Who Murdered DR Robert Ouko?: The DR Robert Ouko Factfiles

The Dr Robert Ouko Factfiles:
The murder of Dr. Robert Ouko, Kenya’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the 13th February,
1990, is perhaps the most well-known and mysterious case in Kenya’s history from a
country that has witnessed many unexplained killings. 21 years after the event the file on
Dr. Ouko’s murder remains open, the case unsolved and his murderers, if they are still
alive, at large.
For all of those 21 years the investigation into Dr. Ouko’s death has been hampered and
obscured by a lack of objectivity, misreporting by some and even direct interference by
others. Too often myths surrounding the case have been built on bungled investigations,
confused testimony, hearsay, rumours, ‘tenuous’ factual evidence, dubious conjecture and
even outright lies, which for many have been taken as ‘truer than the truth’.
Kenya Unsolved’s objective is to look again at the evidence in the public domain, to base a
new case squarely on the facts and objective analysis, and to seek new evidence and
authoritative testimony that could help reveal the truth of Dr. Ouko’s murder.
As such it is a work in progress that hopefully will grow organically with assistance from the
site’s readers.
The text currently stands at some 20,000 words supported by 600 pages of evidence and
testimony from 125 documents. On these readers may base their own thoughts and
analysis, and we hope journalists find it an authoritative source of information.
We welcome comment for publication sent by readers, suggestions as to other

documentation that should be made available, as we do the correction of any errors.
Readers may also send information and testimony in confidence.
Why is the need to uncover the truth about Robert Ouko’s murder still important and
relevant 21 years after his death? Because he deserves it, the innocent and falsely
accused deserve it, and both Kenya and Kenyans need it for Truth, Justice and
Reconciliation to prevail.
THE WASHINGTON TRIP
On 27th January 1990, President Moi, together with a delegation of 83 other ministers and
officials, left Nairobi to travel via London on a private visit to attend a ‘Prayer Breakfast’ in
Washington D.C. The delegation, which was seen off at the airport by the then Minister of
Finance Professor Saitoti, included the Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Ouko, the Energy
Minister Nicholas Biwott, the Minister for Industry Dalmas Otieno, Professor Sam Ongeri,
Minister for Technical Training and Applied Technology, the Permanent Secretary to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bethuel Kiplagat, and the Permanent Secretary for Internal
Security, Hezekiah Oyugi. [Select Committee Investigating Circumstances Leading to the
Death of the Late Dr. The Hon. Robert John Ouko, Volume 1, pages 177-182, Appendix
Six].
Also travelling with the delegation were 16 editors, reporters, cameramen, photographers
and technical staff from the Presidential Press Unit. The delegation’s departure from Jomo
Kenyatta Airport on 27th January and return on 4th February, 1990, were public and
newsworthy events reported by Kenya’s newspapers which had photographers on site to
record the event.
FEBRUARY 4TH- 17TH, 1990
SUNDAY 4th
The Kenyan delegation arrived back at Jomo Kenyatta Airport on an Kenya Airways flight
on 4 February to be greeted by Finance Minister Saitoti, a large crowd, welcoming dancers
and the Kenyan press corps.
Dr Ouko returned to his Loresho home at about 6.30pm and later that evening, around
about 8.30pm it seems, he visited Hezekiah Oyugi, the Permanent Secretary of Internal
Affairs.
MONDAY 5th
At 9.00am the next morning, 5 February, Dr Ouko was at State House with Bethuel
Kiplagat, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, presenting the
Japanese Ambassador and the Canadian High Commissioner to President Moi.
President Moi then gave, or told, Dr Ouko to take time off before his next official trip which
was scheduled to be to The Gambia on 14 February.
Later that day Ouko met with his lawyer, Mr George Odinga Oraro of Oraro and Rachier
Advocates, Nairobi, to discuss a proposal for the development of land that Dr Ouko had
recently bought in Muhoroni.
During the afternoon of the 5th February at about 3pm Ouko called at the Nairobi home of
his mistress Violet Ogembo. She was not in but he left a present for his daughter.
At about 5pm that day he left Nairobi to travel to his Koru farm, driven by his driver Mr
Joseph Yogo Otieno and accompanied by his bodyguard Mr Gordon Ondu, leaving his wife
Christabel at Loresho. They arrived at the Koru farm at just after 10pm.
Witness testimony suggests that Dr Ouko took with him to Koru two briefcases.
TUESDAY 6th
At about 12 Noon Dr Ouko called on his sister Dorothy Randiak where she worked as a
lecturer at Tom Mboya Labour College in Kisumu.
WEDNESDAY 7th
During the very early morning (the exact time is unknown) Dr Ouko was seen and spoken
to by a Mr Joel C. Rotich at Kericho Petrol Station. Rotich noticed there was a briefcase on
the front passenger seat of the minister’s car.
Joel Rotich claimed that Dr Ouko told him he was going to Nairobi to see the President
and then to Nyeri District to a public meeting. Troon’s enquiries however, revealed that no
official meeting with President Moi was recorded and that the meeting in Nyeri was not due
to take place until the following week.
Some time between 7.30am and 8.30am Dr Ouko was seen having breakfast at the Tea
Hotel in Kericho.
Where Dr Ouko went thereafter for the rest of the day remains a mystery.
THURSDAY 8th
At 8.30am the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bethuel Kiplagat,
received a call from Dr Ouko asking him to cancel a press reception that was due to take
place later that day in the evening at the Hilton Hotel.
At 11 O’clock that morning Dr Ouko instructed his bodyguard Gordon Ondu to take time off
and return to Koru on the 12th and at about 1pm Dr Ouko’s driver Joseph Yogo Otieno
drove off in the minister’s official car to Nairobi with instructions to collect Mrs Ouko and
return with her in the family car, leaving the official car in Nairobi.
FRIDAY 9th
Dr Ouko visited the District Commissioner at Kericho.
Later, as he drove along the Kericho – Kisumu Road, Dr Ouko’s was involved in an
accident with a petrol tanker but escaped shaken but unscathed.
Mrs Ouko arrived at their Koru home at about 2pm and Dr Ouko released his driver Joseph
Otieno at about 3pm telling him to return to Koru on Monday 12th February.
SATURDAY 10th
Dr Ouko travelled to the Imperial Hotel in Kisumu in the morning to attend a Rotary
meeting where he gave a speech, leaving somewhat early at about 12 Noon to return to
Koru saying that he was feeling unwell.
At some point during the day, 500 chicks were delivered to the Koru farm.
During the rest of the day, according to Mrs Ouko’s testimony, her husband spent almost
all his time alone in his study or bedroom, making and receiving telephone calls and
possibly dealing with official correspondence (on this latter point Mrs Ouko was unclear
when interviewed).
According to Mrs Ouko her husband seemed ‘unusually worried and depressed’ and
several witnesses testified, as did Mrs Ouko that he was concerned about a family dispute
between himself and his two brothers Barrack and Collins. [TFR para 18]
Dr Ouko also complained of interference on his direct STD.
SUNDAY 11th
Dr Ouko and his wife Christabel attended church in Koru and spent the rest of the day at
home.
That evening Dr Ouko told his wife that there was to be a change of plan as he had to
meet the District Commissioner on the following morning to discuss a charity that they
were both involved with and that therefore whilst she would return by road to Nairobi as
originally planned, he would take an evening flight from Kisumu on Monday evening and
would meet her in Loresho on the 13th.
Scotland Yard’s enquiries, however, found that Ouko had no appointment with District
Commissioner on Monday 12th and Kenya Airways had no flights from Kisumu to Nairobi
on Monday evenings.
MONDAY 12th
Although he still seemed to be encountering problems with the telephone in Koru, Dr Ouko
was able to speak with his sister Dorothy and told her that he was not returning to Nairobi
until the next day.
He also spoke to his Personal Assistant, Mrs Susan Anguka and told her that he would be
back in the office the next day.
Hezikiah Oyugi also claimed that Dr Ouko called him on the morning of Monday 12th.
At 1pm Dr Ouko and his wife Christabel had lunch with a neighbour Mrs Mary Adera.
Mrs Ouko left Koru at about 3pm to travel to Loresho, driven by the minister’s driver
Joseph Otieno in her private car. Dr Ouko instructed his driver to pick him up at Nairobi
Airport at 7pm that evening.
Around an hour later at about 4pm Dr Ouko spoke to his bodyguard Gordon Ondu on the
telephone and told him to go to the Bata Shoe Shop in Kisumu the next day (Tuesday 13)
where they would then travel on together to Kisumu Airport to fly to Nairobi.
Troon reported that no arrangements had been made for Dr Ouko to travel. In the past,
according to Troon, when Dr Ouko had been at Koru without transport the bodyguard or
the manager of the Bata Shoe Shop would have been instructed to arrange transport for
him, or it would have been organised by the Provincial or District Commissioner’s office, or
friends.
For the rest of the afternoon and early evening Dr Ouko was alone, other than his staff, at
Koru – Salina Ndalo Were (maid), Erasto Otiende (looked after the chickens), Philip Ogutu
(storeman) and Zablon Agalo Obonyo (Administrative Police Officer).
Between 6pm and 7pm Dr Ouko called his Loresho home and left a message for his
daughter Lillian that he would be returning to Nairobi the next day and that he had been
delayed because there were no flights to Nairobi that evening.
Later, Mrs Ouko twice called her husband from Loresho. She stated that he still seemed
worried and that again he mentioned the family conflict between the brothers.
At approximately 8.30pm Dr Ouko’s sister, Dorothy Randiak, accompanied by Mr John

Otieno Ademba, Mr Peter Kasuku and Mr Albert Nyakucha, paid him a visit because they
were concerned by him after the accident.
Dorothy Randiak was also later to say to Troon that Dr Ouko seemed worried and that they
discussed family conflict. She confirmed that Mrs Ouko called twice that evening. She also
stated that she saw files and papers on his desk and that the minister received two
telephone calls, one from Mr Eric Onyango and the other from Dr Ouko’s uncle Mr George
Olilo, at that time still the Mayor of Kisumu.
The four visitors left Dr Ouko at about 10pm that evening. As they were about to leave Mrs
Randiak noticed that the minister’s study door was still open and told his maid, Selina
Were to close it and lock it, which she did with the help of Dr Ouko. The door had two bolts
and could only be locked from the inside.
THE NIGHT OF MONDAY 12th AND TUESDAY 13th
Dr Ouko was now alone at his Koru home other than his domestic staff. What happened
thereafter is not known for certain.
Ogutu the store man said he locked both gates leading from the house by 10.30pm after
Dorothy Randiak and her friends had left; the lower gate at the entry to driveway, and the
upper gate that was some 150 metres up the driveway towards the house.
He later maintained that he kept the keys to the gates until about 11pm when Selina Were
asked for the keys to the pedestrian gates saying that Dr Ouko wanted them. Ogutu stated
after that he handed over the keys to Salina Were, he did not see them again until the next
morning (Tuesday 13) at about 7am, lying on the ground beside the lower gate. Both
pedestrian gates were still open.
According to Troon’s ‘Final Report’ Ogutu’s night was further disturbed at about 2am when
he was woken by Erasto Olang, the ‘chicken man’ who told him that Dr Ouko wanted the
key to the store. Together they went to the poultry shed where they gave the keys to Dr
Ouko.
The Kenya Police ‘Further Investigations’ Report however said that ‘At about 12 midnight
the minister went to the chicken house and found Erasto Olang Otiende looking after the
young chicks’. [KPFI 2:9 p11]
Ouko was apparently concerned that the 500 chicks delivered on the Saturday might be at
risk on a cold night and wanted to find some more heat bulbs to keep them warm. Dr Ouko
went into the store but was unable to find more bulbs.
The farm workers testified that Dr Ouko seemed reluctant for them to join him in the store.
Oguto said he then returned to bed and was given the store key by Olang at approximately
7am the next morning. He checked the store room and found that although it had been
closed the padlock had not been locked.
Here again the Kenya Police ‘Further Investigations’ Report tells a slightly different story,
having Ouko tending to the chickens at 3am. [KPFI 2:9 page 12]
Salina Were, the maid, lived adjacent to the kitchen. It was usual practice that she kept
keys to the house and looked after the home when the Ouko’s were away.
Salina Were confirmed in her testimony that she had locked the minister’s study door and
the main front door before going to bed at about 11pm. Before doing so she noticed that Dr
Ouko had changed his clothes and was wearing a Kitenge with a red zig zag pattern,
trousers, black shoes and a dark brown leather jacket. (The shirt and jeans found at the
site where Dr Ouko’s body was found appeared to be the clothing he was wearing during
the evening before changing. [TFR para 31]
According to Troon’s ‘Final Report’, Salina Were said ‘she was awakened at about 3am by
a noise similar to a door being slammed shut but sufficiently loud enough to startle her
awake’ (Troon’s underlining) and that ‘she checked her wristwatch and waited for some
minutes, thinking that the Minister would call her to make him tea’. [TFR para 32]
It should be noted however, that Troon interviewed Salina Were with a Kenyan police
officer and Jonah Anguka acting as a translator as Salina could only speak Luo. Mrs
Esther Molly Mbajah, Dr Ouko’s sister-in-law married to his brother Barrack, testified in a
written statement that Herine Ogembo, Dr Ouko’s mistress told her in Luo that he had
been picked up in the early morning and used the Luo word ‘Kogwuen’ meaning between
3am and 6am or ‘before cock crow’. [Statement of Esther Molly Mbajah, 29 March 1990]
Both the problem of translation and the varying witness testimony covering the early hours
to dawn on the 13th February make it possible, indeed quite likely, that Dr Ouko
disappeared from his Koru home not at 3am but later, perhaps as late as 6am that
morning.
[On 22 February, Troon and other police officers conducted an experiment at the Koru farm
residence in the company of Salina Were to try and ascertain what the sound was that
said she heard. Troon reported that, “Suffice to say she associated the most likely sound to
the discharge of a firearm, but could not discount the closing of the study door as also
being similar”.] [TFR para 33]
After a few minutes she heard an engine. Leaving her room she walked about 15 yards to
the Grass Hut that overlooked the lower gate to the main road, which she could see quite
clearly because of the security lighting, and saw a white car with its lights on turning round
at the end of the driveway, just outside the lower gate. She did not see who was in the car.
The car drove to the end of the access road to where it joined the Koru-Muhoroni road and
turned left towards Muhoroni and she watched until the car’s lights went out of site. Troon
noted that at that point there was ‘an unmade road leading to Got Alila Hill where Ouko’s
body was subsequently found’. [TFR para 33]
She returned to bed and awoke at about 6.30am and found that the minister’s study door
(that she had closed the night before) was open and his private bedroom door which
directly accessed the study from across the corridor was unlocked even though Dr Ouko
normally locked his bedroom door at night.
The covers on Dr Ouko’s bed had been drawn back and the sheets looked as if he had
either lain on the bed or gone to sleep in it. His pyjamas had been worn. Selina Were also
saw two briefcases on the floor and she noticed that the telephone on his bedside table,
his direct STD line, was off the hook and placed upside down on the table.
Had Dr Ouko made or received a call just before leaving home? Or did he justt want to
stop the telephone ringing?
Concerned at what she saw, Salina Were called Dr Ouko’s Loresho home in Nairobi and
the Bata shop in Kisumu but there was no news of him.
GOT ALILA HILL AND A BURNING BODY
‘At about 1pm on Tuesday 13th February Paul Shikuku a herdsboy was in the area of Got
Alila Hill when he saw smoke. On closer examination the boy discovered that the smoke
was coming from a human body with “flames around the chest and stomach area”.
Shikuku ‘told another herdsboy called Harsi what he had seen. He showed him the smoke
but refused to take him to the site’ [KPFI 3:2 page 13]. The boys took fright and ran
towards his village. On the way Shikuku met a Richard Rotich and Joshua Ngeney at the
River Nyando. One of them, it is unclear which, said ‘that it may be a body of a madman
who resides in the bush within that area’. Shikuku also reported the sight to several
villagers.’ But unfortunately they did not report the find to the authorities. Paul Shikuku’s
testimony was supported by the testimony of six villagers. [Troon’s Final Report, Para 38]
And so we arrive at one of the crucial pieces of evidence in the murder of Dr Robert Ouko.
Witness testimony places the time of death in the morning of Tuesday 13th February, 1990.
ALARM RAISED AND THE SEARCH BEGINS
Dr Ouko had been expected to land back in Nairobi at Jomo Kenyatta Airport on 13th
February but of course he did not arrive and his bodyguards that were waiting at the
airport for him began to enquire about his whereabouts. [KPFI 3:1 page 12]
Mrs Ouko was informed and called Selina Were at the Koru farm. She told Mrs Ouko that
her husband had ‘been collected in a white car early in the morning at about 3.00am’.
In the initial hours that Dr Ouko was missing no great concern was shown about his
disappearance. Everyone expected him to have been delayed and that eventually he
would show up [See KPFI 3:1 page 12]. But by the end of the 13th anxiety began to grow.
At about 3pm a Kisumu Councillor, Mr George Lazarus Owino, together with a Mr Joel
Owila Odera, Mr Peter Odeny Kungu, Mr John Ologi and a Mr Alex Ndege arrived at the
Koru house apparently to express their sympathy to Dr Ouko for the motor accident he had
been involved with the previous week.
The visit had been arranged the previous day by Owino and Dr Ouko but of course the
latter was not at home [paras 65 to 69, Troon’s FP]
On the Wednesday 14th February at about 6.00pm Dr Ouko’s bodyguard AP Cpl. Gordon
Okoth contacted the Divisional Security Intelligence Officer in Kisumu, Mr Omwenga, who
in turn informed the District Security Committee and the Provincial Security Committee.
[KPFI 3:3 page 13]
‘A Police Inspector was dispatched to Koru to investigate what had happened to the
minister. He returned, reporting that Dr Ouko had left his Koru home in the early hours of
the morning’. [KPFI 3:3 page 13]
The decision was taken to mount a search for Dr Ouko ‘within Koru’ but as by then it was
approaching darkness the search did not begin until the next day, Thursday 15th. [KPFI 3:3
page 13]
The initial search by the Kenyan police began and at Dr Ouko’s Koru home, where he had
been last sighted, and spread out from there into the surrounding countryside but by the
darkness on the 15th he had not been found and there was no further news as to his
whereabouts.
The first government statement on Ouko was issued on Thursday 15 February through
Voice of Kenya radio and Television:
“The family of the minister of foreign affairs and international cooperation, Dr. Robert Ouko,
has reported that the minister left his Koru home last Tuesday, February 13, in the morning,
and has been seen since. Could Dr. Ouko please contact his family or the nearest police
station. Any member of the public who might have any information as to the minister’s
whereabouts should report to the nearest police station.”
On Thursday 15 February at about 5pm, Christabel Ouko arrived at the Koru where later
she was joined by other family members. One of these was her sister-in-law, Mrs Esther
Molly Mbajah, Dr Ouko’s brother Barrack’s wife who arrived at or before 6pm. Others were
also there, including Dr Ouko’s mother Susana, James K’Oyoo and Kisumu’s Mayor Olilo.
[Esther Molly Mbajah statement]
Esther Molly Mbajah, Dr Ouko’s sister-in-law and wife of his brother Barrack noted in her
written testimony that, ‘During the course of my time with Christabel she asked me to
speak with Barrack and try and stop him speaking badly about the family. [Esther Molly
Mbajah statement]
February 16, 1990, 12:53 P.M.: President Moi issued a statement of concern through the
Kenya News Agency:
“I wish to express my sadness and grave concern on the sudden disappearance of my

