I should not be investigated over chickengate scam Oswago

Former Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) CEO James Oswago now says he should not be investigated over what happened in the 2013 elections.

Speaking on Citizen TV’s Power Breakfast Show, Oswago maintained that no money was lost in the BVR kits procurement process in 2013, claiming that the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission (EACC) had targeted him from the beginning.

“When the EACC was investigating the procuring process at IEBC, I was still in the commission. I was the only person the EACC singled out. They searched my homes and my office. This means that from the beginning, the EACC had in mind the person they were looking for. It looked as if the charge was already prepared and they were looking for evidence,” said Oswago.

The former IEBC CEO went on to claim that he was never given a chance to tell his side of the story, adding that he never examined the ‘damning documents’ the anti-graft body provided as evidence to prosecute him.

“If you are tabling evidence, why would you not give my counsel and I to examine them? We are not asking you to let us take them home, we are not asking for 100 hours, we are just want an hour or two to examine the documents so that we can give you feedback,” said Oswago.

Oswago questioned why he was being taken to court over procurement issues, when he had appointed a procurement committee.

“What is happening is more than character assassination, my name could have been forwarded to cover up for others,” stated the former IEBC CEO.

Oswago maintained that public prosecution and investigation of this nature must be done according to the law.

“Since this Chicken issue burst onto the scene, I have read numerous editorials which said the prospect for 2017 is bleak unless the Chickengate issue is solved. I am not surprised that the EACC felt the need to prosecute somebody, I am surprised it is me,” he said.

The EACC recommended the prosecution of Oswago over the Chickengate scandal that also involved a British firm; Smith & Ouzman.