court proceedings

Before the trial proceeded fully, Ruto challenged the charges in the High Court and Constitutional Court. In 2010, the Constitutional Court ruled that the criminal case could proceed.

However, during the trial at the Magistrate’s Court, the prosecution faced significant weaknesses:

Key witnesses were not called.

Critical financial evidence directly linking the accused to unlawful receipt of funds was insufficient.

The prosecution failed to establish a strong prima facie case.

The verdict read on April 12, 2011, noted:

On April 12, 2011, the court acquitted William Ruto and the co-accused.

The magistrate ruled that:

The prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence.

There was no proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Essential elements of fraud were not established.

An acquittal means the accused were found not guilty due to insufficient evidence.

Later developments

Over the years, investigative agencies have occasionally revisited aspects of the land transaction. However:

No successful fresh prosecution has been concluded.

No conviction has ever resulted from the case.

Legally, the acquittal stands.

Legal reality vs political debate

The case remains politically sensitive because:

It involved public forest land.

It concerned substantial public funds.

Land allocation has historically been a controversial issue in Kenya.

However, from a legal standpoint:

Ruto was charged.

He appeared in court.

He was tried.

He was acquitted due to issues of no enough evidence

He has never been convicted in this matter.

• A Tell Media report