Minister for foreign affairs and international co-operation, the Hon. Dr. Robert Ouko.
As soon as I received this information on Wednesday, February 14, 1990, I directed the
government machinery to be deployed to trace his whereabouts. I wish to assure the
members of the public that at the moment my own security personnel are applying
maximum effort to achieve this intention.
Meanwhile, every member of the public who has any information which might help in
tracing his whereabouts is requested to report to the nearest police station.
The government is committed to protecting the life of each and every Kenyan and no effort
will be spared achieving this intention. The public will be informed as soon as further
progress is made on investigation.”
At about 10.30am on Friday 16th February, Police Constable 48774 Jerphither Ndambiri
attached to Kisumu Police Station found the charred remains of the dead body of Dr
Robert Ouko in a thicket near to the Nyando River at the foot of Got Alila Hill approximately
2.8 kilometres from the Koru farm. The body was later formally identified by Dr Ouko’s
brother Barrack Mbajah and Professor Joseph Oliech. A report of the body’s discovery was
made and senior Government officials went to the scene and the Kenyan police
investigation began led by the Deputy Director of C.I.D. Mr Cleophas Okoko.
Okoko and ‘senior police officers’ decided that Dr Ouko’s body should be left at the scene
until a post mortem could be carried out the next day. A guard was placed on it overnight.
[KPFI 4:1 page 14]
NEWS BROKEN TO MRS OUKO
Mrs Esther Molly Mbajah stated that she was attending to Mrs Ouko at the Koru home on
16 February when Cleophas Okoko requested that he speak with Mrs Ouko alone. This he
did but whilst doing so the District Commissioner from Nakuru, Mr John Anguka ‘burst into
the room and informed Mrs Ouko that the body of her husband had been found’. At this,
Mrs Ouko ‘collapsed screaming in grief’. [Troon FR para 116].
Esther Molly Mbajah’s written evidence stated that ‘I heard Anguka and the Deputy Mr Too
talking, I heard the Deputy say “How could you come and break the news just like that,” he
seemed really furious’ [Esther Molly Mbajah statement]
KENYA IS TOLD
Later on February 16th, President Moi issued an additional statement through Voice of
Kenya, adding Dr. Robert Ouko’s death:
“It is with profound sorrow that I have to announce the death of the Honourable Robert
Ouko, minister for foreign affairs and international co-operation and Member of Parliament
for Kisumu town.
On learning of the report of his disappearance on Wednesday, the government mounted
an intensive search for Dr. Ouko using all means at its disposal.
Dr. Ouko’s partly burnt body was discovered today six kilometers away from his Koru home
in circumstances which at the suggest foul play.
Further investigations are being conducted into the death of the Hon. Dr.Ouko but I would
like to assure the public that anyone who may be associated with this horrible event will
most certainly be apprehended and brought to justice.
Let me repeat my assurance to the nation that the government is committed to the
protection of the lives of all citizens of this country, and no stone will be left unturned in the
discharge of that duty. The government will make further information known to the public
about the circumstances pertaining to the death of Hon. Dr. Robert Ouko as this
information becomes available.
I wish to extend to the family and relatives of the late Dr. Robert Ouko my sincerest
condolences. It is not only their loss but that of the whole nation, for the late Dr. Robert
Ouko was a brilliant leader, an articulate and a courageous spokesman of this country and
a loyal servant of his people. I have personally lost a loyal dedicated friend-Dr. Ouko is the
best foreign minister Kenya has had. I will greatly miss him.
May the Almighty rest his soul in eternal peace.”
The front page of The Daily Nation on the next day (17th) carried Moi’s statement and a
declaration from Saitoti that Ouko’s death was ‘murder’.
INITIAL POST-MORTEM
On 17th February at 11.30am the Kenyan State Pathologist, Dr. J. N. Kaviti arrived,
examined the body and began the first stage of the post-mortem. Photographs were also
taken of Dr Ouko’s body and the surrounding area.
The following items were found at the scene:
A revolver
A holster
A white plastic jerrycan
A red plastic lid
A torch
A box of matches
A leather jacket
A pair of gumboots
A walking stick
A green polythene paper containing clothes
A sock
[KPFI 4:1 pages 14-15]
Dr Ouko’s jacket pocket contained Sh400 and four rounds of ammunition from his revolver.
Dr. Kaviti noted that Dr Ouko had been shot in the head with an entry wound 8cm above
the right ear, exiting 6cm above the left ear.
Dr Kaviti also recorded that the minister’s right tibia and fibula (i.e. the bones below the
knee) were broken at the ankle. Although he initially attributed the cause of the break to
have been the heat of the fire he later agreed that they could have been caused by ‘a blunt
or sharp force’.
The body was then sealed in a body sheet and taken by air [helicopter?] to the Lee
Mortuary in Nairobi where a post mortem examination was conducted by Dr Kaviti in the
company of Professor Oliech, the Director of Medical Services, Dr Joab Bodo, Chief
Orthopaedic Specialist and the Ouko’s family doctor, Dr Joseph Oluoch.
The post mortem revealed lead bullet fragments embedded inside the skull and more
intense burning on the back of the body than the front.
Dr Kaviti concluded that the cause of death was ‘severe brain damage following a bullet
wound to the head and subsequent burning.’
Okoko continued with the investigation until he handed to Detective Superintendent John
Troon of New Scotland Yard, London. It must have seemed a good idea at the time.
TROON OF ‘THE YARD’
On February 19 the government announced that three detectives from Scotland Yard,
Detective Superintendent John Troon together with Detective Inspector Graham Dennis
and Detective Sergeant David Sanderson from ‘the Yard’s’ International and Organised
Crime Branch, would take over the investigation. They were accompanied by Dr Iain West,
a Forensic Pathologist from Guys and St Thomas Hospitals, London.
The Scotland Yard team arrived on 21 February.
FORENSIC EVIDENCE [Troon’s Final Report paras 41 – 52 inclusive]
On the same day that they arrived in Nairobi, Dr Iain West, accompanied by
Superintendent John Troon, carried out a second post mortem at the Lee Mortuary.
The body of Dr Ouko lay on its back. The trunk had been largely destroyed by fire his face
and head had not been badly burnt and he was easily identifiable.
Beside his left leg was the torch he had borrowed from his driver, Joseph Otieno.
Behind and to the right of his head lay his .38 five chambered revolver, with, it transpired,
one spent round at the twelve o’clock position.
Some 3-4 feet to the right of his body stood an open 6 litre white plastic jerrycan and a
matchbox with some matches still inside lay nearby.
Further away, approximately 15 feet from the body, lay jerrycan top and the minister’s
walking stick, his holster and Wellington boots. There was also a plastic bag containing a
pair of jeans, a shirt and a pair of socks, and a leather jacket in the pockets of which were
found four live rounds of .38 ammunition, a pair of glasses and Sh400 cash.
All of the items except for the jerrycan, matches and the torch, were later identified as
belonging to Ouko and were usually kept in his bedroom.
Evenly spaced out between the leather jacket and the minister’s body were four burn
marks approximately 12 inches round.
Dr West, too, concluded that the cause of death was ‘a firearm wound to the head which
occurred in life’ but there was no contact wound.
Dr West, however, went further in his analysis and conclusions than Dr Kaviti had done.
West stated that Dr Ouko’s body had been burnt by a slow but intense fire after he had
been killed, that there was no evidence that his body had been on fire whilst he was alive
and that fire had taken place once the body was laid down.
The broken ankle was caused while Dr Ouko was still alive, not by the heat of the fire,
probably by a heavy fall or blow.
Dr West also found bruising on Dr Ouko’s right upper arm which was ‘consistent with a
blow at the time of death or shortly before.’
The bullet wound was also not in a position that would have been usual if death had been
the result of suicide and that the damage to Dr Ouko’s skull was more severe than would
be expected if it had been caused by standard .38 special round, i.e., by Dr Ouko’s own
gun.
Dr Ouko would have lost consciousness and all muscular activity immediately he was shot.
The shot to Dr Ouko’s head had of course resulted in severe blood loss but West noted
that the blood flow across his face (as witnessed by photographs taken at the scene)
suggested that the head had been moved after the fatal injury had occurred within six
hours of death.
Dr West concluded that the injuries suffered by Dr Ouko were not consistent with suicide
but rather he had been shot by someone else after breaking his right leg and the body had
subsequently been set on fire.
Finally, West concluded, Dr Ouko’s ‘death should be investigated as one of

homicide’. He had been murdered.
As the days and weeks of the Scotland Yard investigation went on further detailed
examination of the murder scene and examination of the physical evidence was
undertaken.
On 22 February, Dr West and Troon visited the site where Dr Ouko’s body had been found.
Their search revealed ‘a bullet mark that had removed a small portion of branch from a
bush 7 feet north of the body’.
A Detective Sergeant David Sanderson, a specialist in forensic examination of crime

scenes from London’s Metropolitan Police Laboratory assisted Dr West with an
examination of the trajectory of the bullet and its relation to the position of Dr Ouko at the
time he was shot.
Dr West deduced that if the bullet mark had been caused by the fatal shot to Dr Ouko’s
head then its trajectory would indicate that he had been shot when standing up. [Troon,
Interim, Para 56].
West concluded that if Dr Ouko had been shot whilst he was seated in the position where
his head was found then the bullet could have hit the branch nearby but if he had been
seated in the same position as where his body was found then the branch would not have
been hit. For Dr West this evidence suggested that Dr Ouko’s body had been moved after
death.
Together with the evidence of the blood flow on Dr Ouko’s face Troon concluded on the
basis of Dr West’s findings that if the bullet mark on the branch had resulted from the fatal
shot then the body had been moved by ‘at least two or three feet and within six hours of
death’ but that there was ‘no evidence to suggest that Dr Ouko had died at any other
venue than the scene’. The injury to his arm and leg however, could have occurred
elsewhere.
Despite a search supervised by Detective Sergeant David Sanderson and weeks of

searching by Kenyan police officers however, the bullet was never found. Without the bullet
there could be no certainty whether the fatal shot had come from Ouko’s own gun or
another weapon.
It is important to note that… the correlation of witness testimony from the maid Salina
Were and the herdsboy Paul Shikuku (supported by testimony from local villagers) with the
post mortem examinations and analysis of photographs taken of the body at the scene,
particularly the blood flow on the deceased’s face, and the nature of the evidence that a
shot had been fired at the place where the body was found led to an inescapable and
critical conclusion: Dr Robert Ouko had been shot at or within a few feet of where his
body was found.
Troon’s ‘Interim Report’ and ‘Final Report’ mention that ‘exhibits’ from the case were sent
to the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory in London through British Airways.
[Troon Interim Report para 59 & Final report 252]. However, in his book Dr Iain West’s
Casebook, Chester Stern claimed that ‘John Troon had helped Dr West to take the skull
vault through the airport by persuading the authorities that the usual X-rays might damage
vital samples being taken back to England. When it came to the state funeral, an
imaginative and innovative mortuary assistant had simply covered the discrepancy by
creating a convincing death-mask to attach to the top of the body for the benefit of those
wishing to view the body’. [Dr Iain West’s Casebook by Chester Stern pages 98-99]
Aside from the fact that part of Dr Ouko’s skull was arrogantly and improperly removed to
London, it leaves the question, is it still there?
The Senior Scientific Officer (Firearms Section), Scotland Yard, Mr Kevin O’Callaghan also
reviewed the evidence.
O’Callaghan concluded that there was no evidence of a contact wound (i.e. the shot that
killed Dr Ouko was fired from several inches away). He also noted that he was unable to
ascertain whether the bullet fragments found in the skull were ‘from a plain bullet or
fragments from a jacketed bullet’ but that they were ‘not consistent with any of the four
remaining rounds of .38 ammunition’ found in the pocket of Dr Ouko’s leather jacket.
He also concluded that the lead mark found on a tree branch nearby was, in his opinion, a
bullet mark and that ‘there strong indications that the cartridge case found in the chamber
of the Minister’s weapon had been fired from the exhibit’.
Forensic Scientist Mr Phillip Toates reported to Troon that no blood was found on Ouko’s
gun, or on the inside of his Wellington boots suggesting that the latter were not being worn
at the time Dr Ouko’s ankle was broken. He was also of the opinion that the shirt and jeans
found near the body had been worn since the last time they had been washed which in
turn suggested Ouko had changed his clothing on the night he disappeared.
Intriguingly Toates reported that ‘a single Caucasian hair was found loosely associated
with a partially burnt handkerchief found at the scene’. The origin of the hair was not known
but Troon concluded that ‘it could only come from light skinned or Asian population’ and its
presence could have resulted from site contamination.
Mr Andrew James Douglas, a specialist in fire investigations examined the exhibits sent to
London and photographs from the post mortem and of the scene where Dr Ouko’s body
was found. He confirmed that the jerrycan had contained diesel (with a tiny percentage of
cattle dip) and that Dr Ouko was wearing clothes at the time of his death.
Douglas’s opinion was that, ‘Dr Ouko was lying on his back for either all or most of the fire
and his clothing and the immediate area surrounding the body was soaked in diesel fuel.
Diesel had also been detected in a sample of soil obtained from where the Minister’s jacket
was found’. [Troon FR para 260]
He also undertook various tests to see how a fire might have developed. He concluded
that from the moment the body, soaked in diesel, was ignited it would have taken perhaps
10 seconds for the flames to reach the face area (depending on atmospheric and weather
conditions).
Forensic Scientist Geoffrey Warman Bsc, PhD, examined swabs taken from Dr Ouko’s
palms and the .38 spent cartridge case found at the scene. Warmen noted that the swabs
taken by the Kenyan police were ‘heavily covered in debris and were not ideal for the
process’. However, he conclude that although there was evidence of ‘a very small particle
of firearm discharge residue’ found on a sample labelled ‘right palm’, this could have come
from handling the spent cartridge or from ‘the frequent handling of a weapon’ and that
there was ‘insufficient evidence to support any view that Dr Ouko had recently fired a
weapon’. [Troon FR 264-266]
Troon summarised the (later) forensic evidence that it was only possible to say with
certainty ‘that the firearm wound was not a contact wound, the particles found inside Dr
Ouko’s head are not consistent with the ammunition found at the scene.’ And that, ‘The
evidence of the bullet mark on the branch confirms that a firearm had been discharged at
the scene. Diesel fuel has been identified as the burning agent and for most of the burning
Dr Ouko was lying on his back’. [Troon FR para 267]
He added, ‘There are no indications that the rubber boots found at the scene were recently
worn. No blood or fingerprint was found in or around these exhibits’. [Troon FR 269]
The crucial part of Scotland Yard’s forensic evidence was that Dr Ouko had been
killed where his body was found, or a few feet from the spot.
This evidence, together with the eye-witness testimony of the herdsboy Paul
Shikuku and others, evidence and testimony that has never been disputed, is
absolutely central to an understanding (and refutation) of many of the theories that
have grown up around the murder of Dr Robert Ouko.
The evidence and testimony in this respect is clear: Dr Ouko was killed on the
morning of the 13th February, 1990, and killed at the spot where his body was found.
In the absence of any new evidence to the contrary all other theories have to be set
against these facts.
INVESTIGATIONS, INQUIRIES & THEORIES
The murder of Dr Robert Ouko was the subject of investigations by two police forces, a
judicial inquiry, two murder trials (both of the same man, Jonah Anguka), a parliamentary
commission, libel actions and at least eight published books, including:
· Initial investigations by the Kenyan police, February 1990

