‘Chicken scandal’ case told of agents

An Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) official loads ballot boxes and other voting materials onto a vehicle at Tac Centre in Eldoret East constituency on August 3, 2010. Smith &Ouzman Limited agents were so important that foreign firms seeking deals in Africa would not succeed if they ignored them, a jury heard Monday. FILE PHOTO | JARED NYATAYA |  NATION MEDIA GROUP

In Summary

• Mr Smith’s submissions showed there was no scrutiny or objections by their clients when it came to variations in prices of services delivered to governments.
• The court was told that although there was no apparent competitor in the Mauritania contracts (except state printers) and whereas there was only informal procurement, the accused still charged higher to maximise profits.
• The prosecution said in two contracts amounting to $902,069.75, at least $110,124.34 was paid as inducements.

By NATION CORRESPONDENT
More by this Author

Smith & Ouzman Limited agents were so important that foreign firms seeking deals in Africa would not succeed if they ignored them, a jury heard Monday.

Mr Nicholas Smith of Smith &Ouzman and another company official were giving submissions in the "chicken scandal" corruption case involving the firm.

They are alleged to have agreed to make questionable payments to officials working for various institutions to win contracts in Kenya, Ghana, Mauritania and Somaliland.

Mr Smith was responding to questions on the variation of commissions from 15 per cent to 30 per cent in one case. Because he had earlier said their contract agreement was silent on commission, “they tell me what they want… and I tell them yes”.

He said he did not hesitate to increase commissions because the agent in question had assured him that “we know we are getting it” and he could do anything to make the client happy.

Mr Smith’s submissions showed there was no scrutiny or objections by their clients when it came to variations in prices of services delivered to governments.

All they did was either email or send a fax to clients informing them of price increases that they would have worked out with the agents.

The court was told that although there was no apparent competitor in the Mauritania contracts (except state printers) and whereas there was only informal procurement, the accused still charged higher to maximise profits.

This was even after Mr Smith described the possible use of government printers as a disaster.

The prosecution said in two contracts amounting to $902,069.75, at least $110,124.34 was paid as inducements.

The men face two counts of corruptly making payments to the Interim Independent Electoral Commission and Kenya National Examinations Council officials.