FORGERY, PERJURY AND ANGLO LEASING GHOSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA: AngloLeasing Criminals File Forged State Documents, Claim Rights In Kenyan Courts And Obtain Orders Against The Government of Kenya
Apr 7th, 2009 by Mars Group Kenya
Just over two years ago, on 4th April 2007 at 10.02 am the High Court of Kenya Central Registry in Nairobi received a Constitutional Petition alleging contravention of the fundamental rights and freedoms of one David Dunkley who was suing the Attorney General and the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission because he was under investigation for a multi-billion shilling deal he claimed two of his companies had with the Government of Kenya. In many ways Dunkley is a spectral figure. If he is what he says he is, his is the first physical manifestation of what the Kenyan press long ago termed the Anglo Leasing ghosts. Ghosts who were accused of defrauding the Kenyan public of at least 700 million US Dollars by a cheeky manipulation of Kenya’s External Debt Payment system. In return for nothing Treasury Mandarins committed Kenya to fictitious paper debts which were to be repaid in multi-million dollar quarterly payments directly into European bank accounts.
So the Petition Dunkley filed during the Easter Court Vacation of 2007 – Number 359 of 2007 – is an important part of the puzzle of Anglo Leasing. The Petition was preceded by an application for a hearing by the High court under certificate of urgency on the same day. The legal papers were drawn and filed by Nairobi lawyers Kyalo and Associates on behalf of David Dunkley’s two companies, Midland Finance and Securities Limited and Globetel Inc, both of which had in 2006 been reported to be non existent “ghost Companies” by both Kenya’s Controller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Accounts Committee. The two companies are listed by the auditor general as being responsible for contract number 14 in the notorious Anglo Leasing fraud series.
Midlands and Globetel Inc.’s lawyer told the court that unless the petition was heard and disposed of urgently, David Dunkley who admitted to being a director of Midland Finance and Globetel, together with other unnamed Directors and staff in Kenya were likely to suffer irreparable loss and damage because of threatened criminal charges and investigations by the Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and the Anti Corruption Commission. He seemed particularly worried about a report by Price Waterhouse Coopers which he claimed had been commissioned to interfere with his contractual rights in respect of a credit and supplies contract. Dunkley and company claimed this was abuse of their fundamental rights claiming that this was being done in breach of the controversial contract by which Kenya had paid for air supply. David Dunkley presented signed contracts and correspondence as evidence of his claim.
Three years earlier on May 29th 2003, Midland Finance and Securities Limited and Globetel Inc allegedly entered into two contracts with the Government of Kenya for an Administration Police Telecommunications Network that was never delivered even though Kenya paid Midland Finance and Securities Limited 49.65 million Euros using 36 irrevocable promissory notes for the network on the day the contracts were allegedly signed.
David Dunkley’s application was successful as on July 11th 2008, Justice Joseph Nyamu of the High Court ruled in his favour by barring the continuation of investigations against the two companies and crucially blocking the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission and the Attorney General from ever using a report by audit firm Price Waterhouse coopers against Midland and Globetel.
And there is where the matter might have rested until one looks closely at the documents which were filed in support of the petition by Dunkley, Midland Securities and Finance Limited and Globetel Inc.
WHICH IS WHICH? THE COPIES WHICH LOOK LIKE FORGERIES
In the two court filings, a Certificate of Urgency application and the formal Petition, Kyalo and Associates Advocates annexed what were said to be copies of contracts, government documentation and correspondence between Midland Securities and Finance Limited, Globetel Inc. and the Government of Kenya. This was done to establish jurisdiction of the court and also to assert contractual protection from abuse of their rights. Among the specific documents filed are:
- Contract Agreement of 29th May 2003 for a Nationwide Dedicated Digital Multichannel Security Systems Telecommunications Network for the Administration Police of the Office of the President, Government of Kenya
- Suppliers Credit Financial Agreement of 29th May 2003 for a Nationwide Dedicated Digital Multichannel Security Systems Telecommunications Network for the Administration Police of the Office of the President, Government of Kenya
As is customary with Kenyan and other court submissions the petitioners through their lawyer swore that the affidavits and evidence attached to them were true. But were they?
In fact they were not. Even a casual read of the documents filed under oath reveals material inconsistencies which suggest outright forgery, perjury or deception in order to obtain favourable orders. Further there appears to have been gross incompetence in the manner in which both the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission and the Attorney General were represented because the issues we will shortly raise ought to have been raised in court by the lawyers for the State – but weren’t.
- For example how come there are two different names for one of Mr. Dunkley’s purported companies on what is claimed to be the same contract.
- Is it Globetel Inc. or Globetel Incorporated which has a contract with the Government of Kenya?
- How come David Dunkley’s signature only appears on one version of the so-called Supplies Contract he presented under oath?
- Why does Joseph Magari’s signature change between what should be two copies of the same document filed in court by David Dunkley’s lawyers?
- Who is Dave Doyle and whose signature is hiding behind the prominent redaction blackout mark in the Petition version of the Supplies Contract?
What’s the Point being made? The accusation is simple. David Dunkley and his alleged companies came to Kenyan courts without clean hands and yet they obtained orders with far reaching implications to the fight against corruption. The question as always is what did our Government legal eagles Amos Wako and Justice Ringera do about all this? How could they allow criminals, who have stolen billions to come to our courts, utter false and perjured documents and worse use Chapter V of our Constitution to claim that they have rights to immunity from prosecution or investigation in Kenya?
It is also very likely that David Dunkley is a mere front Director for Midland and Globetel. Question is which powers that be in Kenya is he fronting for?
SPOTTING THE DIFFERENCE: FORGERY OR PERJURY?
The following material differences appear in the documentation and in particular the contracts filed by David Dunkley and his lawyers in the High Court of Kenya that April day. To see the documents side by side click on the links – the Petition is always the document on the right.
Material Differences in the Supplies Contract filed by Dunkley’s Lawyers
| CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY |
PETITION |
|
Address |
Address |
|
Globetel Inc is registered with Directors Offices at Akara Building 24 de Castro Street, Road Town, Tortola, BVI and Administrative Offices at Sheraton House, Castle Park, Cambridge CB3 OAX, UK |
Globetel Incorporated is registered with Directors Offices at Strathairly, Upper Largo, Edinburgh, KY8, 6ED, Scotland |
|
|
|
Notices For SELLER |
Notices For SELLER |
|
SIGNATURES |
SIGNATURES DIRECTOR SIGNATURE IS DIFFERENT ON CONTRACT |
Material Differences in the Finance Contract filed by Dunkley’s Lawyers
| CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY | |
|
Date |
Date |
|
SELLER |
SELLER |
|
CREDITOR |
CREDITOR |
|
PERIOD OF CREDIT |
PERIOD OF CREDIT |
|
REPAYMENTS AND DEFAULT INTEREST |
REPAYMENTS AND DEFAULT INTEREST |
|
CURRENCY AND PLACE OF PAYMENT |
CURRENCY AND PLACE OF PAYMENT |
|
EVENTS OF DEFAULT |
EVENTS OF DEFAULT |
|
LAW AND ARBITRATION |
ARBITRATION |
|
Notices For CREDITOR |
Notices For CREDITOR |
|
SIGNATURES |
SIGNATURES DIRECTOR SIGNATURE IS DIFFERENT ON CONTRACT |
Click below to see Page by Page comparisons, and complete versions, of the Certificate of Urgency application and the Petition Number 359 of 2007
