Kisumu City Manager Abala Wanga’s plea taking over forgery charges postponed
A Nairobi Anti-Corruption Court has deferred the plea taking of Kisumu City Manager Abala Wanga over allegations of forging a Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) certificate to February 6, 2026.
Abala was slated to take a plea before Milimani Anti-Corruption Principal Magistrate Charles Ondieki on Friday, December 19, 2025, but the magistrate deferred the plea taking and forwarded the file to Chief Magistrate Harrison Barasa.
You might also like
According to court papers, Abala is supposed to be charged with fraudulently acquiring Ksh8,701,091 from the Kisumu County Government between September 22, 2020, and November 30, 2024, while serving as Kisumu City Manager.
He is also expected to be charged with forging and uttering the KCSE certificate bearing serial number 268532 and presenting the forged documents to the Kisumu County Public Service Board in order to secure employment.
Appearing before Magistrate Barasa, Abala, through his lawyer Steve Ogola, told the court that they had written a letter to the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) seeking review of the charges to be lodged against him.
“We have written to DPP through a letter dated November 26, 2025, requesting intervention by way of recalling the file and satisfying his file and making it complete and ready for plea, but we are yet to receive a response on the same,” lawyer Ogolla told the court.
Failed to interview officials
Further, he stated that in their letter to the DPP, they cite that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has failed to record statements from several key Kisumu County Government officials on the matter.
“In our letter to EACC we have noted that they have failed to interview the following officials, namely the County Human Resource Director, the Kisumu City Human Resources Officer, the County Payroll Manager, the Governor’s Chief of Staff, the County Travel and Logistics Officer, and even Abala’s own secretary,” lawyer Ogolla added.
The DPP confirmed that they received the request to review the charges and sought seven days to issue formal directions.
In his ruling on December 3, 2025, Magistrate Barasa firmly stated that the court cannot interfere with or direct investigative agencies on how they should conduct their work.
“From the onset this court must emphasise that it cannot instruct any investigating agency, including the EACC, on the manner in which it should carry out its investigations. Such authority is granted to the office of the DPP,” Magistrate Barasa ruled.
In addition, he stated that the State had completed investigations and prepared two charge sheets, which is why the respondent was expected to take a plea.
“Upon listening to the prosecution in this case, investigations into this matter have concluded, and that is the reason the charge sheets in both cases were drafted and filed. However, the defence counsel has informed the court that he has written to the DPP and that his letter, part of which was read out to this court, has raised some issues touching on the complaint they have raised before this court,” Magistrate Barasa stated in his ruling.
