High Court Rejects Waititu’s Fresh Bid to Review Sh53 Million Bond in Corruption Case

The High Court in Nairobi has dismissed a fresh application by former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu seeking to review and reduce the Sh53 million bond set as a condition for his release pending appeal in a corruption case.

In a ruling delivered on January 28, 2026, Justice John Onyiego rejected Waititu’s request, upholding the bond terms imposed by the trial court. Waititu had argued that the amount was excessive and punitive, claiming it effectively amounted to a denial of bail and violated his right to liberty pending appeal.

Waititu was convicted in February 2025 on charges of conflict of interest and abuse of office. The case centered on allegations that he irregularly awarded contracts worth millions of shillings to companies linked to his family members during his tenure as governor. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and fined Sh20 million.

Following conviction, Waititu appealed the decision and applied for bail pending appeal. The trial court granted bail but set stringent conditions, including a Sh53 million cash bond or equivalent bank guarantee, a requirement that has kept him in custody since the ruling.

In his latest application, Waititu asked the High Court to review the bond, arguing it was disproportionate to his means and the nature of the offense. He submitted that he had no liquid assets of that magnitude and that the condition effectively amounted to a refusal of bail. His legal team also contended that the amount was inconsistent with bail terms granted in similar corruption cases.

The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application, arguing that the bond was reasonable given the gravity of the offense, the amount involved in the corruption charges, and the risk of flight. Prosecutors maintained that the trial court had exercised discretion judicially and that no sufficient grounds had been shown to warrant interference.

Justice Onyiego agreed with the prosecution, finding no material error or miscarriage of justice in the trial court’s decision. The judge noted that bail pending appeal is not automatic and that courts must balance the right to liberty with the public interest in ensuring compliance with the judicial process. He ruled that the bond amount was neither excessive nor punitive, given the scale of the alleged corruption and the sentence imposed.

The court also dismissed arguments that the condition violated Waititu’s constitutional rights, stating that bail terms are a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion when supported by evidence of risk or gravity of the offense.

Waititu remains in custody at Kamiti Maximum Prison as his appeal against conviction and sentence proceeds. His legal team has indicated plans to pursue further remedies, including a possible appeal to a higher bench.

The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s firm stance on bail conditions in serious corruption cases, particularly where large sums of public funds are involved. It also signals that courts will be slow to interfere with well-reasoned bail decisions made at the trial level unless clear grounds of injustice are demonstrated.

The case remains a closely watched matter in Kenya’s ongoing fight against corruption in public office, with implications for how courts balance the rights of convicted persons against public interest considerations.