Former Mike Sonko has secured a significant legal reprieve after the Tax Appeals Tribunal directed the Kenya Revenue Authority to unfreeze his bank accounts.
In orders issued on Friday, the Tribunal instructed KRA to lift agency notices that had frozen several of Sonko’s accounts held at Equity Bank Kenya Limited. The decision restores his access to the funds pending the hearing and determination of his tax appeal.
The ruling was made by consent of both parties and follows earlier interim orders issued on April 14, which had temporarily barred KRA from enforcing the same agency notices. At the time, the Tribunal certified the matter as urgent and suspended enforcement actions—including the freezing of accounts—ahead of an inter partes hearing scheduled for April 17.
Friday’s directive effectively reinforces the earlier relief, granting Sonko temporary breathing room as the substantive tax dispute moves forward. The development comes just a day after the Central Bank of Kenya launched investigations into Equity Bank over allegations that it failed to comply with a High Court order to lift restrictions on accounts linked to the former governor.
In a letter dated April 16, CBK confirmed it had received a formal complaint accusing the bank of defying directives issued by the High Court’s Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division in a case involving the Asset Recovery Agency and Sonko.
The regulator stated that it has sought clarification from the bank and will issue a comprehensive response once its investigations are concluded.
KRA had earlier issued an agency notice seeking more than Sh574 million in what it described as unpaid taxes.
ARA later informed the bank that the same funds were alleged proceeds of crime, despite a High Court ruling by Justice Nixon Sifuna that had set aside earlier preservation orders against Sonko.
Sonko, through his lawyers, has also written to Equity demanding access to his funds, insisting that Justice Sifuna’s judgment removed any lawful basis for a continued freeze.
In an affidavit, Equity’s Business Development Manager Gregory Akoth said he sought clarification from the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).
In response, EACC officer Shem Shurie stated that ARA had issued preservation orders pending implementation of the High Court decision.
The agency cited Section 97 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), arguing that property under a preservation order should remain restricted until a final determination is made.
While ARA has relied on Section 97 in previous matters, courts have clarified that preservation does not automatically extend without specific judicial orders, and must operate within the directions of the court handling the matter.
