SEE ALSO :NYS scandal suspects: DPP's evidence is weak
Former principal secretary Lilian Omollo, former NYS director general Richard Ndubai and 31 others are the suspects in the case. But in their rebuttal, defence lawyers Stephen Ligunya and Migos Ogamba told Milimani Magistrate Peter Ooko that the DPP did not have evidence to nail the suspects, adding that the charges brought against their clients were “generalised, amorphous and incapable of securing a conviction”. "Her (Omollo) presence in this matter is the consequent effect of an overzealous prosecution and the Office of the DPP exercising that which can only be compared to dragnet trolling with an intent of catching anything and everything at the bottom of the sea,” said Mr Ligunya. The two lawyers said they would demonstrate to the court that Ms Omollo and Mr Ndubai installed mechanisms that saved the NYS Sh2.2 billion. Haji, however, said he would prove that the suspects created fictitious pending bills and also manipulated the Integrated Financial Management Information System (Ifmis) to enable them to loot the money. “The prosecution will also demonstrate that fictitious pending bills were created while the genuine pending bills were disregarded. They remain unpaid to date. There is primary evidence, expert witnesses and electronic evidence. Cooperating witnesses who were once accused persons are now State witnesses.”SEE ALSO :Court to rule on new NYS evidence
The DPP claimed that the three firms were not pre-qualified suppliers. The prosecution’s first witness, Joyce Ala, took the stand to explain how the procurement process works. Ms Ala, a senior official at the Public Works ministry, said firms first go through a tender opening committee, which then forwards its findings to an evaluation committee. Lastly, a ministerial tender committee recommends firms that have qualified to supply various commodities. The case continues today.


