Former Kiambu governor Ferdinand Waititu has been released from Kamiti Maximum Prison after the High Court reviewed and reduced his bail terms pending the determination of his appeal in a KSh588 million roads tender graft case.
The decision followed a ruling by Justice Wilfrida Okwany at the High Court Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division at Milimani.
The court revised Waititu bail terms to KSh20 million cash and two sureties backed by property worth at least KSh30 million each. The new terms replaced an earlier requirement of a KSh53 million bond with a bank guarantee that had kept him in custody.
Waititu had been serving a sentence after his conviction in February 2025 over the irregular award of a KSh588 million road construction tender during his tenure as Kiambu governor.
Waititu lawyer Jeremy Njenga confirmed the development during a court session on Thursday.
“I am holding brief for the appellant who is now a free man thanks to your orders,” Njenga told the court.
The former governor is pursuing an appeal challenging both the conviction and sentence issued by the trial court.
The High Court directed that the case be mentioned again on 14 April 2026.
The appeal proceedings also involve Waititu co-appellants Luka Mwangi Wahinya, a former Kiambu County chief officer for transport, and businessman Charles Chege Mbuthia, a director of Testimony Enterprises Limited.
The court ordered that the three appeals be handled together because they arise from the same trial and involve related issues.
In a separate ruling, Justice Okwany allowed Mbuthia to introduce additional evidence in the appeal record.
The court admitted an audit report titled “Report of Findings on the Upgrading of Various Gravel Roads to Bituminous Surface in Kiambu County Contracts.”
According to the defence, the report suggests the contractor may have been owed KSh113.6 million by Kiambu County government, raising questions about the prosecution claim that public funds were fraudulently acquired.
Prosecutors opposed the application, arguing the issue had already been determined and that the report did not qualify as new evidence.
However, the judge ruled that admitting the report would help ensure a complete evaluation of the appeal.