· Investigation by New Scotland Yard, February 21 to June 30, 1990
· The Judicial Commission of Inquiry, October 1990 – November 1991
· ‘Further Investigations’ by the Kenya Police, 1991
· The trials of Jonah Anguka, 1992-94
· The Parliamentary Select Committee Investigation 2004/5
THE TEN THEORIES
From these investigations and inquiries arose ten areas of investigation that either had to
be investigated (however far-fetched they seemed) or became the bases for believable
motives for the murder of Dr. Ouko. The ten theories were based on:
· Suicide
· General crime
· The ‘Washington trip’
· The Kisumu Molasses Project and corruption
· An ‘Executive order’ killing
· An un-attributed allegation against Domenico Airaghi and Marianne Briner-Matten
· Local politics and local government corruption
· A family row
· A domestic dispute
· Specific charges against Jonah Anguka
THE THEORIES:
SUICIDE:
Both the Kenya and Scotland Yard police investigations did have to consider the possibility
that Dr Ouko had committed suicide, however implausible that would seem, on the basis
that a professional empirically-based investigation would have to consider all possibilities,
however remote.
Troon’s ‘Final Report’ stated that ‘In the early stages of the investigation there were many
who held the view that Dr Ouko had committed suicide, some still maintain that view’ [TFR
para 271]. Troon also conceded ‘Dr Ouko’s attitude and demeanour and some of his
actions during the last few days of his life may have given some people the impression that
he was in a state of mind, which with the benefit of hindsight, is suggestive of suicide’ [TFR
para 275].
Even in the ‘Conclusions’ of his ‘Final Report’ Troon stated that even though he thought it
highly unlikely, ‘I cannot completely rule out the possibility that Dr Ouko committed suicide’
[TFR para 279].
The Kenyan police ‘Further Investigations’ Report noted that ‘quite a good number of
people including professionals held the view that Dr.Ouko might have committed suicide’
but that, ‘It was possible that that was a mere speculation based on ones impression after
looking at the scene’.
Ultimately, however, the conclusions of the Kenyan police as summarised in their ‘Further
Investigations’ Report and those of the Scotland Yard team as set out in Troon’s ‘Final
Report’, were the same.
The Kenya police stated that Dr Ouko had not committed suicide and that he ‘must have
been murdered’ [KPFI p57 8:3 (vi)] and that ‘nobody offered evidence to support that
[suicide] theory’ [KPFI 8:3], whilst Troon concluded that ‘the evidence so far obtained in
relation to Dr West’s findings, events leading up to his death and motives suggests in all
probability Dr Ouko was murdered’.
The Kenyan police noted that Dr Ouko’s gumboots were ‘placed neatly on top of each
other’ which would seem odd for someone intending to commit suicide. They noted too
that his revolver appeared to have been placed near the body by another individual; that
four rounds of ammunition were found in his pocket not in the chamber of his revolver,
again an odd thing to have done if he had committed suicide; and that his fingerprints were
not on the gun found at the scene (although… rough wood handle…). The entry and exit
point for the shot to his head also ‘indicated that the gun had been fired by another person’
[KPFI page 55, 8:3 (ii)]. These observations, together with the presence of Dr Ouko’s
clothes at the scene and the manner in which they were laid led the Kenya police to
conclude that ‘After taking the above points into consideration, we see nothing in favour of
suicide. We therefore exclude suicide from our findings. We concur with experts that Dr.
Ouko must have been murdered’ [KPFI page 57, 8:3 (vi)].
Troon too ruled out on the grounds that there was no evidence of sufficient cause, whether
it was the ‘longstanding dispute between the brothers’ or the alleged dispute on the
Washington trip. Troon also considered highly unlikely that Dr Ouko ‘would venture by foot
2.8km over rocky terrain in the dark carrying five litres of fluid in a can, a torch, spare
clothing and a walking stick before finally burning and shooting himself’ [TFR para 276].
To an extent the idea that the suicide theory for Dr Ouko’s death was [pushed] has
reached near mythical proportions. There is no doubt that local police officials and even Dr
Kaviti maintained the theory as a possibility for some time but there is little or no evidence
of a concerted attempt among higher authorities to do so.
As has been noted, the police, be they Kenyan or British, had to consider suicide as a
theory. Both rejected the idea and if anything the Kenyan police ‘Further Investigations’
Report did so more emphatically than the Troon ‘Final Report’.
Similarly, statements made by President Moi and others at the time of Dr Ouko’s death,
including Professor Saitoti, were clear that they regarded it as an act of ‘murder’ or ‘foul
play’. The Nation newspaper’s front page on the 17th February carried statements and
headlines to this effect from Moi and Saitoti.
GENERAL CRIME:
Just as the police forces investigating Dr Ouko’s murder had to consider suicide as a
cause they also had to rule in or out whether his death had arisen as a result of some
‘general crime’, a robbery that had gone wrong for example.
The fact that nothing appeared to have been stolen from Dr Ouko’s house, that his jacket
found at the murder site still contained 400 shillings in cash [check amount] and that his
revolver was also found at the scene, the Kenyan police concluded that ‘in the general
commission of crime, these could not have been left behind. For this reason, we do not
believe that a general crime could have been the motive for the murder of Dr. Ouko’ [KPFI
page 57, 8:4].
TROON’S THEORIES:
For the first five or six weeks of his investigations, Scotland Yard’s Detective
Superintendent John Troon was confronted with witness testimony that directed him toward
a long-running and often vitriolic row in Dr Ouko's family, allegations of a vicious local
political campaign going back to before the 1988 election, and allegations of corruption in
the Kisumu Town Council, as possible motives for Dr Ouko’s murder.
Dorothy Randiak, Dr Ouko’s sister, made three statements to Troon, on March 2, 27 and
April 11, the first two of which were entirely about the family row and its possible link with
local politics, and his involvement with another woman.
Mrs Christabel Ouko, Dr Ouko's wife, made four statements to Troon on March 2 and 13
and April 5 and 8. Her second statement (March 13) was a purely administrative (but highly
significant) action recording the handing of her passport and that of her late husband, to
Troon. The first and third statements, however, were also entirely about the family row and
her husband’s private life.
Troon’s 'Interim Report' submitted in July however, points to a major shift in his
investigation some time in the middle of March, 1990.
In paragraphs 101 and 102 of the ‘Interim Report’ Troon stated that, 'On Saturday 17
March my colleague Detective Sergeant Lindsay received a telephone call to meet a
person in the Imperial Hotel, Kisumu. Lindsay attended the venue and there met a person
who identified himself as Professor Thomas A. Ogada, the Kenyan Ambassador to
Switzerland', and that, 'Prof. Ogada informed Lindsay that he had been directed by His
Excellency the President to hand over to the Scotland Yard Officers a sealed envelope
which he had brought with him from Switzerland. In addition to the envelope, Prof. Ogada
supplied details of two contacts in relation to the contents, one being Mrs Briner Mattern,
the other being her advocate in Kenya Mr Frank Addly of Kaplan and Stratton Advocates,
Nairobi.’ [Troon, Interim report, paras 101 & 102]
Perhaps interestingly, no record of President Moi's involvement was made in Troon's 'Final
Report' submitted in August, 1990.
Troon's investigation from this time seems to have concentrated on proving motives for Dr
Ouko’s murder based on the theories gained that there had been an argument between Dr
Ouko and Nicholas Biwott, then Kenya's Minister of Energy, during the trip to Washington
following a supposed meeting between Ouko and the U.S. President, George H.W. Bush
(although Troon did accept that the "factual basis" for the alleged row on the Washington
trip was "somewhat tenuous" ['Final Report', paragraph 142] and based on "hearsay"
['Final Report', paragraph 217]; that Biwott had battled with Ouko to bring about the
cancellation of a project to build a molasses plant at Kisumu (in Ouko’s constituency); and
that Dr Ouko was preparing a report on high level political corruption in relation to the
Kisumu Molasses Project (which by implication named Biwott).
The basis of Troon’s theory about a ‘row’ on the trip to Washington was the testimony of Dr
Ouko’s brother, Barrak Mbajah, and the later testimony of his sister Dorothy Randiak (in
her third statement made on April 11th) together with her alleged conversations with Troon.
Troon’s theory that the ‘Kisumu Molasses Project’ and a possible ‘Corruption Report’ linked
to it, might have provided a motive for murder, was based on a file of allegations handed to
Scotland Yard apparently at the direction of President Daniel arap Moi, allegations made
by a Domenico Airaghi and to a greater extent a Marianne Briner-Mattern, who said they
were directors of BAK International, a company based in Switzerland that had tendered to
Ouko when he was Minister for Industry to re-start the Molasses Project in Kisumu.
Troon's took a witness statement from Briner-Mattern on the 22nd March, some five days
after his team had received the file from the Kenyan ambassador to Switzerland, as
‘directed by His Excellency’, on the 17th March.
THE WASHINGTON TRIP… BANISHED?
Troon’s first theory as to the motives for Dr Ouko’s murder was that a dispute had occurred
on the ‘Washington Trip’, the private presidential visit to the United States of America
between the 27th January and 4th February 1990.
In Troon’s ‘Final Report’ he surmised that, ‘Throughout the enquiry strong indications have
been given of some form of serious disagreement between Dr Ouko and Mr Biwott during
the Washington Trip. Whilst factual allegation is somewhat tenuous, there is on the other
hand, strong evidence from many witnesses, including family, of Dr Ouko’s concern, worry
and pensive attitude directly on his return from Washington’ [TFR para 142].
Troon also gave the source of the allegations as not just Dr Ouko’s brother and sister. He
stated, ‘ The allegations are hearsay and have come mainly from Barrak Mbajah [Dr
Ouko’s brother] and Mrs Randiak [Dr Ouko’s sister] during the course of conversations with
two independent officials, one of which was present on the visit’ [TFR para 217].
The ‘independent officials’ Troon was referring to were Bethuel Kiplagat and Mr Oddenyo
from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Troon added that the allegations was supported ‘by
alleged conversations Dr Ouko had with his sister Dorothy [Randiak] and his solicitor Mr
Oraro’ [TFR para 217].
Troon reiterated later in his report that, ‘There is tenuous evidence both factual and
circumstantial that some form of dispute or disagreement took place in Washington’ [TFR
para 274].
The testimony that gave rise to the ‘Washington Trip’ allegations were made by Eston
Barrack Mbajah and Dorothy Randiak on the basis of their recollections of conversations
they said they had with Bethuel Kiplagat and Malaki Oddenyo, respectively Permanent
Secretary and Director of Information in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Dr Ouko’s Ministry).
Barrack Mbajah made a lengthy witness statement on 31 March 1990. In July 1991 he fled
to the United States just before he was due to give evidence to the Judicial Inquiry and
subsequently released an affidavit 23rd September 1991.
In his witness statement of 31 March Barrack Mbajah claimed that just before Dr Ouko’s
funeral President Moi, Hezekiah Oyugi and Malacki Oddenyo, called at Ouko’s Loresho
home in Nairobi. Mbajah alleged that Oddenyo told him that during the Washington trip ‘the
US President, Mr Bush, did not want to meet President Moi because the nature of the
Kenya Delegation was not a state visit’. Barrack also stated that at some stage Dr Ouko
did appear on US television at a press conference.
He then alleged that Oddenyo told him that ‘Dr Ouko did have a private meeting with
President Bush with the knowledge of President Moi. This action apparently so infuriated
Mr Biwott that there had been exchanges between the two ministers, which on their return
to Kenya caused Dr Ouko to have a meeting with President Moi, the latter giving Dr Ouko
some time off to rest’ [TFR paras 78-80].
In his affidavit of 23rd September 1991 Dr Ouko’s brother Barrack further alleged that on
his return from America Dr Ouko was suspended as a Minister by Moi, his security
removed, his passport had been taken from him and he had been banished to his Koru
farm.
BARRACK’S NOTE
Barrack Mbajah went so far in his affidavit as to name those he alleged had collected Dr
Ouko from Koru on the morning or 13th February, 1990 and then, presumably, murdered
him.
“The house girl, who is related to, known as Selina, had given me a small note written by
my late brother which he left for her to give me personally. In this note my brother informed
me that he had been called by Mr Oyugi and told that Oyugi would help him escape from
Kenya because the President was not ready to forgive him. My late brother told me he was
suspicious in the manner that these people wanted him to leave the house. The people
who went to collect him were Jonah Anguka, District Commissioner of Nakuru, George
Oraro, Advocate, and Paul Gondi a banker assisted by Eric Onyango [who..]. They
collected my brother in the morning of 13 February 1990 with instructions that they were
going to hand him over to Oyugi who was waiting for him and Minister Biwott”.
Barrack Mbajah added, “It is also Oyugi’s responsibility as the one in charge of the Kenya
Internal Security to state where they withdrew all the security officers guarding my late
brother on the day before he was collected from the house and taken to the murder
chambers”.
So Barrack Mbajah’s allegations were that whilst on the ‘Prayer breakfast’ trip to
Washington in late January, early February 1990, Dr Ouko had met with President Bush
when President Moi had been denied a meeting; that Ouko had discussed corruption in
Kenya with US officials; and that he had in effect outshone Moi at a press conference.
These incidents, according to Barrack Mbaja, so infuriated Biwott that it led to a row
between him and Ouko.
Dorothy Randiak, Dr Ouko’s sister, made three statements on 2 March, 27 March and 11
April 1990.
It is of interest that in his ‘Final Report’ Troon says Dorothy Randiak only made two
statements [Troon FR para 90] and the basis for her allegations to Troon also seems to be
conversations Troon said he had with her that were not recorded in the three written
statements.
At paragraph 91 of his ‘Final Report’ Troon reports that Dorothy Randiak maintained that
during a conversation with Dr Ouko on 6 February, when he visited her at work, he told her
of the USA visit and mentioned that the corruption allegation and the US press interviews
would kill him’.
At paragraph 97 Troon went on to say, ‘She also alleges that at a meeting with Mr Kiplagat
the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs, after the Minister’s death, but before the
funeral, the latter said that since the Washington trip Dr Ouko had “looked very disturbed”
and when “Dr Ouko had taken the Canadian Ambassador to State House he was very
uneasy and left early”. Mr Kiplagat further said that Dr Ouko was very uneasy which was
unusual, and that at the same meeting Mr Kiplagat had told her that there was a serious
disagreement on the Washington Trip between Dr Ouko and Mr Biwott and that all was not
well between the two’.
For Troon the alleged row on the ‘Washington Trip’ raised by the testimonies of Barrack
Mbaja and Dorothy Randiak, although he accepted they were based on ‘somewhat
tenuous’ facts and ‘hearsay’, provided sufficient motive for murder.
THE ‘WASHINGTON TRIP’ THEORY FALLS
Troon’s ‘Washington Trip’ theory and particularly Barrack Mbajah’s later embellishment that
Dr Ouko had been sacked and banished by President Moi, has for 21 years or more
provided one of the mainstays of the ‘Executive order’ theory that Ouko was murdered on
orders made by high level government figures. The ‘Washington Trip – Executive Order’
theory makes for intriguing and beguiling reading and over the last 21 years the story has
grown in the telling – who was there at the murder scene, where it happened and who
pulled the trigger – a story that has been repeated in parliament, books, on websites and
particularly in the nation’s newspapers time and again almost without challenge.
The problem with the Washington Trip – Executive Order theory is that when the facts are
considered, most of which have been publicly available for 20 years, the theory collapses.
There was indeed only ‘hearsay’ testimony to support it based on ‘tenuous’ facts. The
evidence is all against it.
The theory is based in the first instance on what Barrack Mbajah says Malacki Oddenyo
said to him when they met at Dr Ouko’s Loresho home during the period of mourning prior
to the funeral. It was thus a theory partly based on an alleged conversation between a man
who was not on the ‘Washington Trip’, Barrack Mbajah, with a man who was also not on
the trip, Malacki Oddenyo. And, Oddenyo denied the substance of the conversation.
At paragraph 82 of his ‘Final Report’, Troon stated that, ‘The alleged conversation has
been put to Mr Oddenyo at interview on 14th May 1990. Mr Oddenyo admits visiting the
Loresho home between the finding of the Minister’s body, and the funeral, as part of the
funeral committee. He states he did converse with Barrack Mbajah on these visits but
denies that he discussed the Washington trip or the relationship between Dr Ouko and Mr
Biwott’.
Troon took the view that Barrack Mbajah’s testimony supported that of Dorothy Randiak’s
later, mainly verbal testimony, gave sufficient to give the theory substance but it does so
only in part.
In her first two written statements (made on the 2nd and 27th of March, 1990) Dorothy
Randiak did not mention the trip to Washington. Her first two statements were entirely
about a row in Dr Ouko’s family, particularly regarding a long-running dispute with his
brother Barrack.
In her first two statements Randiak did refer to meetings with her brother Robert on
February 6th and 9th but stated that their conversations revolved around his concerns at
his brother’s actions at the first meeting and accident he had been involved at the second
meeting.
It was only during Dorothy Randiak’s third witness statement made on 11th April that she
mentioned the Washington trip. In that statement she said, “On the 6 February 1990 when
he came to see me at the College it was around 12 o’clock. I asked him if he could have
lunch, he said he did not have an appetite for lunch, he looked worried and not cheerful as
he used to be. I asked him about his trip to the US he said it was good, he said our
President was invited to address the Prayer Breakfast and he said there was a lot of
business and Government people, he said the President talked to them about the word of
God, he actually preached the Bible, people appeared to be very happy. Robert told me
that our President totally converted the minds of people who thought that Anti Christ was
being preached in Kenya.’ [DR statement, 11 April, 1990].
It was only at this point, some 50 days after the Scotland Yard investigations had begun,
on the penultimate page of her third witness statement that Dorothy Randiak, on being
asked, referred in any way to the Washington trip ‘row’. At this point she stated, ‘I
commended Robert for the Press Conference he held in the US and I also drew notice to
letters of commendation which had been written by Kenyans about the conference. He
made the following comment in Luo language, “MAGI EGIK MANEGA” which translated to
English means “THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WILL KILL ME”. He was referring to the
Press Conference in America and the number of letters he had received in the media.’
Troon also failed to point out that Dorothy Randiak’s alleged assertion that she spoke with
Bethuel Kiplagat and that they had a conversation that supported the row theory, does not
appear in any of Randiak’s three written statements. And again, the supposed source,
Kiplagat, denied the substance of the conversation [TFR para 98].
Bethuel Kiplagat gave a very different account of the Washington trip (that he had been
on) to that reported by Dorothy Randiak.
In Kiplagat’s witness statement made to Troon on 11th May 1990, he stated that ‘I did not
see Mrs Ouko but I did see his sister Dorothy. I had a general conversation with her but I
did not mention to her that Dr Ouko was worried or concerned about anything.’ [Bethuel
Kiplagat Witness Statement]
As to a meeting with President Bush and any row on the Washington trip, Kiplagat had this
to say: ‘There was one press conference held in Washington on the day of our departure.
This conference was given by Dr Ouko and I and other members of the delegation were
present but not all… There was no formal meeting of the delegation as to who should
appear on the press conference but our PR people in the US advised us that this should
be Dr Ouko. As far as I am aware there was no member of the delegation who objected to
Dr Ouko giving the press conference… I can say that Dr Ouko did not meet any other US
Government official privately or officially. All the time I was with Dr Ouko, I never found
anything unusual in his character or behaviour in the USA or his return. He was contented
and happy and said how pleased he was that the visit turned out well. As far as I could see
and understand there was no friction or misunderstanding between Dr Ouko or any other
member of the delegation in the USA. His relationship with Mr Biwott was normal and
there was no interference and they supported one another…’
Kiplagat added, ‘The last time I saw Dr Ouko was on Monday the 5th of February when we
met at State House with the President and the Canadian Ambassador and Dr Ouko was
his usual self and did not appear worried’. [Behuel Kiplagat Statement 11 May 1990].
Troon obviously accepted the word of Barrack Mbajah and Dorothy Randiak and not that of
Bethuel Kiplagat (not that he remembered even interviewing Kiplagat) and conspiracy
theorists have done like wise ever since. The “he would say that” sentiment has led
people, including Troon, to all but dismiss Kiplagat’s testimony but he was only one of
many who testified along the same lines.
‘Mr Onyango had known the Minister for some 25 years and was also very close friend of
the family’, according to Troon (para 134). He visited Dr Ouko at his Koru farm on Saturday
10th February, some three days before he was murdered. Troon recorded that when
Onyango and Ouko met that day they had a ‘general discussion’ and that, ‘They spoke
about the Washington Trip which according to Mr Onyango, Dr Ouko had said went well
with President Moi gaining popularity’.
Moses Njuguna Mahuga was the Chief of Protocol at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
International Cooperation and a member of the delegation that flew to Washington said
that ‘Dr. Ouko seemed his normal self throughout and gave no visible indication that he
was worried or concerned about anything’. In a witness statement on 24 May, 1990, he
stated:
‘I travelled from London to Washington by concorde and accompanied the President and a
number of ministers including Dr Robert Ouko, Mr Oyugi and Mr Biwott. During this visit
which was a Prayer Breakfast and therefore looked upon as private visit, I accompanied
the President throughout the programme. The late Dr Ouko was also accompanying His
Excellency. To my knowledge I am not aware that Dr Ouko met politicians or congressmen
in his official capacity. The only time I am aware that he would have come into contact with
such persons would be when we met collectively at various functions’.
Mr. Baker, the U.S. Secretary of State met the President at our hotel and Dr. Ouko was
also present and other cabinet ministers including Mr. Biwott, President Bush and
President Moi met with other Heads of State only. I am not aware of any incident of friction
or disagreement between any member of the delegation throughout the trip to Washington.
The return trip to Kenya was without incident. Dr. Ouko travelled on concorde to London
with the President and then by Kenya Airways to Nairobi. On arrival in Nairobi Dr. Ouko
seemed his normal self and had travelled in his normal position on the aircraft which is a
double seat next to the President’s double seat. Dr. Ouko would be seated next to Mr.
Biwott… the President and Dr. Ouko were in conversation in the normal manner. In fact, on
arrival at Nairobi, Dr. Ouko passed a note to me for Mr. Kiplagat indicating that His
Excellency wished to see the Canadian High Commissioner the following morning at State
House at 9am. On that morning, Dr. Ouko was also present. That is the last time I saw the
late minister. As Chief of Protocol, it was my own responsibility to plan the programme for
the trip to Washington. Should there have been any open incident which had occurred
during this visit, I am sure that I would have some knowledge of it’. [114 Witness statement
Moses Njuguna Mahugu]
Kenya’s Ambassador to the United States at the time of the ‘Washington Trip’, Mr. Denis D.
Afande, C.B.S., was moved some eight years later (30 October, 1998) to issue a lengthy
statement in the ‘hope that those who read it will ignore some of the malicious rumours
which have appeared in the media, books and other publications on the death of the late
Minister for Foreign Affairs and attempting to connect it with the [Washington] visit’.
In his statement… he stated that Dr Ouko and Nicholas Biwott had travelled together in the
official car ‘to all common destinations of events of the programme for the visit’, and that,
‘As I had the opportunity of being with them, I can verify that they were both very happy
and enjoyed travelling together. I did not see any incident of “bad blood” between them as
has been alleged”. [119 letter to Mr Kathuirima from Denis Afande, 30 October, 1998].
Denis Afande said he was present at ‘all meetings which H.E. the President held with
some U.S. Congressmen, the Secretary of State, James Baker, The Assistant Secretary
for Africa, Howard Cohen and other groups… I also attended the meetings which the
Minister of Foreign Affairs the late Dr Robert Ouko held at the [Willard Intercontinental]
hotel’, and, ‘I was also present during most of the briefings by the Minister [Ouko] to His
Excellency the President on those he (the Minister) met. H.E the President was happy with
the discussions the Minister was holding and expressed his appreciation to that effect’.
Significantly, Denis Afande declared, ‘Having been involved in making the appointments for
the meetings the late Dr Ouko attended, I am not aware of any meetings he held with other
U.S. Government officials not indicated in the programme’, and, ‘I am surprised to hear
rumours that there was a secret meeting between President Bush and the late Minister.
There was no meeting between the two’ [our underlining].
The Kenya police ‘Further Investigations’ Report stated that, ‘The security officials and
other Government officials who were with the Kenyan delegation were interviewed and all
denied any knowledge of the alleged quarrel or conflict between Hon. Biwott and Dr. Ouko’,
and concluded that, ‘There is no evidence to confirm that Dr. Ouko while in Washington
met President Bush, an action which is alleged to have infuriated Hon. Biwott and caused
the conflict’. [KPFI p43, 7:4 (ii)]
So the testimony of those on the ‘Washington Trip’, the view of the Kenya police, and even
it seems the words of Dr Ouko at the time strongly suggest that there was no ‘row’ and that
the alleged cause of the ‘row’, a meeting between Dr Ouko and President Bush, did not
take place. But was there any independent evidence to back this up? The answer is yes
there was and the evidence for it seems to be reliably based.
In 2003 President Bush’s diary from the relevant period, giving a minute-by-minute account
of Bush’s activities and meetings, was made public by the Bush Presidential Library at the
Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. The Library, which is U.S. Government
funded and administered, keeps documentary and photographic archives of President
Bush’s period in office.
The entries for the three days that the Kenyan delegation was in Washington make no
mention of any private meeting between President Bush, Dr Ouko, or President Moi. [120]
The archivist at the Bush Library, Warren Finch, searched the library’s files and stated that
there were no photographs of Bush meeting Ouko.
And 31 August 2000, President Bush’s lawyer (Andrew & Kurth LLP) confirmed that ‘Mr
Finch’s statement and the accompanying archival materials… constitute the most accurate
record of the events described’. [121]
It would appear that the alleged meeting during the ‘Washington Trip’ between Dr. Robert
Ouko and President George Bush never took place.
For the sake of investigating the ‘row – sacked – banished’ theory however, let us look for
any evidence that might support or undermine it from the time Dr Ouko returns to Nairobi.
The theory ran that Dr Ouko had been sacked, not flown back on the same flight as the
rest of the delegation, had his passport removed when he did get back to Jomo Kenyatta
Airport, was sacked by President Moi and banished to his Koru farm, and had his official
body bodyguard and driver removed.
Eston Barrack Mbajah, Dr Ouko’s brother, stated in his affidavit or 13 September, 1991
that’ ‘I was informed by my late brother that, after arriving from America, my brother’s
passport was seized at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport by security officials’. [110]
The evidence to destroy this theory is if anything even more solid than those that
undermine the ‘meeting with Bush led to row’ theory.
One of the most conclusive pieces of proof that is and has been readily available for 21
years, and should have been used by investigating authorities and the media to discredit
the ‘banished theory’ is the photographic evidence that proves he landed with Moi and the
delegation on 4th February, 1990.
The departure and return of Moi’s delegation to Washington were public and newsworthy
events. Not only were hundreds of people at Jomo Kenyatta Airport there to see the
delegation depart and return, so were the mass media in Kenya at the time.
Photographs available in archives in Nairobi, dated 4th February 1990, clearly show
President Moi coming off the Kenya Airways flight, meeting assembled dignitaries and
crowd, walking amongst the crowd and being welcomed by dancers.
A few steps behind Moi, in clear view, is the figure of Dr. Robert Ouko. There are
photographs too of Moi and Ouko together greeting the people and walking among the
crowd. Ouko was on that flight.
The evidence is also overwhelming that Dr Ouko continued to act in his official capacity
after returning from the ‘Washington Trip’, continued to give instructions to his staff and
was planning to fly to the Gambia in his official capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs on
the 14th February.
On Monday 5th February, the day after returning from Washington, Dr Ouko was at State
House at a meeting between President Moi and the Canadian Ambassador. [1, TFR para
9, 97 and 220]
Later that day Ouko travelled to Koru, driven by his official driver Joseph Yogo Otieno and
accompanied by his bodyguard Gordon Ondu.
On Thursday 8 February at 8.30am Ouko telephoned his Permanent Secretary, Bethuel

