The Milimani Anti-Corruption Court convicted former Samburu County Governor Moses Lenolkulal on August 28, 2024, for corruptly receiving over Sh83 million from the same county government he headed.
Some readers complained that the Nation was not fair and impartial in reporting the outcome of Moses Lenolkulal’s corruption case.
The former Samburu County governor was last week fined Sh83.4 million or eight years imprisonment. He was also banned from holding public office for 10 years. But he was freed on a Sh10 million bond pending appeal.
Readers in particular questioned the headline: “Graft lord nailed, 40 big fish to go” (Daily Nation, August 29).
Many felt it was premature to label Mr Lenolkulal a ‘graft lord’ based solely on this conviction.
They argued that his actions—supplying fuel through his petrol station to the county—provided value for money. They felt this was not criminality.
However, Chief Magistrate Thomas Nzyoki of the Anti-Corruption Court dismissed such arguments.
He stated that a governor cannot ethically oversee public officers while personally benefiting from business transactions with his administration.
He said Mr Lenolkulal’s actions constituted a clear conflict of interest, which undermined public trust, and is prohibited by law.
By engaging in business dealings with the county while serving as governor, Mr Lenolkulal exemplifies graft and demonstrates blatant abuse of authority and ethical standards.
His conviction validates his characterisation as a “graft lord”, a term that reflects the misuse of his position for personal gain.
While the term conveys a sense of systemic corruption, it’s aptly applied to Mr Lenolkulal, even for this one single conviction, and even though the term carries connotations of pervasive criminality. “Graft” refers to the acquisition of money or benefits through unethical or illegal means.
“Lord” suggests a position of power or authority. Thus, a “graft lord” typically implies that the person not only engages in corrupt practices but also wields significant influence or authority.
That aptly describes Mr Lenolkulal; seven of his 11 co-accused were county chief officers and heads of department.
Engaging in a conflict of interest, by using his own company to supply petroleum products to the government he was leading, demonstrates a clear abuse of power and a lack of ethical standards.
In a different take, Nation reporter Elvis Ondieki deserves commendation for his original court report headlined “Questions as Lenolkulal tells court he faces health risk that experts say only affects pregnant women” (Nation.Africa, Saturday, August 29).
In his report, Mr Ondieki examines the claims made by Mr Lenolkulal regarding preeclampsia— a serious condition that results in high blood pressure but afflicts only pregnant women. Mr Lenolkulal made the claim to support his application for bail.
Mr Ondieki sought expert opinions, which highlighted the medical inaccuracy of Mr Lenolkulal’s claims.
He helped readers to understand the goings-on in the court proceedings, and provided valuable information from outside the court.
Normally what’s said outside the court doesn’t form part of court reporting. And it’s the role of the court—not the court reporter—to evaluate claims.
Mr Ondieki’s reporting of information from outside the court, however, is refreshing.
It sheds light on the questionable medical claims. It promotes understanding and transparency in court proceedings.
However, it’s noteworthy that the version of the Mr Ondieki story published in the Sunday Nation misrepresents Justice Diana Kavetza’s position.
The version implies that the judge based her decision to grant bail solely on the medical claims.
Justice Kavetza stated that medical treatment could still be administered in prison, citing Court of Appeal rulings that having a medical condition is insufficient grounds for avoiding custody.
She emphasised that she granted him bail because he had an arguable case for appeal.
Thus, she dismissed Mr Lenolkulal’s health claims in support of his bail application.
Both Mr Ondieki and Justice Kavetza acted within their responsibilities.
Mr Ondieki’s original article effectively tackled the crucial discrepancies regarding Mr Lenolkulal’s medical claims, facilitating public comprehension of the legal system.
Meanwhile, Justice Kavetza’s decision to sidestep irrelevant medical arguments demonstrated her commitment to the merits of the bail application.
Together, their contributions underscore professionalism and integrity within journalism and the Judiciary.
They reinforce the importance of accountability in public office and transparency in court media reporting.
The Public Editor is an independent news ombudsman who handles readers’ complaints on editorial matters including accuracy and journalistic standards. Email: [email protected]. Call or text 0721989264.
