EACC after ‘moral police’ Ezekiel Mutua for illegal Sh22 million salary
By Sinda MatikoThe Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is seeking to recover Sh22.7 million from former Kenyan Film Classification Board (KFCB) boss Dr Ezekiel Mutua.
The anti-graft watchdog alleges Dr Mutua, currently the CEO of the Music Copyrights Society of Kenya (MCSK) acquired millions through irregular salary hikes and entertainment allowances not provided in law.
In its recovery lawsuit, the agency alleges Dr Mutua had his salary illegally bumped up to Sh1.1 million in 2019, similar to that of an MP, following an irregular and unlawful board decision that he was a member of.
The watchdog argues that Dr Mutua’s salary had been capped at Sh480,000 even after increment by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) for the KFCB corner office he occupied from 2015 to July 2021.
It also accuses him of illegally earning an entertainment allowance of Sh100,000 a month since 2016.
“The plaintiff (EACC) claim against the 1st defendant (Dr Mutua) is for a sum of Sh22,658,085 being salary received illegally between April 2019 to July 2021 and Sh4,600,868 being entertainment allowance received between March 2016 and July 2021,” EACC says in court documents.
Christined ‘Moral Police’ during his tumultuous stint at KFCB, Dr Mutua was sent on compulsory leave and later fired from KFCB in August 2021, three months before the expiry of his contract. Seven months later, he was appointed MCSK CEO, promising to make Kenyan artists billionaires.
Then, Information Communication Technology (ICT) Cabinet Secretary (CS) Joe Mucheru issued a statement stating Dr Mutua had been sent on terminal leave pending investigation over alleged involvement in corruption at KFCB.
In the same suit, EACC alleges Dr Mutua colluded with 12 board members who approved the illegal salary increase and allowance, who have also been enjoined in the case.
As such, EACC is also seeking to recover the Sh22 million from the 12 board members who appear as 2nd to 13th defendants.
“For failing to take reasonable measures to prevent loss of public funds, the 1st defendant abused public office to unjustly enrich himself. For failing to safeguard the funds of the board and act in its best interest, the 2nd to 13th defendants abused public office to confer a benefit to the 1st defendant.