Kiplagat, to cancel a press conference due for that evening. [1 TFR para 14]
On the same day at about 11am, Dr Ouko gave instructions to his bodyguard Gordon Ondu
to take time off and report back to him on 12th February. [1 TFR para 16]
On Saturday 10 February 1990, Dr Ouko opened the first Inter-Country Conference of

Rotary District 920 in Kisumu. [1 TFR para 17 and 112 photo of DRO plus article at event]
On Monday 12th February Dr Ouko called Mr Susan Ngeso Anguka, his Personal
Assistant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and told her he would be back in the office on
the following morning. [1 para 21]
At about 4pm on the 12th February Dr Ouko called his bodyguard Gordon Ondu and told
him to be at the Bata Shoe Shop in Kisumu at 8am the next morning (February 13th) and
that they would then proceed to Kisumu Airport to board the morning flight to Nairobi. [1
TFR para 22]
Throughout the entire period from Ouko return from Washington until the day before his
was killed, his wife Mrs Christabel Ouko continued to use his official driver, Joseph Yogo
Otieno. [TFR para 108]
The evidence of Dr Ouko’s Chief of Protocol, Moses Njuguna Mahuga, was that he was
expecting Dr Ouko to travel to the Gambia on 14th February to represent President Moi at
the 25th anniversary of Gambia’s independence. Ouko was booked on flight KQ 164 and
government officials were waiting for him to arrive at Nairobi airport for the flight.
As for Dr Ouko’s passport, which according to his brother Barrack over a year later, had
been confiscated on arrival at Jomo Kenyatta Airport on 4th February, 1990, there is all but
conclusive evidence that no such event took place.
On 13th March, 1990, Mrs Christabel Ouko signed the following short statement to
Superintendent John Troon of Scotland Yard. ‘I would wish to state further to the statement
that I have given to Superintendent John Troon that today on the request of the C.I.D
Nairobi I have handed over my passport No D0002818 and that of my late husband
passport No D002700’. [Christabel Ouko’s statement, 13 March 1990]
If Dr Ouko’s passport had been ‘seized’ how did Mrs Ouko happen to have it to hand to
Troon? And if it had been seized, why did Mrs Ouko never mention it in any of her
testimony?
So Dr Ouko wasn’t sacked, his passport was not removed, he was not banished and
his bodyguard and driver were not ‘removed’.
That Dr Ouko was planning to fly to Gambia as Kenya’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, there
can be little or no doubt. Ouko told the same to his ministry staff, his bodyguard, his wife,
his daughter Lillian, his sister Dorothy, and, if they are to believed, Marianne Briner Mattern
and Hezekiah Oyugi. And the alert that Dr Ouko was missing was raised because he did
not turn up, as he was expected to do, at Nairobi Airport on 14th February to board Kenya
Airways flight KQ 164 to The Gambia.
Of course Barrack Mbajah’s testimony, and Troon’s theory from which it arose, was that
there was not just a row in Washington between Biwott and Ouko over a meeting the latter
was alleged to have had with President Bush but that it was sufficiently vehement for it to
be a motive for murder. But there is also substantial evidence that Nicholas Biwott and Dr
Ouko, far from being at each others throats were at least working together amicably.
Biwott and Ouko shared a car together in Washington and London. They stayed on the
same floor in the same hotel together in Washington and London. And as we have seen
they seem to have been on the same flight together, a fact further confirmed by the release
in 2003 of the seating plan British Airways Flight BA 189 (Concorde) for Monday 29
January, 1990. [115, 116, 117]
There is also evidence in Dr Ouko’s own handwriting relating to an offer of employment for
his son Ken that goes against the Biwott-Ouko row theory.
Dr Ouko’s diary entry for 2nd February 1990 (so when he would have been on the way
back from Washington), reads, ‘Hon. Biwott told me Ken is to be recruited to the Ministry of
Energy, even as a student’. A witness, James K’Oyoo, who was in all other respects very
much an adverse witness as far as Biwott was concerned, confirmed that the entry was in
Dr Ouko’s own hand [118]. It seems unlikely that Biwott, then the Minister for Energy, would
have offered Dr Ouko’s son a job if his was a deadly enemy of his father at the time.
But if the ‘Washington Trip’ was not the scene of a ‘row’ what would account for Troon’s
assertions that Dr Ouko was ‘pensive’ and worried on his return?
In so much that there is testimony and evidence that something was deeply concerning Dr
Ouko at this time there appear to be several other well attested reasons as to possible
causes, as we shall see.
And even Troon was eventually to admit that the basis for the ‘Washington Trip’ allegation,
Dr Ouko’s Brother Barrack Mbajah, was not necessarily ‘a witness of truth’.
BARRACK & THE NOTE
Barrack Mbajah’s claim that Dr. Ouko had left a note with the maid Salina Were to be
passed to his brother naming those who were abducting him and who they were going to
take him to seems odd in the extreme.
Barrack, in a lengthy 30 page written testimony to Scotland Yard on 31 March 1990, made
no mention of the note. Nor it seems did he mention it to the Kenya police. He made the
claim regarding the note in his affidavit 20 months after the murder. And the note was
never produced or found.
As we shall see there was without question a serious long-running dispute between
Barrack and his brother Robert that lasted until the time of the latter’s murder. Such was
the nature of the disagreement that it seems highly unlikely Dr. Ouko, in his time of
greatest trouble, would have left a note for Barrack rather than, say, for his wife.
It would also seem unlikely that with a team of abductors at hand Dr. Ouko would have had
time, or indeed have been given time, to return to his house to leave a note. It would be
equally unlikely that the abductors would tell him to whom he was to be taken.
Critically, Salina Were denied ever having received such a note from Dr. Ouko.
As we have seen, Barrack Mbajah’s claim in his affidavit that Dr. Ouko had been sacked
and banished after the return from Washington and his passport taken away, has been
proved to be false. Equally, his claim that all was well between him and his brother was at
odds with the testimony of many witnesses, not least that of his own wife (but also of Mrs
Ouko, Dorothy Randiak and several others). Esther Molly Mbajah, Barrack’s wife, stated in
her written testimony that ‘Up until the time of Robert’s death the relationship between
Robert and Barrak remained the same, they had not settled their differences’. [112,
statement by Esther Molly Mbajah, 29 March 1990]
Even Troon, who had originally regarded Barrack Mbajah as a truthful witness, had to
agree that this was not so. During the Judicial Inquiry Troon was finally forced to admit,
having been asked by Mr Justice Gicheru, “is your position that there was no truth in what
Barrack Mbajah told you?” [that the brothers had resolved their differences amicably] Troon
replied, “It would appear so since there is a conflict between Barrack and several other
persons”.
Troon had admitted that Barrack Mbajah had been lying.

TROON’s SECOND THEORY
THE ‘KISUMU MOLASSES PROJECT’ AND THE ‘CORRUPTION REPORT’
Troon’s second theory that he came to believe was that there had been a dispute between
Robert Ouko and Nicholas Biwott over the cancellation of a project to build a Molasses
plant at Kisumu in Dr Ouko’s constituency; that Biwott and others, through an intermediary,
had sort to extract ‘kickbacks’ from the project; and that Dr Ouko, at the time of his murder,
was writing a ‘corruption report’ to go to President Moi exposing the scandal. It could have
been in an attempt to stop this exposure, according to Troon, that Dr Ouko was murdered.
The basis for this Troon theory were allegations of corruption made by a Mr Domenic
Airaghi and a Ms Marianne Briner-Mattern, directors of BAK International, a company
based in Switzerland that had tendered to Dr Ouko when he was Minister for Industry to
re-start the ‘Molasses Project’. [1 TFR]
It is again important to note at this stage that Troon’s ‘Molasses Project-Corruption Report’
theory was based almost entirely on the allegations of Airaghi and Briner-Mattern (the
‘BAK Directors’) and documents produced by them.
During the Judicial Inquiry, on November 18th 1991, Troon was pressed by Mr Bernard
Chunga to give the basis for his theory. “But by and large, your principal witnesses on the
allegations of corruption would be the BAK Directors?” he finally asked Troon, who replied
“Yes they are, my Lords”. [2 Judicial Inquiry Transcript, 18 Nov 1991, pages 24-25]
Domenic Airaghi’s and Marianne Briner-Mattern’s alleged that intermediaries on behalf of

the Hon. Nicholas Biwott (for himself and for President Moi), the Hon. Prof. George Saitoti,
the Hon. Elijah Mwangale and Mr Abraham Kiptanui, asked for bribes in order to facilitate
the ‘progress’ of the Molasses Project; that Nicholas Biwott favoured a rival tender for the
project from whom he hoped to get a “kickback”; and that when these bribes were not
paid, Nicholas Biwott stood in the way of the Project and had Domenico Airaghi expelled
from Kenya.
Troon concluded that when, approximately two years after the material events Robert
Ouko determined to write a report to President Moi to inform him of these facts based
substantially on the ‘evidence’ provided by Marianne Briner-Matter, Nicholas Biwott learned
of this fact. This, according to Troon, provided the motive for murder.
Later, it was alleged, Nicholas Biwott tried to replace the ‘BAK Group’ with his own
nominated Canadian firm who conducted the study and, it is to be inferred, paid the
Nicholas Biwott bribes. This variation on the allegation was made by a James K’Oyoo.
THE KISUMU MOLASSES PROJECT
Originally proposed in 1977 by the Madhvani Group as a joint venture with the Kenyan
government to create jobs and generate revenue in a poor area, the Molasses Project
looked to build a plant near Kisumu to produce alcohol and other products from raw
molasses. Work on the project began in 1981 but by 1983 the Kenyan Chemical and Food
Corporation, the government’s special purpose vehicle set up to partner the Madhvani
Group was insolvent and the Kenyan government was forced to stand by loan guarantees
made. By then the cost of the project had reached $119 million against the original total
project projected cost of $61.4 million.
Over the next four years various proposals were put forward to revive the project but all
required funding from the Kenyan government which had adopted the firm policy that no
funds were to be made available and any future revival of the project would have to obtain
external financial support.
In 1986 President Moi at a rally in the Moi Stadium, Kisumu, that the Kisumu ‘Molasses
Project’ was going to be revived and Dr Ouko, in whose constituency the plant was sited,
would be placed in charge of its revival. [13, third witness statement of John Erik Reru]
In 1987 Ouko was appointed Minister of Industry, the Ministry that would take the lead role
in managing the plants revival. Troon stated that ‘Dr Ouko was primarily concerned in the
revitalisation of the project for two reasons. 1. The enhancement of his political career and
2. The increase of approximately 2000 in employment for an area with very high
unemployment figures’. [1 TFR para 147]
Under Dr Ouko’s leadership the Kisumu Molasses Project moved on apace.
ENTER DOMENICO AIRAGHI, MARIANNE BRINER-MATTERN AND ‘THE BAK

GROUP’
In early June 1987 Dr Robert Ouko was introduced in Nairobi to a Domenico Airaghi who
told him that he was a director of ‘BAK Group’ a company that acted as consultants for
private and government projects in Africa. It would seem that the two men discussed the
Molasses Project resulting in Dr Ouko asking Airaghi to provide a list of “suitable
international companies to carry out the required work at the Molasses plant in Kisumu”.
On 11th June 1987 Airaghi met with Dr Robert Ouko at his office and three days later,
together with District Commissioner Mr Ali Sheike visited the Molasses project.
On 29th July 1987Airaghi and Ouko met again, this time with the Permanent Secretary to
the Ministry of Industry, Prof. Gacii, Dr Dangami, Director Ministry of Industry and Mr King
representing the Attorney General. By the end of the meeting Airaghi had agreed to search
for the funding for the Molasses Project, find a reputable international contractor to
undertake its completion, and obtain a grant from the Italian Government to fund a study
into the status of the plant and assess what needed to be done to complete it.
On 6th August 1987 in a ‘Letter of Intent’ to Domenico Airaghi, Dr Ouko authorised the
BAK group, an Italian company, to look for and obtain funding for the project and to
nominate companies to undertake its completion. [25]
On 23rd September, 1987, an Inter-ministerial meeting chaired by Dr Ouko agreed to issue

