Mr. Sudi wanted the Court of Appeals to close the case pending in the Nairobi Anti-Corruption Court pending a decision on his appeal against the High Court’s decision to reject a similar motion.
He told the Court of Appeals that that he had a contentious appeal that will be invalid if criminal proceedings are allowed to proceed.
However, the court denied the motion after determining that it has no powers to stop a district court from hearing of criminal proceedings.
“According to Article 164 (3) of the Constitution, the court has jurisdiction to hear appeals only from the High Court and another court. The court provided here is not the court of the magistrates,” decided the three -Richter-Bank.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) denied Mr Sudi’s request, saying that seven out of 14 prosecutor’s witnesses had already testified and that Es l ag in the public interest that the legislature’s prosecution went over to its logic Conclusion:
Read: How MPs created a window for depraved executives to run for office
MP is battling nine crimes related to forgery of official academic documents and makes a false legal statement
Prosecutors say the forged academic documents included a business management diploma allegedly issued by the Kenya Institute of Management (KIM).
The other document is a KCSE (Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education) allegedly issued by Highway High School and allegedly issued by the Kenya National Examination Council (Knec) .
The criminal proceedings were opened after investigations by the EACC and the Directorate for Criminal Investigations (DCI).
Before the H igh Court ruling that Mr Sudi was about to contest, Judge Hedwig Ong’udi dismissed allegations that the investigation into the criminal case had been conducted in violation of his constitutional rights.
He had argued that the EACC violated his right to privacy in its investigation and asked the court to award him Sh 10 million in compensation for the alleged violation.
Read: The Scourge of Dubious Academic Certificates
Also read: How MPs created windows for depraved executives to run for office
Through attorney Tom Ojienda, the MP asserted that the EACC had no mandate to investigate a crime and that Pressing the criminal charges was selective prosecution designed to do him injustice.
He also argued that the EACC had usurped the powers of the National Police Service abe, the only one assigned to investigate criminal matters.
But Judge Ong’udi ruled that the petition was unfounded. She said that when the EACC investigated the MP, it was enforcing the provisions of Chapter Six of the Constitution on the Conduct and Integrity of State Officials.
The court also ruled that Article 252 (1) (a) of The Constitution gives the EACC the power to conduct investigations on its own initiative or upon complaint from the public.
It also noted that the Director of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (DPP) received a report from the EACC and assessed the evidence independently and made a decision to indict the MP.
Judge Ong’udi noted that there was no evidence that the DPP acted inappropriately, maliciously or biased.