The trial of former Chase Bank officials took a dramatic turn after defence lawyer Cecil Miller subjected a prosecution witness to an intense cross-examination that saw the auditor acknowledge past investigations into Deloitte’s audit work and concede that the firm’s findings did not directly implicate one of the accused in theft, conspiracy or money laundering.
Appearing before the court, the witness, Fredrick Aloo, was questioned extensively by Miller on Deloitte’s regulatory history, including previous investigations linked to major corporate collapses and financial scandals.
During the exchange, Miller referred the witness to reports indicating that Deloitte had faced scrutiny over its audit work involving institutions such as CMC Motors, Mumias Sugar and Dubai Bank. Under questioning, the witness acknowledged that Deloitte had indeed been investigated in relation to some of those matters.
The defence lawyer further questioned the witness on the sanctions imposed by the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) over Deloitte’s audit of Chase Bank. The witness admitted that the firm had been fined Ksh10 million for failing to detect errors contained in financial statements presented for audit.
Miller repeatedly challenged the witness on whether Deloitte’s actions during the Chase Bank audit contributed to the events that followed the lender’s collapse, an assertion the witness rejected.
The defence also raised questions about a forensic audit commissioned after Chase Bank was placed under receivership, suggesting there may have been concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest. The witness maintained that no conflict existed because different Deloitte teams handled the assignments.
However, the most significant exchanges came when Miller turned to the actual findings contained in the audit reports relied upon by the prosecution.
The witness confirmed that the audit report did not conclude that the second accused, Dan Kang’a Buyu, conspired with anyone to steal from Chase Bank.
He further acknowledged that the audit did not find that Kang’a had stolen money from the bank and did not conclude that he had engaged in money laundering.
The admissions are likely to feature prominently in the defence case as the trial progresses, with the defence seeking to demonstrate that the audit findings relied upon by investigators did not directly attribute criminal conduct to the accused persons.
Miller also questioned the witness on the existence of approved and signed financial statements and challenged aspects of Deloitte’s conduct during the period leading up to Chase Bank’s collapse.
The hearing continues on August 4, 5 and 11, 2026, as the court receives further evidence in the long-running criminal proceedings involving the former bank executives.
