KPA grain bulk license issued unconstitutionally, Supreme Court declares

The case was filed by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, who challenged the legality and transparency of the procurement process, arguing that it violated the Constitution.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court found that the procurement process breached Articles 10(2)(c), 201(a), and 227(1) of the Constitution, which enshrine the principles of good governance, fiscal prudence, and fair competition in public procurement.

The Court affirmed its jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution to hear the matter saying that  while Senator Omtatah had legal standing to bring the case, the Court noted he could not act on behalf of other parties not directly joined to the proceedings.

It further noted that the Board acted within mandate and that KPA’s Board of Directors did not exceed its authority or usurp the functions of the accounting officer during the process.

The court further found that the Procurement procedure was unconstitutional

"The use of the Specially Permitted Procurement Procedure under Section 114A of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (PPAD) Act was found to be unconstitutional," reads the decision 

The Court held that the process lacked transparency, fairness, and accountability.

 “Having found that the Court of Appeal erred when it declared that the invocation of the specially permitted procurement procedure under Section 114A of the PPAD Act by KPA did not violate the Constitution, it follows in the result that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is for setting aside.”

The ruling is a significant victory for public oversight in state procurement and strengthens the role of the Constitution in guarding against irregular deals involving strategic public assets.