&w=64&q=75)
The special select committee formed to investigate allegations against Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mithika Linturi has exonerated him of all charges.
The report was tabled in Parliament today, May 13, 2024, by Marsabit MP Naomi Waqo.
The probe into CS Linturi's conduct came after serious allegations surfaced regarding his involvement in a scandal concerning the distribution of counterfeit fertilisers, which purportedly jeopardised Kenya’s agricultural integrity and food security.
The allegations led to a heated Parliamentary motion where MPs voted overwhelmingly to investigate the Cabinet Secretary.
The National Assembly formed a committee to probe the matter and the CS was invited to defend himself against the allegations.
The committee, composed of 11 members, concluded that the evidence against Linturi was insufficient to substantiate the three main allegations levied against him: gross violation of the constitution, committing a crime under national law, and gross misconduct.
Seven out of the 11 committee members voted in favour of clearing Linturi, providing a majority that deemed the charges unfounded.
This decision comes as a relief to Linturi, who has maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings.
The ruling has sparked varied reactions across the political divide.
Supporters of Linturi view the committee’s decision as a vindication and a triumph against what they call politically motivated charges.
However, members of the opposition argue that the decision could set a dangerous precedent for accountability in public office, particularly in sensitive sectors like agriculture.
Aldai MP Marianne Kitany, who is also CS Linturi's former partner, raised concerns about how she was portrayed during the impeachment proceedings against him.
She claimed she was unfairly mentioned by CS Linturi as a sponsor of the motion aimed at his removal, which she denied.
In response to these allegations, MP Kitany requested to appear before the Parliamentary committee to clarify her role and involvement.
Because she was not accorded a chance to defend herself, she asked for her name and any mention of her to be removed from the official report, arguing for her right to defend her reputation in this high-profile case.
Following the committee's report, the focus now shifts to Parliament's next steps and how it will address the public's call for transparency and rigorous scrutiny of public officials.