Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko has scored a major win after the High Court dismissed a case filed by the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) seeking to freeze his bank accounts over allegations of money laundering.
Justice Sifuna ruled that the agency had failed to prove Sonko’s wealth was illegally acquired or that the funds in his accounts were proceeds of crime.
The judge faulted ARA for not tracing Sonko’s financial dealings prior to his election as governor, noting that no evidence was presented to show his assets were linked to theft of county funds.
“The agency did not carry out its mandate of counter checking Sonko’s accounts before he became governor. They did not present evidence of financial transactions predating his election,” the court held, dismissing the case as a witch hunt tied to the former administration’s push to impeach him.
Sonko, who had been accused of involvement in the alleged theft of Sh537 million from Nairobi County, argued that suspicions alone could not amount to proof of money laundering. He presented evidence showing he was engaged in business and real estate transactions before joining county leadership, insisting that his accounts reflected legitimate earnings.
“It is one thing to suspect someone of money laundering, it is another thing to prove it. I am a victim of persecution,” Sonko told the court.
The court also questioned why ARA had interviewed witnesses but failed to call them to testify against the former governor.
Speaking after the ruling, Sonko’s lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui told journalists at the Milimani Law Courts that the decision affirmed his client’s assets were personal property, not proceeds of crime.
In 2019, ARA sought court orders to freeze Sonko’s accounts, claiming they held suspicious deposits believed to be proceeds of corruption at Nairobi County.
The agency argued that funds wired into his accounts were linked to a Sh357 million garbage collection tender in which Sonko and his associates allegedly pocketed kickbacks through proxies.
At the time, Sonko protested the freeze, saying it had paralysed his family life and violated his constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. He maintained he had not been charged with money laundering and described the move as “oppressive and unjustified.”
He further claimed the freeze was obtained irregularly, accusing ARA of presenting banks with an expired interim order.