Former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu and his co-accused have pleaded for leniency during mitigation proceedings over money-laundering charges in the KSh588.7 million graft case, asking the court to consider their family circumstances, individual roles in the companies linked to the case and time already spent in custody.
During proceedings before Chief Magistrate Harrison Barasa, Waititu apologised to the court for any wrongdoing and asked for a reduced sentence, saying he and his wife were first-time offenders.
“I apologise for whatever wrong I did. I am a first offender together with my wife, so when sentencing, please consider that,” Waititu told the court.
The former governor also asked the court to consider his role as a director at Saika Enterprises, arguing that the companies linked to the case were already operating before he assumed office as governor.
Waititu further sought leniency for his wife, citing her limited involvement in Delta Hotel. He argued that the business had other directors and that she was not directly involved in its day-to-day operations.
The defence also appealed for leniency for the wives of the accused, arguing that some had minimal involvement in the companies and did not directly participate in the financial transactions under scrutiny.
Lawyers representing Susan Wangare Ndung’u told the court that she was not a signatory to the company's bank accounts and did not receive any financial benefit from the transactions. The defence maintained that her involvement was limited to being a business partner.
Similar arguments were presented for the fifth accused person, whom the defence described as a silent partner who had no active role in the company's affairs.
The lawyers argued that the women risked facing punishment largely because of their association with their husbands, urging the court to distinguish their individual roles from those of the other accused persons.
The defence also cited family responsibilities, describing Beth Wangeci as a young mother and the sole breadwinner for her children while her husband serves a prison sentence at Kamiti Prison.
The lawyer argued that imposing similar punishment on both spouses would place an additional burden on their minor children.
The court was further asked to consider the time some of the accused had already spent in custody. The defence said Waititu had been in prison for more than a year, while the fourth accused had spent close to two years behind bars.
Charles Chege Mbuthia, a director of Testimony Enterprises Limited, also urged the court to consider his wife's limited role in the company, stating that she held only one share at the time of registration.
According to the defence, the company had indicated before the lower court that it would take responsibility for the transactions in question. Chege also referred to a bank letter presented in court indicating that his wife was not a signatory to the company's account.
“I’m currently serving my jail term. The lower court fined her, which we struggled to pay,” he told the court.
The accused persons, through their lawyers, expressed remorse and asked for forgiveness, maintaining that they had not intended to hurt anyone.
The mitigation proceedings relate to money-laundering charges arising from a KSh588.7 million contract awarded to Testimony Enterprises Limited during Waititu’s tenure as Kiambu governor. The contract involved upgrading gravel roads to bitumen standards in several sub-counties during the 2017/2018 financial year.
In February 2025, Waititu was sentenced to 12 years in prison or an alternative fine of KSh52.749 million after being convicted of corruption-related offences, including conflict of interest and dealing with suspect property. His wife, Susan Wangari Ndung’u, received a one-year prison sentence or an alternative fine of KSh500,000.
On October 14, 2026, High Court Judge Rose Ougo upheld the convictions and sentences on the earlier offences and overturned the acquittals on money-laundering charges, directing the accused to return to the magistrate’s court for mitigation and sentencing on those charges.
The proceedings were subsequently delayed after the prosecution and defence disagreed over who should be sentenced and whether the process should apply to the accused individually or in their corporate capacity.
The court is expected to determine the appropriate sentences after considering the parties’ submissions and the applicable legal directions.