a letter of intent to BAK and that “the Italian Company has offered to complete the project
and has undertaken to mobilize funds for this purpose.”
On the 3rd November, 1987, the Kenyan Cabinet accepted the recommendation of a sub-
committee chaired by Dr Ouko and agreed that the BAK group should complete the
Kisumu Molasses complex and BAK’s nominated company Technit be awarded a contract
for the study and rehabilitation of the Molasses Project.
It is important to note that the Cabinet meeting of the 3 rd November, 1987, having made the
final decision to award contracts to BAK and Technit, assigned specific duties to the
Ministries of Industry (Ouko), Finance (Saitoti) and the Attorney General. The Cabinet did
not assign any further duties in the project to the Ministry of Energy, Planning and
Agriculture, Nicholas Biwott in this project. In November 1987 his formal role in the
Molasses project effectively came to an end.
Bilateral talks took place in Italy on the 5th and 6th of November attended by Kenya’s
Minister of Finance, George Saitoti. The minutes of these talks and the list of delegates
show that Biwott did not attend.
On the 15th December, 1987, a letter from the Minister for Industry to the Permanent
Secretary at the Ministry for Finance confirmed that Dr Ouko, in the presence of Domenico
Airaghi, BAK’s Managing Director, had countersigned an offer from Techint regarding a
study of the agro-chemical complex at Kisumu for which a grant of US $ 1M was to be
made available by the Italian Government, and the contract for the rehabilitation and
completion of the agro-chemical complex at Kisumu for an indicative figure of 25M ECU in
respect of which the Italian Government had expressed an interest in providing a soft loan.
The Kisumu Molasses Project seemed set well on course and it would not have escaped
the notice of many local people that in February 1988 workers appeared at the site and
began to clear the drains, water pump site and mend the factory’s fence. Earlier that month
a bank account was opened in the Kenya Commercial Bank, Kisumu, by Domenico Airaghi
with the intention to pay workers in Kisumu to clear up the Molasses plant site. At the same
time BAK took possession of the Molasses Plant site, employed workers to clear the site
and announced that the rehabilitation process had commenced.
Dr Ouko was without question keen that the Kisumu Molasses Project should be revived to
bring much needed employment for his constituents and revenue into the area but he was
also a politician facing an election in two months time and he was by no means unaware of
the electoral benefit to him personally of the announcement of the revival of the Molasses
project, the employment of up to 2,000 local people and the prospect of yet more
employment to come, would have. And he was not just facing an election with a
guaranteed result, he was facing an election in which his victory was by no means certain
and against stiff, even vicious, opposition.
In the event, Dr. Ouko was re-elected but the margin of victory was tight, a majority of little
more than 2,000 votes.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE KISUMU MOLASSES PROJECT 1988-1991
The Kenyan Cabinet had awarded the contract for carrying out the study and rehabilitation
of the project to Techint and not to BAK. According to this contract the study was to
establish the viability of the project before any rehabilitation work could begin. Neither BAK
nor Techint had procured a grant from the Italian Government to finance the feasibility
study and Techint had not come to the site to commence the feasibility study.
A letter dated 9th February, 1988, from Techint to the Minister for Industry, Dr Ouko, Techint
stated that it had been informed by the Italian Government that the procedure to obtain a
grant to finance the study would take several months and that therefore due to the urgency
of the project, Techint proposed that the Kenya Government should meet the cost of the
first part of the study and requested the sum of US $ 500,000 to be paid by way Letter of
Credit.
Following the general election in March 1988, Dalmas Otieno replaced Dr Ouko as Minister
for Industry on 19th March, and thus took over responsibility for the Molasses Project.
In June 1988 Technit withdrew from the contract and BAK selected an Italian company,
Tecnomasio Italiano/Brown Boveri (TIBB), to replace them.
In a Telex dated 12th July, 1988, the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Industry asked the
Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs to inform BAK that a contract made with
Techint was not transferable.
On 20th July, 1988, the Italian firm ABB Tecnomasio SpA (ABB) confirmed in a letter
addressed to Dalmas Otieno, Minister of Industry and copied to the relevant ministries, that
ABB had been visited by Airaghi of BAK Group who presented to them several projects
foreseen in Kenya by BAK. ABB confirmed their acceptance of the nomination by BAK as
project leader in the rehabilitation of the Molasses Project Complex in Kisumu.
ABB also informed the Kenya Government that the existing regulations in Italy did not allow
the award of the contract for the study and rehabilitation to the same company if both
activities were to be funded by a grant from Italian Government.
On 26th July, 1988 BAK wrote to the Ministry of Industry confirming that the existing
regulations in Italy for co-operation projects, which were financed by a soft loan, would not
allow the same company to undertake the study and the implementation; that BAK had
nominated TIBB to undertake the study; that TIBB had calculated the cost of the study at
US$200,000.00 and had agreed to meet two thirds of this costs and that the Kenya
Government would be required to meet the remaining on third of the cost.
BAK made a further request to the Minister for Industry by Telex on the 18th August, 1988,
requesting for payment of the deposit of US$50,000.00 (Kshs.900,000.00).
In a letter to the US Ambassador in Kenya from Ministry of Industry on the 27th September,
1988, it was confirmed that there had been a meeting between the Minister for Industry,
Dalmas Otieno, and the Director of Trade and Development (USAID), and representative
of the US Embassy, and that the Kenya Government had selected a US company known
as F C Schaffer & Associates to undertake a study of the Kisumu Molasses Project.
On the 17th October, 1988, BAK stated in a letter to the Permanent Secretary and Secretary
to the Cabinet, copied to the Minister for Industry that it had decided to carry out the
feasibility study for free, (notwithstanding that it had already spent Ksh.1M).
A month later on November 17th, 1988, TIBB wrote to Minister for Industry declaring that it
was willing to advance to the Kenya Government the cost of the study. The condition of the
advance was to be that if either the Kenya Government decided not to implement the
project after study or if there is delay in receiving from the Italian Government the grant or
the soft loan, the Kenya Government would refund to TIBB US$200,000.00
TIBB’s letter of the 17th also stated that TIBB and BAK had nominated another Italian
company known as Societa Montagi Industriali (S.M.I) to carry out the study.
On the 23rd November, 1988, the Minister for Industry, Dalmas Otieno, told Parliament that
BAK was of doubtful integrity.
In his witness statement dated 21st May 1990, Dalmas Otieno succinctly gave one of his
reasons for removing BAK and its ‘directors’ from the Molasses Project. He stated ‘I
personally interviewed Mr Airaghi and I considered he was not competent to handle the
project and knew nothing about molasses. He initially asked for one million US dollars for
the feasibility study, he then halved this sum, and eventually settled for 300,000 dollars’.
[39, Dalmas Otieno witness statement 21 May 1990]
On the 15th March 1989, Domenico Airaghi was arrested at the Hilton Hotel in Nairobi by
immigration officers whilst on a business trip to Kenya and expelled from the country for
alleged ‘interference with Government matters’.
One of the many myths arising from the investigations and the subsequent the re-telling of
the story is that Domenico Airaghi was thrown out of Kenya by Nicholas Biwott, the Energy
Minister. There appears to be no evidence for this.
Troon stated the allegation at paragraph 175 of his ‘Final Report’: ‘He [Airaghi] alleges that
Mr Biwott was instrumental in authorising his expulsion’. But in a long letter to Dalmas
Otieno dated 15th March 1989, Domenico Airaghi did not mention Biwott and he was clear
who he blamed for his expulsion. He wrote, ‘I have been informed that upon your request
[Airaghi’s underlining] on March 15th, I have been asked to leave Kenya, for “Interference in
Government matters, regarding the Kisumu Molasses Rehabilitiation”…’. [76 Letter to
Dalmas Otieno from Domenico Airaghi]. Airaghi’s ten page witness statement made on the
9th may 1990 also does not name Biwott in connection with his expulsion and nor does the
witness statement of Marianne Briner-Mattern made on the 22 March. Troon’s summary of
the evidence, by no means for first time, was wrong.
In its interim report dated 17th October, 1989, on the Kisumu Molasses Project and
delivered to Minister for Industry, Dalmas Otieno, FC Schaffer stated that they did not find
the project viable. The revival efforts by which had commenced in June 1987 by the
Government of Kenya finally ended there.
[The Kisumu Molasses plant was subsequently purchased from the Kenyan state in 2001
(1996?) by Spectre International Ltd, a company owned by the family of Raila Odinga,
currently Prime Minister of Kenya.]
THE MOLASSES THEORY COMES UNSTUCK
Ultimately, the evidence suggests, the ‘BAK Group’, its ‘directors’ Airaghi and Briner-
Mattern and their nominee companies were ejected from the ‘Molasses Project’ by the
Minister of Industry, Dalmas Otieno, because they had not raised the money from Italy for
the rehabilitation of the Kisumu site; they asked for various levels of substantial payments
that were not in the original agreement; and they were not ‘competent’.
It is difficult to see how the ‘Molasses Project-Corruption’ theory gained the currency it did
and continues to do so to this day. Again the information and evidence that disproves has
been available for at least 20 years and even some of those who ascribed to the theory
and in their investigations or through testimony helped to propagate came to admit that it
had little or no basis in fact. It is difficult as result to see how it could have provided a
motive for Dr. Ouko’s murder in February 1990.
The timing of the key events in the end game of the Molasses Project makes it extremely
unlikely that it was a factor in Ouko’s murder.
The project was effectively put on hold by Dalmas Otieno in March 1988, nearly two years
before the murder and Biwott’s official involvement ended at the Cabinet meeting of the 3rd
November, 1987 when specific duties for the project were handed to the Ministries of
Industry, Finance, and the Attorney General and not to Biwott’s Ministry of Energy,
Planning and Agriculture.
A multitude of official papers and correspondence also go against the theory.
The Cabinet papers, Dr Ouko’s own correspondence and other evidence prove that all
decisions relating to the Kisumu Molasses Project were ultimately taken by the Cabinet.
These were contained in the Kenya Government’s ‘Molasses File’ that were available in
1990. The British detective John Troon, however, did not ask to see the file, nor it seems
did he ask Dalmas Otieno any questions about the Kisumu Molasses Project as the British
detective John Troon accepted at the Judicial Inquiry, where the following exchange with
lawyer Ishan Kapila took place:
Kapila: “Mr Troon… you took a statement from Mr Dalmas Otieno, did you not? The
Minister of Industry?
Troon: “I did my Lords”
Kapila: “Did you ascertain any of these facts from him? [about the Molasses Project].
Troon: “I could have done it in conversation, but I don’t think it is included in his
statement. It is possible I did ask whether there was a file in existence and he said
there was but not readily available, and that is my recollection my Lords.”
Kapila: “Did you make arrangements for the provision of this file to you after that
meeting?”
Troon: “Not that I am aware of my Lords, no.”
[4 Judicial Inquiry transcript, 21 November 1991, pages 7-8]
Troon, in effect, rejected Dalmas Otieno’s evidence without ever asking for or looking at
the Government Molasses File.
If Troon had have read the file, or even have asked those in a position to know about the
Molasses Project, it is hard to believe that he would ever have put forward his theory.
The critical piece of evidence overlooked by Troon was that the two Italian firms involved
with the Molasses Project, Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) Tecnomassio SpA and Tecnomasio
Italiano/Brown Boveri, were both introduced by Domenico Airgahi to Minister Dalmas
Otieno [14 Domenico Airaghi’s witness statement, 9 May 1990] and were part of the same
multinational group. So there was no ‘rival tender’ and logically no bribe would have been
asked of, or paid by a company to win a tender against itself.
The allegation by Marianne Briner-Mattern and to a certain extent Domenico Airaghi, which
had been fully accepted by Troon and later given credence by Dorothy Randiak’s testimony
(but not mentioned in her first two witness statements), had been that Biwott, Saitoti and
others, working through an intermediary, had sought to get a ‘kickback’ for one company to
get the contract over the other.
Dorothy Randiak, Dr Ouko’s sister, however accepted under cross examination at the
Judicial Inquiry on 12th August, 1990 that there could have been no rivalry between the two
companies. Her exchanges with lawyer Kaplia are revealing.
Kapila: “Can you tell us, to the best of your knowledge, can you identify the rival group
supported by Mr Biwott?”
Randiak: “My Lords, as I was told by the late Minister, the other group was Asea Brown
Boveri.”
Kapila: “And your evidence is that at some stage Mr Biwott received a bribe from the
Brown Boveri Group?”
Randiak: “That was what I was told My Lords…”
Kapila: “Did Mr Airaghi have anything to do with the Brown Boveri Group?”
Randiak: “he did not tell me anything about that my Lords.”
Kapila: “But your evidence is that the Brown Boveri Group came into the picture after the
rejection of Airaghi’s group of companies, is that correct?”
Randiak: “That’s what I was told My Lords”.
Kapila: “And it is also your evidence that because of the pressure exerted by Mr
Biwott, the contract was given to Brown Boveri as opposed to the Airaghi
Group?”
Randiak: “Yes my Lords”
Later in the cross-examination Dorothy Randiak stated, “As a result of rejection of that
group, Airaghi
was deported from the country. As a result of the pressure put by Biwott and the rejection
of that group,
Airaghi was deported from the country in the course of that year”.
However, after being shown a letter from Asea Brown Boveri Group addressed to Dalmas
Otieno, the
Minister of Industry that showed Domenico Airaghi had introduced Technomasio (which
fully belonged
to the multinational, Asea Brown Boveri Group) to the Kenyan Government, Dorothy
Randiak was
asked, “How can they be rival groups?” She replied:
“My Lords my piece of information is based on the conversation and discussions between
me and my brother and not on the documents tabled. But on the strength of the documents
that you have read, that I have followed, it would appear that there was no rivalry.” [96
Judicial Inquiry transcript, pages 31-33 and 39]
And finally, Domenico Airaghi’s documentation proves beyond doubt that he introduced
Asea Brown Boveri. In a letter dated 30th August 1988, , Airaghi and Briner-Mattern wrote
to an Italian company, stating: ‘To answer all your questions regarding BAK’s position in
Kenya, we can inform you that ASEA-BROWN BOVERI/TECNOMASIO has signed with us
an irrevocable cooperation agreement on an exclusive basis for Kenya for government and
private projects…’ [97 letter to Fiera di Trieste from BAK]
The evidence to date provides no credible support for Troon’s theory based on
Briner-Mattern’s and Airaghi’s testimony that the primary motive for the murder of
Dr Robert Ouko was the Molasses Project. All of the available evidence is against it.
THE ‘CORRUPTION REPORT’
The second strand to Troon’s ‘Molasses Theory’ was that at the time of his murder, Dr.
Ouko was writing a ‘corruption report’ to go to President Moi exposing the Molasses
Project fraud scandal and that it could have been in an attempt to stop this exposure,
according to Troon, that Dr Ouko was murdered.
Troon stated in his ‘Final Report’ that, ‘The evidence put forward by Briner-Mattern and
Airaghi suggests quite clearly a motive to murder Dr Ouko, who according to them was
about to prepare a report to be handed to the President outlining the allegations of

corruption against Kenyan Ministers and officials.’ [TFR para 180]
Despite Troon’s assertion, the source for the ‘Corruption Report’ theory was only and
entirely Marianne Briner-Mattern. In his witness statement, Domenico Airaghi’s testimony
was, ‘The last time I spoke to Dr Ouko was either in late 1989 or early 1990. He never
discussed with me any particular incident indicating any immediate danger to himself. I
have not personally sent or received any letters from Dr Ouko in the last year’. [14 Airaghi’s
statement, 9 May 1990].
This was not the only mistake Troon was to make regarding the ‘corruption report’
allegations of Briner-Mattern.
According to Troon, Briner-Mattern made ‘very serious allegations against certain Kenyan
officials of corruption in respect of the Molasses Project… She states that in March 1989
she wrote personally to President Moi outling her allegation and grievances.’
In Briner-Mattern’s witness statement however, she stated that, ‘In March 1989,
immediately after my Director’s expulsion, I decided to write a confidential letter to His
Excellency the President of Kenya outlining the expulsion of My Director and the various
projects we had been involved in and generally expressing the situation to him. I still
wanted to complete the projects in a business like manner and asked for his support and
fair judgement’. She did not mention ‘allegations’.
The other problem with Troon’s acceptance of this part of Briner-Mattern’s allegations is
that there is no evidence that such a letter was either sent by her in March 1989, or
received by President Moi.
The basis for Briner-Mattern’s ‘evidence’ for the corruption report theory was that she
wrote and spoke to Dr Ouko shortly before his death. The communications allegedly took
the form of two letters from Briner-Mattern and two telephone calls she claimed to have
received from Dr Ouko. These were alleged to have taken place between 29th January and
the 10th February, 1990.
According to Troon, during the course of those communications Dr Ouko indicated to

Briner-Mattern that he was about to write a report to President Moi, ‘outlining allegations of
corruption against Kenyan Ministers and officials.’ [TFR para 180]
In his ‘Final Report’ Troon reported that, ‘She [Briner-Mattern] states that on 29th January
1990 she wrote and posted a letter to Dr Ouko at his PO Box No 48955 Nairobi outlining
the allegations and urging Dr Ouko to assist, and tell the truth. She produces a copy of this
letter which according to her, was sent by Air Mail’. [TFR paras 167-172]
In paragraph 168 Troon continued:
‘Mrs Briner-Mattern maintains that on Monday 5th February 1990 at around lunch time she
received a telephone call from Dr Ouko. She says the call was timed around lunch time
(Swiss time) and believes he was making it from his own office. According to Briner-
Mattern Dr Ouko told her that he had received her letter and requested her to send copies
of additional correspondence in relation to her allegations to his Kisumu box number. This
she says she did and posted it on the same day. There is no independent evidence that Dr
Ouko received this correspondence. But the mail was collected on Thursday 8 th and
Saturday 10th February from the Kisumu box number.’
And in paragraph 169:
‘She alleges that on Saturday 10th February 1990 during the afternoon she received
another telephone call from Ouko allegedly being made from his Koru address. Dr Ouko
according to her, said that he had received the letter and was preparing a report in relation
to her allegations for the President, to be handed to the latter before Dr Ouko’s visit to
Gambia.’
At paragraph 171:
‘Papers in relation to the BAK allegations which may have been in the possession of Dr
Ouko have not been found by the British investigators.’
Troon accepted in paragraph 167 of his ‘Final Report’ that ‘I have found no independent
evidence that Dr Ouko actually received the letter [of the 29th January]; in paragraph 168
that ‘There is no independent evidence that Dr Ouko received this letter [5 th February]; that
there was no evidence to ‘corroborate these phone calls’ [from Ouko to Briner-Mattern];
and at paragraph 172 that ‘the only supportive evidence is circumstantial’. But he
concluded, ‘I can only rely on what she says’.
Yet from this, Troon concluded in paragraph 180 of his report that the motive for Dr Ouko’s
murder could have been the report to the President outlining allegations of corruption by
Kenyan Ministers and official, and at the Judicial Inquiry in 1991 he agreed with lawyer
Oraro’s statement that, ‘the main reason why he [Ouko] disappeared according to those
findings, your findings, the main motive was to get hold of those documents’ [the BAK
letters].
From this was born the theory of the ‘corruption report’ and it is in his assessment
of this section of the Briner-Mattern allegations that Troon made his most significant
error, for he either did not read her alleged letters, or if he did, he did not
understand their implication.
Troon’s error was that the two letters supposedly sent by Briner-Mattern, particularly the
first letter allegedly sent to Dr Ouko on 29 th January 1990, do not concentrate on bribes
asked for by Kenyan Ministers and officials but rather all but threaten Dr Ouko about the
misuse of 50 workers at the Molasses Plant used for unlawful canvassing for Ouko in the
lection of 1988.
In the letter of 29th January, Briner-Mattern informs Dr Ouko that she has hired a leading
Kenyan law firm, was seeking a meeting with President Moi, and that an election fraud had
been committed by using workers tidying up the Molasses Plant to campaign on behalf of
Dr Ouko. She suggests that President Moi will be asking Dr Ouko for an explanation, that
he should prepare his defence and admit he had made a mistake. [Transcript, Briner
Mattern letter to Dr Ouko, 29th January 1990]
Briner-Mattern’s threat was made to Dr. Ouko.
On page two at paragraph two of the letter allegedly sent by Briner-Mattern on the 29th
January, she states, ‘… we believe that the reason for your non-involvement in our
defence could be found when checking on the employment of the 50 workers, since we
found out that they had been used also to “campaign” for you during the election and that
part of the money was also used to pay the youth wingers. You remember that your cousin
Ouko Reru had the signature in the Commercial Bank of Kenya account and that at the
end of the originally agreed period had asked us for an additional amount that we gave.”
She continues in the next paragraph, “Since it is possible that H.E. the President will
approach you after it seems he finally received the letter sent to him by me originally in
March 1988, I herewith enclose a copy for your knowledge and enabling you to prepare
your defence…”
The express reference to letters to the President, the information on the fifty workers and
the suggestion that Dr Ouko “get his defence in order” is without doubt a threat.
In her witness statement to Troon, Briner-Mattern said:
‘During my conversation with Dr Ouko he said he was going to Kisumu and he asked me to
send him a list of the workers as the allegations against us concerned the so called illegal
employing of the workers. He said he had given the complete Molasses file to Mr Otieno
and that I should send him copies of the workers’ details and other correspondence
including a letter to Saitoti dated 24.02.88. He said he was going to Kisumu and talk to the
people involved in the employment and get their support because he was going to make a
report to the President’.
Based on Briner-Mattern’s testimony, if Dr Ouko was writing a corruption report to go to the

President just before he was murdered he was doing so to defend allegations of corruption
made against him, not Saitoti, Otieno, Biwott or other ‘officials’.
The basis for the ‘Corruption Report’ theory was therefore a misunderstanding by
Troon of the uncorroborated testimony of Marianne Briner-Mattern, and based on
documents that have never been found.
Troon speculated that documents relating to the ‘Corruption report’ had been taken from Dr
Ouko’s but there is no evidence to support this.
That there were documents at Ouko’s Koru farm is not in doubt. That they disappeared is
not in doubt. But they could have contained Ministry of Foreign Affairs papers; they could
have contained minutes of a meeting; they could have been Dr.Ouko’s Phd thesis that he
was apparently working on at the time; or they could have been private correspondence.
And they could have been documents relating to a report into corruption at Kisumu Council
which he was known to be working on and a draft of which was found in the safe at Koru
and another handed to Scotland Yard by Mrs Ouko.
And what Troon did not know but which became public in 2003, was that Domenico Airaghi
and Briner-Mattern had a record of using forged, back-dated documentation to support
their cause, that they were not ‘honest’ and the company ‘BAK’ was not ‘reputable’.
AIRAGHI CONVICTED, BRINER-MATTERN ‘UNRELIABLE, BAK A ‘CHIMERA’
Detective Superintendent John Troon based his all but total acceptance of the Briner-
Mattern and Airaghi allegations on his assessment that they were ‘honest’ and ran a
‘reputable’ company.
He stated so to the Judicial Inquiry in 1991:
“In my view I interviewed one of the witnesses, and one of my colleagues interviewed the
other one. That is the advantage I have over you and as far as I assessed those
witnesses, they were truthful and honest witnesses, and having talked to them my Lords, it
was conveyed to me that they were under a reputable company…”
His assessment was wrong… badly wrong.
For all of the time that Dominic Airaghi was negotiating with the Kenyan Government
regarding the Molasses Project he was in fact out on a bail having been convicted and
sentence by a court in Milan after been found to have committed offences of corruption
and presenting false evidence.
On the 14th March 1987, Dominico Airaghi and an accomplice were convicted (Civil and
Criminal Court of Milan) on charges of corruption. The Court found that Airaghi had
presented false evidence and false documents in an attempt to establish his defence. The
Justice described Airaghi as having displayed "the attributes of an International Fortune
Hunter. [71 Milan Judges remarks]
Marianne Briner-Matter, or Marianne Briner as she termed herself at the time, who
described herself as a “secretary” of “International Escort” an “employment agency”, gave
evidence in Airaghi’s defence. The court found her evidence in support of Airaghi to be
false. The judge said of Marianne Briner, “who lived with Airgahi”, that it would better to
draw a “compassionate veil” over her testimony and commented on her “unreliability” as a
witness. [71 Milan Judges remarks]
Airaghi appealed against his conviction, the final appeal ending in the conviction being
upheld on the 4th April, 1991. [72]
Nor was BAK a bona fide company as Troon assumed and as the Kenyan government had
been led to believe.
Various BAK entities were found to have used four different names and two addresses in
just three years. The addresses given for each entity were low rent offices in Baden,
Switzerland.
Coincidently or not, 'BAK Group Marianne Briner + Partner' was only finally registered as a
joint partnership on 13th February 1990, the day that Robert Ouko was murdered.
Liquidation proceedings against this BAK company began in Switzerland on 25th February
1992 and in June 1992 it was struck off the Register of Companies. At the same time as
the insolvency proceedings in Switzerland, Airaghi and Briner-Mattern established PTA
BAK Group International Consultants in Spain. It was also subsequently to be struck off
the corporate register.
After Dr Ouko's murder, Domenico Airgahi and Marianne Briner-Mattern's claim for losses
in relation to the 'Molasses Project' increased from $150,000 to $5.975 million.
Had Troon known of the backgrounds of Domenico Airaghi and Marianne Briner-Mattern it
is unlikely that he would have included their evidence in his report but he did not undertake
fundamentally important basic investigative steps before accepting them as ‘truthful and
honest witnesses’ or arriving at his conclusions.
Troon’s theories, based on the testimony of Domenico Airaghi and Marianne Briner-
Mattern, of corruption linked to the Molasses Project and the writing of a ‘Corruption
Report’ by Dr Ouko, have been proven to be without any evidential basis.
“WHO KILLED DR. R. J. OUKO AND WHY?” –

