High Court Clears Way for KSh791 Million NYS Findings Against Procurement Chief Pilisi

Former NYS procurement chief Henrick Pilisi argued Parliament condemned him without a fair hearing. The High Court disagreed.

The High Court has rejected former National Youth Service procurement boss Henrick Nyongesa Pilisi’s challenge.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that Pilisi received a meaningful opportunity to defend himself before Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee.

The decision leaves intact PAC findings concerning major procurement irregularities at the scandal-hit agency.

Pilisi had accused the committee of condemning him without confronting him with crucial allegations.

He argued that PAC ignored his explanations and misunderstood his statutory procurement responsibilities.

Justice Mugambi, however, found that the record did not support that procedural complaint.

The judge noted that Pilisi appeared before PAC twice during its investigation into NYS spending.

The ruling, delivered in Nairobi on September 10, ends litigation that began nine years earlier.

NYS Scandal

The dispute traces back to Parliament’s investigation of spending at the National Youth Service.

PAC launched its scrutiny after concerns emerged over alleged financial misappropriation at NYS.

The committee requested a special audit from the Auditor-General before examining the resulting findings.

The audit uncovered transactions involving hundreds of millions of shillings and several procurement anomalies.

Among them was an alleged KSh791.385 million loss linked to the Kibera road project.

Another KSh609.253 million involved payments that PAC considered irregular and potentially fraudulent.

The audit also identified an attempted KSh695.4 million payment that was subsequently detected and reversed.

Pilisi was then serving as NYS Principal Supply Chain Management Officer.

PAC examined his role in approving and processing several disputed transactions.

The committee said his office used unverified Supplies Branch contracts without adequate due diligence.

It also faulted him for failing to secure required approvals for procurements exceeding KSh2 million.

PAC further alleged that Pilisi approved IFMIS procurement using fake Supplies Branch contracts.

Those transactions were valued at approximately KSh609.253 million, according to the committee.

The committee also cited an alleged KSh12.5 million double payment involving Consulting House, a firm linked to vocal political scientist Mutahi Ngunyi.

Pilisi’s Defence

Pilisi did not dispute appearing before the parliamentary committee during its investigation.

Instead, he challenged whether those appearances amounted to a genuinely fair hearing.

He maintained that several damaging allegations were never specifically put to him.

Those allegations included forged contracts and the alleged Consulting House double payment.

He also challenged PAC’s interpretation of procurement rules governing Supplies Branch transactions.

Pilisi argued that some acquisitions did not constitute ordinary public procurement transactions.

He further claimed that procurement decisions sometimes originated within the Ministry before reaching NYS.

His account also portrayed him as an official who raised concerns about procurement irregularities.

He said he personally approached the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission seeking intervention and advice.

Pilisi argued that PAC should have considered those efforts when assessing his conduct.

Instead, he said Parliament’s findings damaged his reputation and undermined his professional career.

He consequently sought orders quashing portions of the PAC report and stopping prosecutorial action.

He also demanded damages for alleged reputational harm and loss of employment.

Court Draws Line

Justice Mugambi nevertheless made clear that parliamentary authority has constitutional limits.

The judge rejected the argument that separation of powers makes Parliament immune from judicial scrutiny.

The Constitution binds every state organ, including Parliament, when exercising constitutional powers.

The court therefore retained authority to examine alleged constitutional violations arising from parliamentary action.

But that authority does not transform judicial review into an appeal against parliamentary findings.

Justice Mugambi stressed that courts should not substitute their factual conclusions for those reached by parliamentary committees.

Instead, courts examine issues including jurisdiction, legality, reasonableness, and procedural fairness.

That distinction proved decisive when the judge considered Pilisi’s complaint about his treatment.

The court recognised that natural justice requires affected persons to receive notice of adverse allegations.

They must also receive a genuine opportunity to answer those allegations before adverse decisions are reached.

The judge nevertheless found that this requirement had been satisfied in Pilisi’s case.

Two Hearings

The record showed that Parliament invited Pilisi by letter dated October 5, 2016.

He subsequently appeared before PAC on October 18 and returned for another inquiry.

Pilisi accepted those appearances but argued that his explanations were ultimately disregarded.

Justice Mugambi found that argument insufficient to establish procedural unfairness.

The judge considered it “highly improbable” that PAC would summon him twice over only one issue.

The committee had commissioned a special audit covering numerous procurement-related irregularities.

Its enquiries consequently extended beyond the narrow payment issue highlighted by Pilisi.

The court concluded that Pilisi had been given a meaningful opportunity to address matters before PAC.

“The Petition lacks merit and must inevitably fail,” Justice Mugambi ruled.

The National Assembly adopted the PAC report on May 24, 2017, after a motion moved earlier.

Pilisi’s challenge therefore failed to establish the constitutional breach required for judicial intervention.

The court declined to quash the challenged findings or prohibit the Director of Public Prosecutions from acting.

It also rejected his claims for damages arising from alleged reputational and employment losses.

The petition had remained before the court since 2017, consuming substantial time and resources.

Justice Mugambi consequently ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The ruling comes against the backdrop of Pilisi’s separate criminal proceedings over the NYS scandal.

The judgement records that he was convicted on October 31, 2024, over two Penal Code offences.

Those offences involved making a false document and breaching trust as a public servant.

The latest judgement does not reopen that conviction or determine its criminal merits.

READ ALSO: Lilian Mbogo Loses Court Fight to Keep KSh22 Million Linked to NYS Scandal

Instead, it settles a narrower constitutional dispute concerning Parliament’s treatment of Pilisi.

Its wider significance lies in the boundary it draws around parliamentary oversight.

Parliament enjoys broad constitutional authority, but its procedures remain subject to constitutional safeguards.

Courts can intervene when those safeguards are demonstrably breached by parliamentary action.

They will not, however, routinely become appellate forums for disappointed parliamentary witnesses.

That balance now anchors the High Court’s decision in Pilisi’s long-running legal battle.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.