In the pursuit of a career, what’s the value of a name? A former National Youth Service (NYS) procurement officer has spent nearly a decade trying to clear his name in court after parliamentary findings linked him to procurement irregularities at the agency.
Henrick Nyongesa, who was NYS principal supply chain management officer, had challenged findings by the National Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), arguing that the committee unfairly held him responsible for irregularities and failed to give him a proper opportunity to defend himself.
He also sought damages for lost employment, pension and other benefits, as well as damage to his reputation and career prospects.
But the High Court has dismissed his petition, finding that Mr Nyongesa was given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that although Parliament’s oversight powers are subject to constitutional scrutiny, the evidence did not show that the committee had breached Mr Nyongesa’s right to a fair process.
‘The doctrine of separation of powers does not immunise constitutional infractions,’ Justice Mugambi said.
The case dates back to 2016, when PAC investigated NYS following media reports of alleged financial misappropriation. The inquiry followed a special audit of the agency’s accounts.
The committee examined several disputed transactions, including Sh791 million for a Kibera road project, Sh609 million in supply payments and an attempted Sh695 million procurement.
It also examined allegations involving forged Supplies Branch contracts, consultancy and publicity contracts, and a Sh12.5 million double payment to Consulting House.
PAC eventually found Mr Nyongesa culpable as head of procurement, accusing him of approving transactions based on forged contracts, fraudulent payments through the government’s Integrated Financial Management Information System and other procurement breaches.
Mr Nyongesa disputed the findings. He argued that changes in the government procurement structure had altered the way NYS procurement decisions were supervised and made the department vulnerable to interference. He said Cabinet secretaries had assumed powers previously exercised by principal secretaries, while advisers were deployed to government departments and senior procurement officials were frequently transferred.
He also told the court that he had reported suspected irregularities to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission before he was confronted by the then Cabinet Secretary in November 2014 and later issued with a show-cause letter.
His main complaint, however, was about how PAC handled the inquiry.
Mr Nyongesa acknowledged appearing before the committee on October 18 and October 26, 2016, and submitting a written response.
But he argued that he was not given a chance to respond to some of the specific allegations that later appeared in the committee’s findings.
For example, he said he was questioned about documents supporting the Sh609 million in payments but was not asked to respond to allegations that the contracts behind the payments were forged.
He also said the Sh12.5 million double payment and the attempted Sh695 million procurement were not put to him during the hearings.
His lawyers argued that the committee had therefore violated his right to fair administrative action. They also said PAC had misunderstood his role in the procurement process.
The National Assembly and its Clerk rejected those claims. They told the court that Mr Nyongesa had been invited to appear before PAC twice and had been asked to provide a comprehensive written response. The committee, they said, considered both his written submissions and oral evidence before reaching its findings.
They also disputed his claim that the parliamentary findings had caused him to lose his employment.
The respondents pointed out that Mr Nyongesa had already left NYS before appearing before PAC and had later acknowledged that he was working as a lecturer at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.
The National Assembly further told the court that Mr Nyongesa was convicted in October 2024 of making a false document and breach of trust by a public servant.
The criminal case was separate from the constitutional petition, which focused on the parliamentary inquiry and the fairness of the process.
Mr Nyongesa filed the constitutional petition in June 2017, asking the High Court to quash PAC’s adverse findings and stop any further action based on them.
He also sought general damages for damage to his reputation and special damages for lost salary, employment benefits, pension contributions and professional opportunities.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Mugambi said the record showed that Mr Nyongesa had been given opportunities to appear before PAC and respond to matters under investigation.
‘The record establishes that the petitioner was accorded two separate opportunities to appear before the Public Accounts Committee,’ the judge said.
The judge also rejected the argument that Mr Nyongesa had been questioned on only a narrow part of the inquiry.
‘I find it highly improbable that a committee that had sanctioned a Special Audit which unearthed many procurement-related irregularities would summon the Head of Procurement on two distinct occasions to discuss only one issue,’ Justice Mugambi said.
The court concluded that Mr Nyongesa had been given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the issues before the committee and dismissed the petition without awarding damages.
It also made no order on costs, citing the length of the case, which had been before the court since 2017, and the time and resources spent by both sides.
The judgment brings to an end Mr Nyongesa’s constitutional challenge, although his career has continued to be a central part of the dispute.
He joined government as a supplies officer in 1994 and went on to become a senior procurement official at NYS before later working as a university lecturer.
His lawyers had argued that the parliamentary findings disrupted a 23-year public-service career and affected his future professional opportunities.
The court, however, found no legal basis to award the damages he sought.