The ongoing KEMSA scandal investigations by PIC have all along had the makings of a comical soap opera.
From claims by one of the suspects that God provided the procurement opportunity, to claims by another that he walked into KEMSA just to try his luck, and miraculously won himself a tender, there has been no shortage of supply of drama.
However, now even a sex scandal has been thrown in the mix for good measure, if only to present a complete script of the soap opera.
Claims of a sex scandal were revealed by none other than the former CEO of KEMSA himself, Jonah Manjari.
Called to appear before the Public Investments Committee led by Mvita MP Abdulswamad Nassir, Manjari was called upon to speak to accusations that had been made against him by his former secretary, Pamela Kaburu, and procurement head, Charles Juma.
Arguing that the testimonies of the two weren’t wholly accurate, Manjari said that some of the contracts were signed without his approval, and on top of this, statements from the two couldn’t be taken to corroborate each other, since they were lovers.
The committee, clearly taken aback, sought clarification on what Manjari meant by this, to which he went ahead to drop the finer details
“While one was at the front desk, another one was at the procurement desk, and all the while, they were intimate”
When procurement chief Charles Juma appeared before the committee, he claimed that he had on numerous occasions issued advisories to Manjari not to exceed the Sh4.6 billion budget that the agency was working with at the time.
He pointed out that despite his advisories, Manjari went on to sign commitment letters to various suppliers, illegally, without involving his input.
“My action in making the advisories was to inform the senior management of the risk of going above the budget and therefore breaking the law,” he submitted.
Juma claimed that a commitment letter issued to Kilig Limited awarding them a Sh4 billion tender was not sanctioned by his office, instead blaming Manjari whom he accused of by-passing him.
“I recommended that the procurement should be revoked because the amounts required would have surpassed what the agency is usually given during a financial year and during this period we had already had enough stock in our stores,” he said.