Maasai Mara University students leave their campus.
| Maasai Mara UniversityNews
Premium
Mara university council makes graft claims of its own against whistleblower
Maasai Mara University did not sack its chief finance officer because he blew the whistle on alleged corruption, a council official has said.
And the university has turned up the heat on Sankale Ololchike, accusing him of being involved in fraud and stealing from the school.
During Mr Ololchike’s tenure as acting finance officer, it says, there were questionable withdrawals of Sh85 million from the university’s accounts between January 2015 and June 2016.
Questionable wealth
“As a result he has acquired so much wealth whose source is questionable. It is alleged that he owns a restaurant in Narok town, commercial buildings in Narok town, land within and outside Narok, which businesses require huge amounts of capital to start,” says university council chairman Kennedy Ole Kerei in response to Mr Ololchike’s court case challenging his dismissal.
Dr Kerei also claims that Mr Ololchike drives fancy cars “yet his earnings from the university cannot support” such a lifestyle.
He says the whistleblower was not victimised because he spoke out about the alleged graft, called the “Mara heist”.
The university explains that in recognition of his role as a whistleblower, the council promoted him from senior accountant to acting chief internal auditor on June 29, 2020.
“The elevation was to give him unrestricted access to all information, including confidential information of the university, so that he would directly report to the council any anomalies for immediate corrective action in terms of the human resource (HR) policy of 2018,” Dr Kerei says.
The promotion was made by a new council appointed in March last year following the corruption scandal. It also appointed Prof Kitche Magak as acting vice-chancellor to replace Prof Mary Walingo, who was facing a court case.
After accepting the promotion, Mr Ololchike dramatically resigned on August 25, 2020, barely two months after assuming office.
The following day he went on Citizen TV and made allegations of corruption against the new council, which had been in office for only five months.
The fresh allegations, Dr Kerei says, were based on a May 29, 2020 internal audit report and a February 27, 2020 draft external audit from the Auditor-General.
In TV interview, Mr Ololchike alleged that the council had not acted on the audit reports.
Dr Kerei claims Mr Ololchike also made false and defamatory allegations and used words in bad faith and unlawfully because he relied on audit reports that covered a period before the new council took office.
“The two audit reports did not concern the activities of the new council that was only in office for just five months and the new acting vice-chancellor who had been in office for seven months,” Dr Kerei says.
“The petitioner maliciously and sensationally made allegations of graft that were never captured in the internal audit report that he alluded to.”
He adds that Mr Ololchike failed to share any evidence of corruption with relevant State authorities and constitutional bodies responsible to fighting and preventing graft.
“He ignored all the internal mechanisms that have been mainstreamed to prevent and combat corruption, including the university ombudsman and the corruption prevention committee,” says Dr Kerei.
Following the graft allegations, the council resolved to invite Mr Ololchike for a meeting to deliberate on the allegations he raised in the media. It also resolved to engage the Auditor-General for a financial forensic audit from the year 2013.
But Mr Ololchike declined to provide any information or evidence on the alleged corruption. He was given a second chance in September to provide a written response but he ignored the council’s letter and continued to make unverified claims of corruption.
Dr Kerei has rejected Mr Ololchike’s claim that he was not accorded a chance to be heard before being sacked, and has asked the court not to compel the two sides to work together
“The relationship between the petitioner and the university’s administration is irretrievably broken down and therefore this court should not force them to work together. The petitioner feels bigger than the employer and does not respect anyone,” Dr Kerei says.
“His search for fame has had the effect of completely distorting the image of the university.”
Justice Nduma Nderi set a hearing for September 28.
Transparency International, the Institute of Public Accountants-Kenya and Amnesty International-Kenya are listed as interested parties.