COULD IT HAVE BEEN AIRAGHI AND BRINER-MATTERN?
During the Kenya police’s ‘Further Investigations’ they ‘came across’ a document (the
report does not say how) entitled, “Who Killed Dr. Ouko and Why?” It was signed but the
signature was unreadable and underneath the signature was typed, ‘Dated this 4th
December, 1991 at Rome’. [Who Killed Dr. R. J. Ouko and Why?]
The document of unknown origin alleged that ‘Mrs. Marianne’ and ‘Mr. Airaghi’ were the
master minds behind the murder of the late Dr. Ouko’. [KPFI page 71, 9:1]
It claimed that Briner-Mattern, a woman the document describes as ‘of questionable

morality,’ had ‘enticed, lured and consorted with several Kenyans in the 1970s notable
among her victims and/or beneficiaries those days include cabinet ministers especially Dr.
Njoroge Mungai’. [Page 1 Who Killed Dr. R. J. Ouko and Why?]
It also claimed that Briner-Mattern was ‘on espionage assignments in Kenya, but she
combined a number [of] questionable roles with business and holidaying as cover-ups’.
‘In 1979, the then Kenya’s Principal Immigration officer Mr. James Mutua personally
deported her’ the document stated but ‘She came back in the mid 8o’s this time diquised
[sic] as a married, respectable and resourceful business executive…’ [Page 2 Who Killed
Dr. R. J. Ouko and Why?]
‘It is in the course of Marriane’s operations in Kenya in late 1986 that she identified the
Kisumu Molasses plant as a possible project for realizing part of her grand plan to swindle
Kenya’s and Italian governments money’. [Page 2 Who Killed Dr. R. J. Ouko and Why?]
The “Who Killed Dr. R. J. Ouko and Why?” document claimed that Briner-Mattern and
Airaghi won over Dr Ouko to believe that they could help arrange funding for the
rehabilitation of the Molasses Plant and that they helped fund Ouko’s 1988 election
campaign as he was ‘crucial for the success of Marriane’s plans’:
‘…Dr. Airaghi provided money to finance Dr. Ouko’s election campaign and Harambee
funds drives. The staggering amounts used to campaign for Dr. Ouko was banked in two
accounts in two State banks in Kisumu: KCB and National Bank of Kenya. These
arrangements were approved by Dr. Ouko and executed by Mr. Reru who was Dr. Ouko’s
cousin and campaign manager. Reru and Dr. Airaghi were the two signatories to the
accounts with Charles Owino of NBK Kisumu, close associate of Oyugi’s, overseeing the
money laundering operations. Casual labour was hired to provide a cover to the real
activities of Dr. Airaghi and group. In actual fact, bush clearing within the molasses plant
was done for a few days.’
The central allegations were that after Dr Ouko became Minister of Foreign Affairs in
March 1989 and the Molasses Project ground to a halt, Briner-Mattern and Airaghi
pressured and threatened him to get the money-making project underway but he failed to
do so. Bitter at the waste of their time and money, Brinner-Mattern and Airaghi
‘orchestrated’ a conflict ‘between Dr. Ouko and some of his colleagues – notably the
Industry and Energy Ministers’ (Dalmas Otieno and Nicholas Biwott respectively).
Far from Dr. Ouko writing a report on corruption among other Ministers at the time of his
murder the “Who Killed Dr. R. J. Ouko and Why?” document stated that he was writing one
on the corrupt dealings of the BAK group and PEC (a consortium of companies from Italy
and Switzerland that had been involved with the initial building of the Molasses Plant). It
was for this reason that Briner-Mattern and Airaghi planned to kill Dr Ouko, the document
alleged.
In preparation for the murder, it was claimed, ‘several fictitious letters allegedly written by a
consortium of firms in Italy and Switzerland were churned out to various people and
institutions. Detailed corrupt practices in Kenya, some true and some not true were weaved
and dispatched. Some of these went to Dr. Ouko.’
They then recruited, so the story went, at least six people to carry out the murder. These,
allegedly, were:
‘Oyugi – because he feared exposure by Dr. Ouko
Mbajah – Ouko’s brother whose wife had an affair with Dr. Ouko
Omino - a long time political opponent of Dr. Ouko

Gondi - financial adviser to Oyugi and had got sacked from Thabiti Finance on Ouko’s
instigation
Anguka - Whos [sic] wife was Dr. Ouko’s PA and with whom Dr. Ouko had sired her two
last children
Oraro - Oyugi’s lawyer’
Later, it claimed, James K’oyoo, Ouko’s campaign manager, was brought in on the act. He
together with Oraro, ‘called on Dr. Ouko on the night of the murder. Earlier he had been
telephoned that K’oyoo would bring a lady to Dr. Ouko for the night. Then Oraro comes and
says he has some useful information to discuss with Dr. Ouko. Oraro told Ouko the
discussion would be better done in Kisumu since he suspected Ouko’s house was
bugged.’
‘And out Dr. Ouko went unguarded since Oyugi had withdrawn the security personnel
attached to him. Before being shot, Dr. Ouko was tortured to reveal who else knew about
the corruption details he had been compiling. After being killed Dr. Ouko was burnt to hide
the torture marks. Oraro later came to Dr. Ouko’s house, bribed the AP guard (Agalo) to
keep quiet and collected all the papers relating to corruption and took them to Oyugi for
onward transmission to Dr. Airgaghi’s group. The series of documents that were given to
the Ouko inquiry and stole the limelight during the proceedings were manufactured and
dispatched to Kenya to divert attention from Marrianne and Airaghis role’. [Page 8 Who
Killed Dr. R. J. Ouko and Why?]
The “Who Killed Dr. R. J. Ouko and Why?” document contained an intriguing postscript.
Written by hand, it said:
‘P.S. I am friend of Kenya and an acquaintance of Marianne. I first met with Marrianne in
1988 at Palermo, my home town. The mayor of Palermo is a close friend of mine and am a
member of Social Democrat Party. That is all about me - Do not look for me, because
Mafia might find you before you find me. Bye – cheerio’ [Page 9 Who Killed Dr. R. J. Ouko
and Why?]
In their ‘Further Investigations’ Report the Kenya police Stated they ‘found no evidence to
support the allegations’. [KPFI 9:1 page 72]
THE OUKO FAMILY ROW
That there was a severe disagreement in the Ouko family at this time there is no doubt.
Dorothy Randiak, Dr Ouko’s sister, in her first witness statement cited the cause of the row:
"In 1985 the following happened. Barrack was working as Deputy PC in Nakuru in the Rift
Valley Province. From there he was transferred to Deputy Secretary at the Attorney
generals office. He did not want this move and he blamed it on Robert [Dr Ouko] because
he had ambition to become Provincial Commissioner. Barrack discussed the move to try
and prevent it but Robert done nothing about it because of reasons of which they both
knew. This caused a lot of bitterness on Barracks part against Robert but Robert had no
bad feeling towards Barrack. The situation still exists. Barrack also influenced Collins
which in turn caused him to show bitterness against Robert also. The bitterness of both
these brothers was maintained throughout and remained until the time Robert
disappeared". [pages 1-2 Dorothy Randiak’s witness statement 2 March, 1990]
Mrs Christabel Ouko confirmed Dorothy Randiak’s assertions: “It has been common
knowledge that my husband and his brothers Barrack and Collins were not speaking to
each other and there was a serious situation between them and that conflict existed
between them. This goes back several years.” [page Mrs Christabel Ouko, statement 2
March, 1990]
Mrs Ouko continued [a couple of lines later], “It all started really because Barrack and
Collins were not in an important position like my husband and it was really jealousy. In the
beginning it was Barrack who was the worst and at the time of my husband disappearing
the conflict still existed. My husband was always discussing with me these problems and
was always baffled why his brothers were against him and scandalised him in public. In the
last elections which were in 1988 Barrack openly canvassed against my husband during
the campaign.” [page Mrs Christabel Ouko, statement 2 March, 1990]
In Dorothy Randiak’s second statement made to Troon on 27th March, 1990, she provided
further details of the alleged dispute between Dr Ouko and his brothers: “I do remember
that in December 1989 a photograph was found in my mother’s house. It was a photograph
of a family group including my mother, my father and Collins. The picture of my mother had
been cut out of the group.” [pages 1 Dorothy Randiak’s witness statement 27 March, 1990]
Later in the same statement she said, “Soon after this we had a clan meeting and Robert
addressed them and said that this cutting of the picture had been the work of Collins.”
[pages 1 Dorothy Randiak’s witness statement 27 March, 1990]
Dorothy Randiak also went on to state what she alleged her mother had said to her. “Some
time last year [1989] before the incident with the photograph, Collins had returned from
Nairobi. It was always my mother’s custom to go and greet the members of the family when
they return to Nyahera. On this occasion, Collins told mother never to come to his house
again and that if she did he would cut her to pieces”. [pages 2 Dorothy Randiak’s witness
statement 27 March, 1990]
And a few lines later in her second statement Dorothy Randiak gave what she claimed was
the reason for her brother Collins dispute with their mother. “The reason behind all this I
think is because Collins and Barrack are friendly with a man named Richard Oland. Now
this man is bad and is a bad influence on Barrack and Collins. The rest of the family have
never liked this man and it is for this reason that Collins has turned against his mother. It is
Richard that persuades the young girls of the village to go to Barrack’s house when he
comes from Nairobi and it is then that Barrack, Collins and Richard indulge in improper
behaviour. As a result there has been allegations made by these young women against all
three of these men.” [pages 2 Dorothy Randiak’s witness statement 27 March, 1990]
Dr. Joseph Oluoch, the Ouko family’s general practitioner and a family friend told Troon
that he had a telephone conversation with Dr Ouko on Monday 12th February 1990. He
said that Dr Ouko was ‘very concerned over the disruptive influence of his brothers Barrack
and Collins and the effect it was having on the stability of the SEDA family’. He also told
Troon that ‘there were other people behind the brothers using them to harass the Minister’.
[TFR para 129]
Mr Erik James Onyango was described in Troon’s ‘Final Report’ as one of Dr Ouko’s
‘closest friends’ who had known the Minister for 25 years ‘and was also a very close friend
of the family’. He confirmed to Troon that ‘the relationship between the Minister and his
brother Barrack and emphasised the point that the situation was occasionally fuelled by
political opponents of Dr Ouko.’ [TFR para 134]
Troon however, all but dismissed any link between the Ouko family row and the murder of
Dr Ouko. Remarkably, given the weight of testimony to the contrary, Troon declared in only
the sixth paragraph of his ‘Final Report’ that, ‘I have found nothing to indicate that the
Minister’s immediate family circumstances were other than normal, happy and stable’. [TFR
para 6]
However, Troon concluded:
‘To summarise the immediate family of Dr Ouko, I am not satisfied that they have told
me everything they know [Troon’s underlining]. There appears to be a shroud of fear
surrounding the whole family which prevents them from fully disclosing what I believe
some of them must know.’ [TFR para 119]
It should be stressed that Troon was not suggesting by this that the family were necessarily
involved in the murder of Dr Ouko but rather frightened of some sort of reprisal.
The Kenya police’s ‘Further Investigations’ Report however, was not dissimilar in its
conclusions. It stated, ‘We have not been able to penetrate deeply into the alleged
squabbles within the family. This was because of the unco-operative attitude adopted by
the members of the family of the late minister, particularly his sister Mrs. Randiak and his
brother Barrack Mbajah’. [KPFI 8:5 p57]
The conclusion of the Parliamentary Select Committee Investigation published in March

2005 raised similar concerns, this time about Mrs Ouko: ‘Arising from her evidence before
the Committee, it is observed that, even at this late stage, she did not tell everything she
knew about her late husband’s death for reasons best known to her. She appeared
reluctant to give evidence before the Committee and only attended when summoned
severally. The Committee observed that deeper investigations be carried out on her
evidence’. [Select Committee Investigations, march 2005, Vol I, page 97, para 211].
The Kenya police were not able to question Barrack Mbajah further as he had fled the
country to the USA. The Kenya police reported that they did not know how he had left the
country – he did appear to have used the ‘official entry’ – or why he had left and why he
was granted asylum by the United States Government.
There is no direct evidence of family involvement in the murder of Dr Robert Ouko but
each investigation conducted into his murder suggested that some knew more than they
were saying.
What is worthy or note was Troon’s reaction to and assessment of the undoubted long-
running row in the Ouko family. He either seems to ignore it or dismiss it without really
saying why. One cannot but help get the feeling that ‘family row’ theory got in the way of
theories Troon had come to believe, those arising from Marianne Briner-Mattern’s
allegations.
Dr Ouko’s brother Barrack was also facing accusations from a member of the late
Minister’s domestic staff.
THE SALINA WERE TAPES - ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BARRACK MBAJAH
Suspecting that Dr Ouko’s maid, Salina Were, was not telling everything that she knew, the
Kenya police decided to tape record telephone conversations with her.
The Kenya police’s ‘Further Investigations’ Report told how this was done:
‘It was, therefore, decided that someone whom she could trust should be looked for so that
he could talk to her while we monitor the discussion and without her knowledge. An
informer was found and a discussion took place on a number of occasions. The discussion
was taped on each occasion’. [KPFI 9:3 p73]
And then the Report set out what had been recorded:
‘In a tape recorded discussion, Salina Were alleged that on 11th February, 199o, Mr.
Barrack Mbajah held a meeting at Bulma Bar, Muhoroni where the murder of the late
minister was hatched. She claimed that Amos Agalo (now deceased) conspired with
Barrack Mbajah to murder the late minister. She went on to say that a lot of money was
paid and a motor vehicle was given to the person who was the leader of the murder gang.
She went on to say that Amos Agalo had said that he was going to kill Dr. Ouko because
he had terminated his services there.’ [KPFI 9:3 pages 73-74]
Salina Were then listed the conspirators:
Barrack Mbajah
Amos Agalo
Ouma Agalo (brother to Amos)
Zablon Agalo Obonyo (father of Amos)
Samson Odoyo
Peter Obura Raila
Jonah Anguka
Hezekiah Oyugi
‘She also mentioned Anguka’s employees namely, Anthony, Odongo and Hassan as
possible conspirators. She said that they were associates of Amos Agalo.’ [KPFI 9:3 p74]
Salina Were claimed that Ouma Agalo, his brother Amos Agalo and other conspirators
were paid Shs. 400,000/- for the murder and even named the bank, Barclays Bank,
Kisumu, where the money was allegedly paid to the conspirators by an Administrative
Police Inspector, Samuel Owino of Kamagabo. [KPFI 9:3 p74]
She went on to add more detail to her story. She alleged that Barrack Mbajah ‘was seen
near Onyango Jimbo’s home the day Dr. Ouko disappeared. The home of Onyango Jimbo
is close to where the body of Dr. Ouko was found. When Mbajah was asked where he was
going, he claimed that he missed his way to Dr. Ouko’s home. She said that she thought
Mbajah was coming from the scene where the body of the late minister was found’. [KPFI
9:3 pages 74-75]
It all sounded explosive and damaging testimony, even there may have been an element of
entrapment, but when confronted with the recordings, although she admitted that they
were recordings of her conversations, she then claimed the allegations were not true.
Salina Were said that ‘she alleged that Barrack Mbajah killed his brother brutally because
Mbajah had told a lie about her. She said that Mbajah had alleged that she had given a
document containing the names of the people who collected Dr. Ouko, which was lie. She
retracted all what she alleged in the tape.’ [[KPFI 9:3 p75]
The Kenya police conclude that Salina Were was ‘unreliable’ and had told a ‘deliberate lie’.
They therefore ‘attached no value on her tape recorded discussion with the informer’.
A WOMAN SCORNED?
The row in the wider family was not the only domestic concern Dr Robert Ouko had just
prior to his murder. In her first statement to Troon Mrs Christabel Ouko explained.
“About a month or two ago we were in Nairobi and had been out to dinner. We had a
happy evening. When we got home my husband said that something had been bothering
him for some time. He then said that in a moment of weakness he had had an affair with
another woman and there was a child as a result of this. He said he wanted to get it off his
chest. I had no previous knowledge of this, this may have been two months ago
[December, 1989]”. [Christabel Ouko’s first statement, 2nd March, 1990, p2]
She continued a few lines later, “I don’t know who this woman is even now. She has never
been identified to me. I think some of the other members of the family know about this.”
The ‘other woman’ was a Miss Herine Violas Ogembo. Troon stated in his report that she
was a “nursing officer of Golf Course, Phase 1, House 138, Nairobi” and that she stated
that she met Dr Ouko in 1982 and that they had “an association which lasted up until the
death of the Minister’ and that in May 1983 she gave birth to a daughter which Dr Ouko
acknowledged was his and monthly payments were made by him to support the child”.
[TFR para 121]
Troon continued, “It would appear that the relationship was close and the Minister would at
times either take Miss Ogembo on official visits abroad or arrange her travel to meet him at
selected venues. The relationship was apparently open and many of his close friends and
colleagues knew of their association.” [TFR paras 122 & 123]
“Dr Ouko’s brothers and sisters also knew of the relationship but his wife Christabel stated
at interview that she only discovered about the relationship during the latter part of 1989
when Dr Ouko confessed to her his association with Miss Ogembo”.
But in late 1989 and early 1990 there was evidence that Dr Ouko’s relationship with Violet
Ogembo may not have been his only ‘moment of weakness’.
Mrs Christabel Ouko, in her first statement to Troon said that some time between Dr Ouko
telling her of his relationship with Violet Ogembo (so between Nov/Dec and Feb) she had
another telephone call one evening while her husband was out working late “from a
woman who asked where my husband was as she was his wife”.
“My husband came in soon after this call and I asked where he had been. He said why did
I ask. I had not asked him ever before. I then told him about the call and he said it was a
big joke. But when he realised I was not joking he telephoned the people he had been with
to confirm where he had been.” Christabel Ouko’s first statement, 2nd March, 1990, p3]
Dr Ouko told his wife that he didn’t know who had telephoned but he would find out
“however many years it might take him”
THE ‘CO-WIFE’?
Mrs Ouko received another call about 6 o’clock one evening in mid/late January. The caller
said ‘“Is that Mrs Ouko?” and I think the person said a name which I didn’t hear. The
person was a woman. I asked her to repeat the name but she said “Never mind, I am the
co wife and I have two children of your husband, tell him to look up his children, I am going
to make life very difficult for you!” I said “Why don’t you tell him yourself?” she said “I don’t
see much of him”. She then put the phone down.’ Christabel Ouko’s first statement, 2nd
March, 1990, p3]
Christabel Ouko continued:
“When my husband came home I told him about this call and he said that he was glad that
this had happened as he could now tell me what he had found out. He told me that he had
called the lady that he had the affair with and asked if she made the telephone calls to her
home. He then told me he thought it was his brothers Barrack and Collins who had planted
some ladies to make these telephone calls to harass me and he said that at that night he
had been to the Inter Continental Hotel to a delegation meeting, and that the person who
phoned must have been there to see him leave. The lady my husband had the affair with
said Barrack had been to see her and had said to her “Why don’t you bring the child home
because I (me) was a bad person”. It has been common knowledge that my husband and
his brothers Barrack and Collins were not speaking to each other and there was a serious
situation between them and that conflict existed between them.”
Violet Ogembo, Dr Ouko’s “mistress”, also confirmed to Troon that just before Dr Ouko
died she had received anonymous telephone calls from an unknown female who claimed
that Mrs Ouko knew of the affair with her husband and that Mrs Ouko wanted to kill her
and her daughter. Ogembo stated she had told Dr Ouko of the phone calls and he in turn
had said that Mrs Ouko was also receiving similar calls. [TFR para 127]
Dorothy Randiak also gave testimony that the allegations regarding Dr Ouko and
relationships with other women might have been inter-connected with the row in the family.
In her first statement to Troon, Randiak stated:
‘I have been asked whether my brother had a mistress at any time. My answer to that is
that I do not know, but I have since learned that Robert and his wife both received
anonymous telephone calls and Robert told me it was a woman who was doing it and he
thought that Barrack had fed the information in, Robert was not worried about the
information, but was worried about Barrack’s actions and being scandalised by him to
harm his good name.’ [Dorothy Randiak, witness statement, 2nd March]
The Kenya police’s investigation looked into Dr Ouko’s ‘Domestic situation’. They noted
that: ‘The general talk in the area was that the late minister was a womanizer’. He used to
have love affairs with married women who included Mrs. Anguka, who was his Personal
Assistant [and married to Jonah Anguka]. But they also stated that, ‘We have found no
evidence for this. [KPFI 8:6 pages 59-60]
The Kenya police said they had also been given the names of other women, within the
Koru and Kisumu area, that Dr Ouko was alleged to have had relationships with but there
was no ‘concrete evidence’ to back up the allegations and that as ‘they are married
women, we have found it improper to include their names in this report’. [KPFI 8:6 p60]
Further allegations were received, namely that Dr Ouko had not stayed at his Koru farm
between February 5th and 8th.
Whilst they said they could not rule out ‘women involvement’ or that there was a ‘possibility
of women affairs having been one of the motive[s] for murder of Dr Ouko, the Kenya police
conclude the evidence was lacking.
The Kenya police’s discretion was perhaps touching but it is surprising given the weight of
testimony and that they were investigating not only a murder but a high profile murder of
Kenya’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, that this line of inquiry was not more rigorously
pursued.
Similarly, it has already been noted that the British detective John Troon largely dismissed
family and domestic issues as having played a part in Dr Ouko’s murder, and subsequent
inquiries – the Judicial Inquiry in 1990-1 and the Parliamentary Committee investigation in
2004-5 – dealt very delicately with the subject if at all.
However, the question must be posed: how angry was Mrs Ouko? She had found out in
the last five to six weeks before her husband was murdered that he had a mistress, a child
by her, used to take her on holiday and to official functions, and that her family and friends
knew all along but she did not. And having been told this she then started receiving calls
for a woman, or other women, saying that they had his children or were his ‘co-wife’. The
last of these calls appears to have been one week before Dr Ouko flew to Washington.
LOCAL POLITICS – LOCAL MOTIVES?
THE 1988 GENERAL ELECTION
Although in 1988 Kenya was a one-party state, the Kenya African National Union, or
KANU, the party did allow members to challenge each other for election. In the general
election of May 1988 Dr Robert Ouko faced a wealthy and determined opponent, Mr Joab
Omino.
The campaign according to some was a bitter affair. Troon’s ‘Final Report’ explained that
allegations had been made, ‘particularly [by] those engaged in politics of personal hatred
levelled against Dr Ouko by his political opponent in the 1988 elections Mr Joab Omino.’
According to Troon, ‘This hatred became more apparent after the election when Dr Ouko
was elected as Kisumu Town Member of Parliament. Allegations were made that Omino
and his associates plotted to harm Dr Ouko, conspired to harm his property at Nyahera,
spreading rumours to discredit Dr Ouko particularly concerning his family differences, and
during the elections an attempt was made to injure Dr Ouko by throwing acid at him’. [TFR
para 204]
One of the issues played in the campaign was the charge that Dr Ouko had not developed
the Kisumu Molasses Plant. Another issue according to some, or a rumour maliciously
spread by Dr Ouko’s opponents according to others, was that he was at odds with his
brothers, particularly his brother Barrack, whom, the story went, he had failed to help when
he needed it most. If Dr Ouko cannot even help his own brother, his opponents taunted,
how can he help his own constituents?
The allegation that acid was thrown at Ouko was found to be untrue (‘fluid’ was thrown at a
rally but Ouko was not there) but there was apparently some evidence that Omino’s
supporters spread rumours about Dr Ouko’s relationship with his brother Barrack during
the election.
Joab Omino denied any involvement in a bitter personal campaign against his opponent,
or of any ‘serious rift between them’. His alibi as to his whereabouts on the night of
12th/13th February was supported by Mr Moses Wetangula, then an advocate of the High
Court who said he was with Omino at the Serena Hotel in Nairobi between ‘approximately
6.15pm and 8.30pm on both 12th and 13th February’. [TFR para 211] This, of course, did
not give Omino an alibi for 3am – 6.30am of the morning of the 13th February, the time
during which Dr Ouko was murdered.
Omino also said he was at a meeting with Gor Malia Football Club at 5pm on the 12th but
again that did not cover the time when Dr Ouko was murdered. Troon did state that Omino
failed to make an appointment of the 13th February at 11.30am with the General Manager
of the National Bank of Kenya, Nairobi, Mr Jason Wellington Oluga. [TFR para 213]
Troon was not satisfied with alibi witness statements on behalf of Joab Omino and could
not satisfy himself as to his movements around the 12th and 13th of February. He
suggested re-interviewing the witnesses. [TFR para 214]
The Kenya police followed up on his recommendation, re-interviewing Omino and Moses
Wetangula but found ‘no evidence to associate Mr Omnio with the Murder of Dr. Ouko’.
[KPFI 8:7, pages 61-62]
Dr Ouko went on to win the election but only by the slim margin of 2,000 votes in his
constituency. The legacy of bitterness was to remain.
KISUMU COUNCIL CORRUPTION
There is ample evidence and corroborating testimony that Dr Ouko was concerned at
allegations of corruption and mismanagement against Councillors and administrative
officers in the Kisumu Municipal Town Council, in particular in relation to the
misappropriation of Donor monies, the allocation of land plots and the redistribution of
houses unlawfully repossessed by the council.
‘The most serious allegations were those of corruption against the former Mayor Mr
George Okalo and some members of the then incumbent council’, Detective
Superintendent John Troon stated in his ‘Final Report’ [Troon, Final Report para 199, page
74].
Troon continued, ‘The allegations were of misappropriation of millions of Kenya Shillings

