Former Capital Markets Authority Chairman Nicholas Nesbit now wants the court to stop his prosecution over the alleged loss of Sh 102 M that he was allegedly given by Bidco boss Vimal Shah.
In an application filed in court, Nesbit through Lawyer Danstan Omari has urged the court to stop his plea taking that had been scheduled for today but adjourned to next week.
In the matter, Shah has accused Nesbit of conspiring to defraud him off Sh 102 M that he gave him to change them into dollars but he was never given the money.
On the other hand Nesbit has dismissed the claims saying he also has a separate complaint on the said money that he filed at the Banking Fraud Investigation Unit.
In court papers, he says he is apprehensive of being arrested, charged and taking plea on the basis on a premature and incomplete investigation report and decision to charge.
“There are two investigative files in the custody of the 2nd Respondent, opened two months apart, but the decision to charge the Applicant was arrived at based on the contents of the latter file, as opposed to either the first and/or, both files,” he argues
He wants the court to issue an order of Mandamus compelling the DPP to recall the police file from which the decision to charge him was arrived and hold it in abeyance awaiting the initial file from the Bank Fraud Investigation Unit.
Apart from being the former Chairman of the Capital Markets Authority, he also served at EABC, KEPSA, IBM East Africa and CEO KenCall.
Nesbit says after service he went into private business and life after resignation from the Capital Markets Authority, where he transacted in the foreign exchange trade by outsourcing currency buyers and directing them to his erstwhile business associate, one Mr. Bulent Mehment, for the transactions.
Nesbit says there is malice in the way the matter is being handled saying he reported his case first but they acted on Shah’s complaint before his.
“Investigations of the latter file behoves reason and shouts malice at the face of it. There is so much inaction and bad faith as well as lack of public good will that is read into, thereby raising the question on the need to respect and uphold the constitutional values principles of public service,” reads court papers.
Omari argues that the said actions are contrary to his clients right to legitimate expectation and the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
“ The suspicious speed with which the latter and parallel file has been investigated and a report made and sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions to aid in arriving at the decision to charge is surprising, extremely questionable and unreliable,” reads court papers.