relevant to the distribution of land plots which culminated in the probe report being finalised
in February 1990 just before the death of Dr Ouko. Dr Ouko was in possession of this
report which was handed to me later by his wife where she had located it in his study at
their Loresho home. A further copy was found in his bedroom safe at his Koru home as
described elsewhere in this report. At a later stage a further part of this report was handed
to me by the Commissioner of Police’.
The inquiry into corruption in Kisumu Town Council was chiefly concerned, according to
Troon, with the unlawful allocation of houses that had been repossessed for supposed
non-payment of rent or mortgage ‘and then re-allocated to Council members, their families
or friends’ [Troon, para 203, p75].
Two of those that allegedly received property were Mr Timothy Maloba a local Assistant
Commissioner of Police and his deputy Superintendent Omwenga. Troon noted that
Omwenga was ‘one of the officers involved in the search of Dr Ouko’s farm on 16th
February’.
After the 1988 general election a new Mayor and Council was elected and some of the
officers, including the new Mayor Mr George Olilo, were relatives of Dr Ouko. Troon stated
that during the next two years the council was split into two factions, those who supported
Dr Robert Ouko and those who did not. ‘There was manipulation on the Mayor and Town
Clerks part’, Troon wrote, ‘to conceive special meetings where only pro Ouko Councillors
participated and, according to the probe findings, decisions were made in the absence of
other opposing Councillors’.
[TFR para 202, page 75]
But Troon, although he noted that there was ill feelings towards Dr Ouko from local political
opponents, found no evidence that any members of the local council were involved in his
murder.
Of interest however, is that firm evidence was found that Dr Ouko, at the time of his death,
‘was in possession’ of a report into corruption into local Kisumu council corruption, a copy
of which was handed to Troon by Mrs Ouko and another found at his Koru home [TFR para
200]. Was this, in reality, the ‘corruption report’ he was supposedly working on before he
was murdered?
The Kenya police investigation stated that the reason Dr Ouko had gone to see Hezekiah
Oyugi on the day he returned from Washington (February 4th) was to discuss the alleged
Municipal Council scandal. The Council was indeed dissolved a few weeks after Dr Ouko’s
death.
The Kenya police investigation, however, did not find ‘any evidence to associate anybody
in the municipal council with the murder of Dr. Ouko’. [KPFI p62]
WAS DR. OUKO KILLED BY ‘EXECUTIVE ORDER’?
MOI WATCHED AS OUKO SHOT? – THE GEORGE WAJACKOYAH STORY
Over two years after Dr Ouko’s murder, on 26 April 1992, the British Sunday newspaper
the Sunday Times, printed a story entitled ‘Moi watched Cabinet Minister’s Execution’. In it
a George Luchiri Wajackoyah, a former Kenyan Special Branch Inspector, made several
accusations about the murder of Dr. Ouko he said he had pieced together from telephone
interceptions and Special Branch files.
Wajackoyah restated the Troon theories saying that on the journey back from Washington
“Moi refused to travel to Nairobi on the same plane as his Foreign Minister”.
Wajackoyah claimed that on the night of the murder Ouko had been collected from his
Koru farm by Hezekiah Oyugi and Nicholas Biwott supported by ‘two other cars full of
armed men’ and ‘driven 90 miles east to one of Moi’s homes’. He had then been ‘beaten
senseless’ when Moi came out of the house and said “enough”. The plan had been to
‘teach Ouko a lesson’ not kill him but it went wrong.
According to Wajackoyah’s story Ouko was shot in front of President Moi by Biwott and his
body dumped two days later at Got Alila Hill.
Oyugi dumped the body two days after the murder, ordered the corpse to be set on fire
and phoned Biwott, “Don’t worry”, he said, “That bastard is already sorted out. We shall
roast any finger raised on the matter”. Biwott, said Wajackoyah, then called Moi telling him:
“The work is completed”. [WW123, Sunday Times, ‘Moi Watched Cabinet Minister’s
Execution’, 26 April 1992]
The Wajackoyah story is often repeated in Kenya’s newspaper and was largely accepted
by the 2005 Parliamentary Select Committee hearings. It is a colourful story made more
believable by the addition of little details. And it is demonstrably, entirely untrue.
The ‘Washington row’ story has already been shown to be with out any evidential basis
and without question there is overwhelming evidence, including press photographs and
eye witness testimony that Ouko returned with President Moi on the same flights and
landed with him at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport on the 4th February 1990.
As has been seen, witness testimony from the herdsboy Paul Shikuku and others that has
never been challenged showed Dr Ouko’s burning body to have originally been found by
about 1pm at Got Alila Hill on 13th February 1990. Ouko had last been seen alive at the
around 3am. There was therefore a maximum of eleven hours for the events as Wajakoyah
described to have taken place and probably no time at all (forensic evidence suggesting he
had been dead for several hours when Shikuku found the body and 3am being the very
earliest Ouko left his Koru home).
So there was no time for the Wajakoyah story to have taken place whether it was over
three days, or even three hours.
The forensic evidence from 1990 also shows that Dr Ouko was almost certainly not ‘beaten
senseless’, or thrown in the back of a van and his body kept for two days (although
variations of this story too has run and run over the years). [TFR para 52]
And Dr Iain West gave testimony during the trial of Jonah Anguka that:
“… though there was no sign of dragging of the body and the act of dumping the body at
the scene where it was later found was neat and professional, the dry blood observed from
the upper lip to the lower eye lid horizontally indicated that the deceased body was moved
after being shot to death but before it (the blood) clotted and before being set on fire”.
[WW124, extract from Judgement in the criminal case of Republic versus Jona Orao
Anguka page 24]
In short, Ouko’s body was moved very shortly after he was shot and his body set on fire
before the blood dried. He was not moved far, a few feet, and he was not left for two days
after being shot.
Troon’s ‘Final Report’ stated there was no evidence other than that Dr Ouko was killed
where his body was found.
Dr Ouko could not have been killed at State House or anywhere other than Got Alila Hill
where his body was found.
And he was murdered on the morning of the 13th February 1990, probably between 3am
and 6.30am, so all three-day, taken away and shot and then body dumped theories fall.
WOULD MOI HAVE BEEN SO STUPID?
There are several problems with the ‘Moi had Ouko shot’ theories.
First, there is no evidence of motive. As we have seen the ‘Washington Trip’ theory, that
there was a ‘row’, Ouko was banished, sacked and exiled, appears to have no basis in fact
and can be proved to incorrect at just about every level.
There would also appear to be no other reason for Moi to want order Dr Ouko’s killing. He
had consistently promoted Ouko, finally giving him one of the great offices of state –
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Leaving aside motive, President Moi was many things, some of them not savoury or
pleasant but he wasn’t stupid. He knew the Byzantine politics of Kenya better than most. It
is all but inconceivable that he would have been so foolish to have killed one of the leading
Luo politicians in his regime and one of his most popular ministers. Both internally and
externally at a time when momentum was growing for multi-party democracy in Kenya and
international pressure was growing in its support, he would have known that it could have
resulted in disaster for his rule.
And even if by some leap of imagination Moi is still in the frame for Ouko’s murder, would
he have been so stupid as to be at or near the scene of the murder himself?
Which brings us back to the litmus test for all theories regarding Dr Ouko’s murder – we
know that he was killed on the 13th February 1990 at the Got Alila Hill site. Moi could not
have been there, Ouko could not have been at State house or anywhere else for that
matter.
That Moi was involved in trying to direct in some ways the investigations into Dr Ouko’s
murder there seems little doubt but the accusation that he was directly involved in the
killing falls on the basis of a total ‘absence of evidence’.
NICHOLAS BIWOTT
If the term ‘Executive killing’ is used in a wider way to mean killing by someone in high
authority or on their orders but not by the President himself, then other suspects could be,
and were, considered.
Troon’s favourite prime suspect was the then Energy Minister, Nicholas Biwott.
Troon’s case against Biwott was entirely based on ascribing a motive to him for the killing
of Ouko. And the motives that Troon came up with were all based on the testimonies of
four people – Ouko’s brother and sister, Barrack Mbajah and Dorothy Randiak in respect of
the ‘Washington Trip’ row theory, and Domenico Airaghi and Marianne Briner-Mattern
regarding the Kisumu Molasses Project and corruption report theory. [see “The
Washington trip theory falls"]
As we have seen, the Washington Trip theory doesn’t stand up against the evidence.
President Bush and Ouko did not meet secretly in Washington, the supposed cause of the
row, and Ouko flew back to Nairobi with the delegation and continued his duties as
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Troon’s second theory, that bribes had been sought by Biwott and others over the
tendering for the Kisumu Molasses Plant and that Ouko was writing a corruption report for
which he was killed to ensure that the report wasn’t sent to President Moi, is also shot to
pieces by both the available evidence and the absence of evidence to support the theory.
[see: The Molasses Theory comes unstuck]
Again, as we have seen, the two companies ultimately introduced to Dalmas Otieno, the
Minister of Industry, to tender for the Molasses Project were both introduced by Airaghi and
they were part of the same multi-national company. There could have been no bribe asked
for or paid for one to win the contract over the other.
Dalmas Otieno had Airaghi expelled from Kenya and it was Otieno who brought the BAK
company’s involvement (Airaghi and Briner-Mattern’s company) to an end.
The problem for Biwott was that Detective Superintendent Troon was totally sold on the
Briner-Mattern allegations, although he accepted that they were based largely on ‘hearsay’
and ‘somewhat tenuous’ evidence.
Troon accepted their testimony because in his judgement Airaghi and Briner-Mattern were
‘honest’ and they ran a ‘reputable’ company. It turned out however, that Airaghi was
criminal on bail from a Milan Court where he had been found guilt of fraud and deception.
His accomplice was Briner-Mattern. And the BAK company was little more than a charade,
not finally incorporated until the 13th February 1990, the day of Dr Ouko’s murder.[see:
Airaghi convicted, Briner Mattern ‘unreliable’ BAK a chimera]
Troon had even based his ‘corruption report’ theory on a misreading of Briner-Mattern’s
letter that she said she sent to Ouko just before his death. The letter was clearly
threatening Dr Ouko and the corruption it referred to was the corruption involved in hiring
campaign workers at the Kisumu Molasses Plant during the 1988 election.[see: The
Corruption report]
As it was, only Briner-Mattern claimed that a ‘corruption report’ was being written by Ouko
at the time of his murder. No one else knew of it or saw it at the time. No evidence of its
existence has been found since. Briner-Mattern claimed she had documents to prove it but
they had been carried out to sea by Tanzanian fishermen.
Even Troon admitted that in the absence of evidence from Airaghi or Briner-Mattern, there
was no evidence against Biwott.
It may be that Kenyan’s wanted the culprit to be Biwott. Briner-Mattern and Troon needed it
to be Biwott. However, although it may be hard for many Kenyans to accept, all the
evidence says Biwott wasn’t involved in the murder of Dr Ouko. There is no evidence that
he was.
Justice must be blind. We may not think we like Biwott but that doesn’t make him the
murderer of Dr Robert Ouko. On all the available evidence, he had nothing to do with it.
HEZEKIAH OYUGI
Troon’s next prime suspects for further investigating into the murder of Dr Ouko was
Hezekiah Oyugi
Troon interviewed Hezekiah Oyugi, the Permanent Secretary, Provincial and Internal
Security, because Scotland Yard’s enquiries had found that he might have spent the night
of Friday 9th and Saturday 10th of February at the Sunset Hotel in Kisumu. The hotel’s
Assistant Manager, Mr Julius Essendi, had given evidence that a local Asian businessman,
Mr Atool Shah, had paid Ksh700/- and booked the room in Oyugi’s name. [TFR para 230]
Essendi said that although he did not see Oyugi he was certain that the room was for him
to the extent that he had it made up to VIP status, that the room was slept in and that the
occupant did have breakfast on the morning of February 10th.
In support of his testimony Essendi produced copies of the receipt ledger and a receipt
recording payment for the room in the name of Oyugi together with the hotel’s guest list
and other documents, but no document was produced with Oyugi’s signature on it. Troon’s
colleague Detective Sergeant Lindsay also said he found some evidence that Oyugi had
been seen at the hotel at the time but was unable to trace the member of staff who
originally testified that he had seen him. [TFR para 231]
Atool Shah confirmed that he had paid for the room at the direction of his nephew, Mrs
Dipak Shah, and gave the receipt to him. Atool said he knew of Oyugi but had never met
him. Troon however, did not believe him. He stated in his ‘Final Report’ that, ‘I have no
doubt that Atool Shaah knows full well that he booked the room for Mr Oyugi, and had met
Oyugi previous to making the booking’. [TFR para 232]
The nephew, Mr Dipak Panchard Shah essentially confirmed the story of the room
booking. He said Oyugi had asked him to book a room at the Imperial Hotel Kisumu but
there were no vacancies hence he booked a room at the Sunset Hotel. [TFR para 233]
Troon noted that enquiries had found that the Imperial Hotel was fully booked on the night
of the 9th/10th February because of the International Rotary meeting that weekend. A
room for Dr Ouko had been booked at the Imperial Hotel for that night as he was due to
make a speech there on the 10th February but he had not used the room. [TFR 248]
Dipak Shah also said he gave the receipt for the room booking to Oyugi’s driver ‘whom he
could not identify’ and also said he could not be sure if Oyugi or his driver slept at the
Sunset Hotel that night. [TFR para 234]
Oyugi’s driver, an administrative police officer by the name of Mr James Njan Mbegua,
confirmed Oyugi called on Shah on the evening of the 9th February and that the hotel
room was booked but that Oyugi changed his mind and returned to his home in Rongo
where Mbegua said they stayed for the weekend. [TFR para 235]
A Mr Francis Cheruyot, a telephonist at Rongo Office, near to the Koru Farm, alleged to
Troon that on Tuesday 13 February 1990, at about 6am, he was on duty on the post office
telephone switchboard when he saw Hezekiah Oyugi, ‘who was a passenger in a white car
containing three other persons’, drive past the post office on two occasions but Cheruyot
would not make a written statement to this effect, although Troon stated that Cheruyot was
‘absolutely sure of the date, time and what he had seen’. [TFR, para 236]
Oyugi was subsequently unable to produce the daily log of his official car. [TFR, para 246]
Oyugi was interviewed by a member of the Scotland Yard team on the 22nd May, 1990. He
confirmed that Dr Ouko had visited him on the 5th February and that they had talked the
Kisumu municipality and the dissolution of the council. Troon recorded that, ‘Mr Oyugi says
that Dr Ouko had wanted some action taken on people who may have committed offences,
and was adamant that they only discussed local Kisumu corruption’. [TFR para 239]
Other than that, according to Troon, Oyugi seemed to have little knowledge of anything. He
knew of no row on the ‘Washington Trip’, didn’t know that Dr Ouko had seen the President
on the morning of Monday 5th February and that he knew of no papers that were
supposed to be missing from Ouko’s Koru home. Oyugi said he didn’t know Airaghi or
Briner-Mattern, or that the latter had been interviewed by Scotland Yard in London.
Troon thought Oyugi was ‘evasive’ about his whereabouts between the 8th and 13th of
February and would not let Troon look at his diary. He denied being near the Rongo Post
Office on the morning of February 13th or of meeting Ouko over the weekend before his
murder but said that the Minister had telephoned him on the morning of Monday 12th
checking whether Oyugi had informed the President of his road accident. [TFR para 243]
For Troon, at the time of writing his ‘Final Report’, Oyugi ‘could not be ruled out of any
involvement into the death of Dr Ouko’. [TFR para 246]
Hezekiah Oyugi was arrested by the Kenya police on 26th November, 1991, immediately
after the Commission of Inquiry was halted but released on 10th December ‘due to lack of
sufficient evidence’. [KPFI 7:3 page 29]
The Kenya police confirmed Oyugi’s story of the room booking at the Sunset Hotel and
stated that his claim to have spent the weekend at his Rongo home was supported by the
Pastor of Dudu Church, his driver and his bodyguard.
The Kenya police’s ‘Further Investigations’ Report said that Oyugi was well known at the
Sunset Hotel and that if he had stayed there one of the employees would have noticed.
They also found that two people with the name Oyugi were booked into the Sunset Hotel
for the night of the 9th/10th of February. [KPFI 7:3 page 32]
The Report concluded that, ‘Whilst there is evidence that Mr. Oyugi was booked in room
104 at Sunset Hotel, Kisumu, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove he slept there. His
explanation seems logical and acceptable. We see nothing to suggest that the booking
had anything to do with the disappearance and subsequent death of Dr. Ouko.’ [KPFI 7:3
(ii) page 32]
The Kenya police also traced Francis Cheruiyot, the telephone operator at Rongo Post
Office who had told Scotland Yard he had seen Oyugi in a white car on the morning of the
13th February, the day Dr Ouko was murdered. However, Cheruiyot stated that on the 13th
he was off-duty, his three days off-duty having started on the 11th February, 1990, so he
could not have seen Oyugi. [KPFI 7:3 (iv) page 33]
The Kenya police also, by then, had Oyugi’s itinerary for the period [KPFI 7:3 (viii) pages
36-39] which claimed that on the 13th February, 1990, he had accompanied President Moi
to a public rally at Murang’a and that the Presidential motorcade had left State House in
Nairobi at 8.00am. [KPFI 7:3 (iv) page 33]
[At the time of this draft of the study into Dr Ouko’s murder by Kenya Unsolved, three
photographs dated 13th February, 1990, had just been found in an archive in Nairobi which
appear to show Oyugi at a rally with President Moi but the identity of Oyugi has yet to be
established for certain.]
Hezekiah Oyugi had, of course, been on the trip to Washington that preceded Dr Ouko’s
murder and the Kenya police investigated allegations of a ‘row’ taking place on the trip that
might have constituted a motive for murder. ‘Most of the Government officials and security
officers who accompanied H.E the President to Washington have been interviewed’, the
Report stated.
The Kenya police found no evidence of a dispute occurring and noted that the allegation
was based on ‘mere hearsay attributed to Mr. Bethuel Kiplagat and Mr. Oddenyo by Mr.
Mbajah and his sister Mrs. Randiak’, and that Kiplagat and Oddenyo had denied that there
was any disagreement.
The ‘Further Investigations’ Report concluded that the allegation that the visit to
Washington by Kenyan delegation had some bearing on the cause of Dr. Ouko’s death is
baseless and without any supporting evidence’. [KPFI 7:3 (vi) page 35]
Oyugi’s movements were carefully checked and confirmed by the Kenya police, the Report
states, and it finally concluded that, ‘Our enquiries have found no evidence to connect Mr.
Oyugi with the disappearance and subsequent death of Dr. Robert John Ouko’. [KPFI 7:3
(xi) page 35]
‘WHAT DID JONAH ANGUKA KNOW AND WHAT DID HE HIDE?’
Jonah Anguka, a District Commissioner at Nakuru, is the only person to date to have been
tried for the murder of Dr Robert Ouko.
Anguka graduated from Nairobi University in 1977 with a degree in political science.
Recruited into Kenya’s provincial administration he underwent paramilitary training at the
Embakasi General Service Unit (GSU) Training Centre. After various postings as a district
officer he became the District Commissioner (DC) to Nakuru in 1986. As DC at Nakuru,
Jonah Anguka was not a minor state functionary but part of Kenya’s internal security and
intelligence organisation and based at the centre of the country’s political power structure.
It was in giving evidence to the Judicial Commission of Inquiry in 1991 that, the by then
former Detective Superintendent John Troon of Scotland Yard (Troon retired from the
Metropolitan Police in August 1991) implicated Jonah Oraro Anguka, the District
Commissioner for Nakuru and a ‘neighbour’ of Dr Ouko (Anguka owned and farmed land
in Koru) in Ouko’s murder.
Troon had hardly mentioned Jonah Anguka in his ‘Final Report’. Troon’s only reference to
Anguka was in paragraph 186 of his ‘Report’ when he was relating the search for
documents that Dr Ouko was said to have with him just prior to his murder. Troon related:
‘On 22nd of February I personally searched the safe in the presence of Mr John Anguka
[Troon’s spelling and underlining] and retrieved a green file containing papers relevant to
the Misumu land plots corruption. It is not known how the file became located in the safe or
when it was placed there. Mrs Ouko was unaware of its existence and in fact at a much
later stage in the investigations produced to me another file on the same subject which she
had found in Dr Ouko’s papers at their Loresho address located in his study’. [TFR para
186]
Troon was being questioned on November 18th, 1991 by Justice Akiwumi, Justice Gicheru
and Bernard Chunga (State Prosecutor) during the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Dr
Ouko’s death when he raised the case for further investigation of Anguka. The transcript of
the relevant hearing explains Troon’s reasoning:
Troon: There is a possibility that Mr Anguka may have some involvement or

knowledge.
Akiwumi: Why do you think Anguka might have been on the periphery?
Troon: My Lords, his actions had been known to me. I thought his actions on my
arrival in
Kenya in the first 48 hours or so would appear to me to be there is a possibility that
he
may as well have been planted in to found out what I was up to.
Chunga: Planted in by whom, Mr Troon?
Troon: Well, it could be anyone but it is someone in very high authority, my lords, and
someone
that was aware of my coming here and probably part of that planning.
Chunga: But do you know who that someone is?
Troon: Yes, Mr Anguka introduced me to Mr Oyugi whom I was made to believe was
the person
in charge of this inquiry, where the Commissioner of Police was working to…
Gicheru: Now, what are you saying, Mr Troon? Are you saying Mr Anguka was planted
there by
Mr Oyugi?
Troon: Well, it is a possibility, my lords. I can only say that from reflection, on looking
back to
my arrival, it is obvious to me now that Mr Anguka was put there for a specific
purpose.
And the only person I think could probably have done that must have been Mr Oyugi.
Because Mr Anguka, as I understand, is directly responsible through the PC to Mr
Oyugi.
Anguka had been arrested by the Kenya police on the 26th November, 1991 but released
two weeks later on the 3rd December. He was re-arrested on 10th December and charged
with the murder of Dr Ouko.
At the time the Kenya police completed their ‘Further Investigations’ Report into the death
of Dr Ouko, Anguka was awaiting the decision of committal proceedings as to whether he
would be sent to trial in the High Court. Although restricted by the legal process of possible
pending action, The Kenya’ police Report set out fourteen points of its ‘evidence gathered
against’ Anguka: [KPFI 7:2 pages 23-29]
(i) Anguka’s official car had covered 270 kilometres on the 12th/13th February, 1990 ‘with
excess fuel he was unable to account for’. Anguka’s claim that his driver ‘might have made
a mistake when writing the workticket’ was not found convincing by the Kenya police as it
would have required a mistake both in recording the number of kilometres covered and in
the record of excess fuel.
(ii) Anguka’s driver had gone to collect him for duty at 7.30am on the morning of the 13th
February but he was asleep and didn’t wake up until ‘around 9.00am’ when he went on
duty. ‘It was abnormal for Mr. Anguka to go on duty late’, the report noted.
(iii) ‘On or about 13th February, 1990, the Administration Police Constables who were on
duty’ stated that Anguka had ‘returned home at about 5.00am’. Anguka had said he had
been at home all night.
(iv) On the 13th February, 1990, Anguka had asked a Mr Haji, the Provincial
Commissioner, Rift Valley Province, for permission to go to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in Nairobi to ‘sort out urgent matters with the Permanent Secretary [Bethuel Kiplagat]’. He
was granted permission but did not say why the matter was urgent.
(v) Anguka went to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 14th February, met Bethuel
Kiplagat and requested that his wife Mrs Susan Ngeso Anguka, Dr Ouko’s Personal
Assistant, be transferred to Kenya’s Foreign Office in Bonn, West Germany. Anguka

claimed that he was suffering from a bad back and ‘wanted to take the opportunity of his
wife’s stay in Germany so he could get free travel documents and accommodation’ (and
whilst there seek treatment).
(vi) On the 14th February Anguka telephoned Oyugi and reported the disappearance of Dr
Ouko. He claimed he had been told of the disappearance by his wife. The Kenya police
noted, ‘Dr Ouko did not come from his [Anguka’s] District or from Provincial Administration
to necessitate him to ring Mr Oyugi at that hour’.
(vii) Anguka was ‘said to have travelled from Nakuru to Nyanza’ on the 15th February but it
was ‘not clear as to where he was going and for what purpose’.
(viii) On the 16th February, Anguka travelled to Koru before Dr Ouko’s body was found by
the police. He appeared to have no permission to leave his District, ‘no business in going
to Koru’, and according to the Kenya police, gave no ‘reasonable explanation as to why he
went there’.
(ix) On the 16th February, Anguka was at Dr Ouko’s Koru home when his wife Susan
telephoned him and told him that Ouko’s body had been found. ‘Mr. Anguka burst into the
room where Mrs. Christabel Ouko was being interviewed by Mr. Okoko, DCP who was
leading the investigation’. Anguka broke the news that the body had been found
whereupon Mrs Ouko collapsed screaming. Okoko quarrelled with Anguka for the manner
in which he had broken the news. Again the Kenya police asked, why had Anguka gone to
Koru? They surmised, ‘It is possible that he came to find out how much the family of Dr.
Ouko and their workers knew about the disappearance of Dr. Ouko’.
(x) When Troon and his Scotland Yard team arrived at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport
on 21st February, 1990, Anguka met them and accompanied them to Kisumu. Thereafter
he assigned himself the task of acting as an interpreter when a Mr. Maggero, SP had been
assigned to do it. The Kenya police said Anguka offered no explanation as to why he had
done so. They speculated that he wanted to know how much Troon knew about the
murder.
(xi) Troon was assisted by Provincial C.I.D. Officer (Nyanza) Mr. Timbwa of the S/ACP and
CI Lutubula but they felt Anguka was interfering in their work. Timbwa quarrelled with
Anguka, reported him to Okoko who in turn reported him to the Director of Criminal
Investigation Department. Eventually Oyugi, as Provincial Commissioner, Nyanza
Province, ordered Anguka to return to his station in Nakuru. Again the Kenya police asked,
why was he involving himself in the investigation?
(xii) According to the Kenya police, whilst the Judicial Commission was sitting, Anguka
‘summoned the Administrative Police Officers who were guarding his residence in Nakuru’
and asked them to say that he had been home on all evenings of the week running up to
the day Dr Ouko was murdered.
(xiii) The two Administrative Police Officers who were guarding Anguka’s residence gave
statements that on the morning of the 13th February, 1990, he did not return until 5.00am.
(xiv) Although the Kenya police stated that a motive for Dr Ouko’s murder involving Anguka
had not been established they ‘speculated’ that Dr Ouko had had a relationship with Mrs
Susan Anguka, Jonah Anguka’s wife and that he tried to ‘quickly’ to ‘get his wife out of site
and out of mind by arranging for her transfer to Bonn in West Germany’. The Kenya police
stated, however, that ‘We have not been able to secure evidence to support that
proposition’.
Jonah Ankuka was arrested on the morning of 10th December, 1991, and formally charged
with the murder of Dr Robert Ouko. He spent 1,000 days in detention (his first trial was
aborted following the death of the judge) and acquitted of Ouko’s murder in 1994.
Mr Justice Aganyanya accepted Anguka’s alibi that at 12.30am on the 13th February, 1990,
the day that Ouko was murdered, he was being massaged by his nephew Oddotte and
therefore the judge was not convinced that Anguka could not have travelled to Koru,
murdered Ouko and returned to his house in time to be collected for work at 7.15am.
After his release Anguka went into ‘exile’ in the United States. In 1998 he published
Absolute Power: The Ouko Murder Mystery..
Absolute Power: The Ouko Murder Mystery
In 2004 Professor David William Cohen and Professor E. S. Atieno Odhiambo published
The Risks of Knowledge – Investigations into the Death of the Hon. Minister John Robert
Ouko in Kenya, 1990. The analysis of Jonah Anguka’s case in Absolute Power set out
below is largely based on their study.
The Risks of Knowledge was written before the information that Domenico Airaghi was a
convicted fraudster became public knowledge which did so much to undermine the
‘Molasses Project’ theory, and before documents were released from President George
Bush Snr’s Library and other sources to show that there had been no meeting between
him and Dr Ouko during the ‘Washington Trip, the reason cited for the alleged row with
President Moi and Nicholas Biowott.
Cohen and Odhiambo therefore largely accepted the Troon theories without question but
their treatment of Absolute Power was nonetheless interesting and raised many questions.
They observed that according to Absolute Power, ‘Anguka was virtually always close to the
center of the flow of events, but he positioned himself just far enough away that he could
be considered “free” of culpability yet close enough that his observations would bear the
authority of a near eyewitness to the murder and cover-up’. [TROK p140]
Anguka set out in the opening chapter of Absolute Power his close relationship with Dr
Ouko and his family and their support for the Anguka family in times of trouble and stated
that ‘whenever the Minister was travelling to or from Kisumu, during the daytime, he never
lost an opportunity to visit my residence in Nakuru or at the office’. [TROK p147]
Anguka based his defence on ‘technically sufficient alibi’ for the night of February 12-13
and his close friendship with Robert Ouko. ‘In the instance of his relations with Ouko,
Anguka’s book leaves his readers with nothing but a positive glow’. [TROK p139]
Yet as Cohen and Odhiambo noted, according to Anguka’s reconstruction of the two
weeks leading to Dr Ouko’s murder, when for one reason or another he may have been in
search of help and support, he did not call on Anguka, nor did Anguka seek him out.
Others went to visit the Minister, or called him, on hearing the news of the accident, for
example, but not Anguka.
Just before Dr Ouko’s murder his old friend Jonah Anguka, according to his own narrative,
is hardly to be seen in contact with the Minister but afterwards he ‘happened to be here,
there, and everywhere from virtually the first hours of Ouko’s disappearance’. [TROK p150]
‘Finally’, Cohen and Odhiambo stated, ‘the import of Anguka’s Absolute Power and of its
multiple silences and indirections is located most concretely through its author’s daily and
hourly involvement in and observations of the Ouko events’. [TROK 149]
Cohen and Odhiambo noted that Anguka was at the scene where the Ouko’s body was
found within two hours of its discovery by the police. He was at Ouko’s Koru home to
answer the phone in Ouko’s sitting room when Susan Anguka, his wife, called from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs to tell him that the body had been found. He was the first to
break the news of her husband’s death to Mrs Ouko. He was at the airport to meet the
Scotland Yard team and he introduced Troon to Oyugi and told him the latter would
oversee the investigation. He was with Troon when the safe was opened in Ouko’s
bedroom. He interposed himself as a translator when the maid Salina described seeing a
white car to Troon. He was with the Kenyan pathologist at Got Alila Hill when Ouko’s body
was first examined and he was also in Nairobi when Scotland Yard’s Dr Iain West
undertook an autopsy.
For Cohen and Odhiambo, ‘Anguka’s partial and selective presence in the book was itself
revealing.’ [TROK p151] Cohen and Odhiambo pondered how Anguka, by his story, was
present at so many of the key events during the search for Ouko and the investigation into
his murder but silent about his presence at others. For them, how Anguka chose to write
the story he was hardly present at all, except and especially when he could cast himself as
a victim of the state’. [TROK 151]
He did not mention in Absolute Power that he was at the airport to meet Troon’s team,
writing only, ‘on 21st February New Scotland Yard detectives arrived’ [Absolute Power
p70]. Anguka did not mention that it he who had introduced Troon to Oyugi. He did not
mention that he was at the autopsies or that he was the translator when Troon interviewed
Salina Were. Nor did Anguka mention in his book, even to deny the claim, the affidavit of
Barrack Mbajah that alleged he was one of the men that picked Ouko up from the Koru
farm in the early hours of the 13th February.
Similarly, Anguka largely airbrushed his relationship with Hezekiah Oyugi from his account:
Cohen and Odhiambo noted that, ‘In his treatment of his relations with Oyugi, Anguka…
produced a range of fertile silences’[TROK p139], and that ‘otherwise the book is silent on
Anguka’s relationship, official and private, with Hezekiah Oyugi. His exceptional access to
Oyugi had no reciprocal aspect in Anguka’s telling, and that silence certainly “tells” a
stronger story than Jonah Anguka intended.’ [TROK p149]
Ultimately for Cohen and Odhiambo it was what Anguka did not say that was as important,
if not more telling, than what he did say in Absolute Power, and the way in which in that
book ‘Anguka was virtually always close to the center of the flow of events, but he
positioned himself just far enough away that he could be considered “free” of culpability yet
close enough that his observations would bear the authority of a near eyewitness to the
murder and the cover-up’. [TROK 140]
Pulling together their conclusions about Absolute Power, Professor’s Cohen and Odhiambo
kept just on the side of legal rectitude given that they were writing about a man who had
been acquitted of Dr Ouko’s murder.
On the story portrayed in Absolute Power they noted that, ‘These may be the moves of an
innocent person, laying a broader claim to innocence and standing against the injustice
that he suffered at the hands of Kenya’s government. But they were not the moves of an
innocent author [their italics].’ [TROK p151]
And, having pointed to Anguka’s use of the interrogative throughout Absolute Power,
Cohen and Odhiambo themselves finished the chapter on him in The Risks of Knowledge
with the question: ‘But what did Jonah Anguka know, and what did he hide’. [TROK p157].

Who Murdered DR Robert Ouko?: The DR Robert Ouko Factfiles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Who Murdered DR Robert Ouko?: The DR Robert Ouko Factfiles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Dr Robert Ouko Factfiles:

The Dr Robert Ouko Factfiles:

We welcome comment for publication sent by readers, suggestions as to other

FEBRUARY 4TH- 17TH, 1990

Dr Ouko also complained of interference on his direct STD.

At approximately 8.30pm Dr Ouko’s sister, Dorothy Randiak, accompanied by Mr John

THE NIGHT OF MONDAY 12th AND TUESDAY 13th

GOT ALILA HILL AND A BURNING BODY

ALARM RAISED AND THE SEARCH BEGINS

“I wish to express my sadness and grave concern on the sudden disappearance of my

NEWS BROKEN TO MRS OUKO

May the Almighty rest his soul in eternal peace.”

The following items were found at the scene:

[KPFI 4:1 pages 14-15]

TROON OF ‘THE YARD’

The Scotland Yard team arrived on 21 February.

FORENSIC EVIDENCE [Troon’s Final Report paras 41 – 52 inclusive]

Finally, West concluded, Dr Ouko’s ‘death should be investigated as one of

A Detective Sergeant David Sanderson, a specialist in forensic examination of crime

Despite a search supervised by Detective Sergeant David Sanderson and weeks of

INVESTIGATIONS, INQUIRIES & THEORIES

· Initial investigations by the Kenyan police, February 1990

THE TEN THEORIES

THE WASHINGTON TRIP… BANISHED?

THE ‘WASHINGTON TRIP’ THEORY FALLS

On Thursday 8 February at 8.30am Ouko telephoned his Permanent Secretary, Bethuel

On Saturday 10 February 1990, Dr Ouko opened the first Inter-Country Conference of

BARRACK & THE NOTE

Troon had admitted that Barrack Mbajah had been lying.

TROON’s SECOND THEORY

THE ‘KISUMU MOLASSES PROJECT’ AND THE ‘CORRUPTION REPORT’

Domenic Airaghi’s and Marianne Briner-Mattern’s alleged that intermediaries on behalf of

THE KISUMU MOLASSES PROJECT

Under Dr Ouko’s leadership the Kisumu Molasses Project moved on apace.

ENTER DOMENICO AIRAGHI, MARIANNE BRINER-MATTERN AND ‘THE BAK

On 23rd September, 1987, an Inter-ministerial meeting chaired by Dr Ouko agreed to issue

THE COLLAPSE OF THE KISUMU MOLASSES PROJECT 1988-1991

THE MOLASSES THEORY COMES UNSTUCK

A multitude of official papers and correspondence also go against the theory.

Troon: “I did my Lords”

Troon: “Not that I am aware of my Lords, no.”

[4 Judicial Inquiry transcript, 21 November 1991, pages 7-8]

Randiak: “That was what I was told My Lords…”

Randiak: “he did not tell me anything about that my Lords.”

Randiak: “That’s what I was told My Lords”.

Randiak: “Yes my Lords”

THE ‘CORRUPTION REPORT’

about to prepare a report to be handed to the President outlining the allegations of

According to Troon, during the course of those communications Dr Ouko indicated to

In paragraph 168 Troon continued:

And in paragraph 169:

Briner-Mattern’s threat was made to Dr. Ouko.

In her witness statement to Troon, Briner-Mattern said:

Based on Briner-Mattern’s testimony, if Dr Ouko was writing a corruption report to go to the

AIRAGHI CONVICTED, BRINER-MATTERN ‘UNRELIABLE, BAK A ‘CHIMERA’

He stated so to the Judicial Inquiry in 1991:

His assessment was wrong… badly wrong.

“WHO KILLED DR. R. J. OUKO AND WHY?” –

It claimed that Briner-Mattern, a woman the document describes as ‘of questionable

‘Oyugi – because he feared exposure by Dr. Ouko

Omino - a long time political opponent of Dr. Ouko

Oraro - Oyugi’s lawyer’

THE OUKO FAMILY ROW