Anne Amadi, her son Brian Ochieng Amadi, and two others had their bank accounts frozen for allegedly conning a Dubai-based company KSh 102 million in a gold deal.
Before the scandal made headlines, Amadi, an advocate of the High Court, had led a relatively low life.
There is little information about the Chief Registrar’s immediate family, even though she has been quoted in the past saying she is married.
The case also brought to the limelight the identity of his son Brian Ochieng Amadi, even though it is unclear if she has other children.
Anne Amadi Education
Holder of a Master’s in Criminal Justice from Boston University in the United States, a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Nairobi, and a Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the Kenya School of Law, Anne Atieno Amadi is an advocate for the High Court of Kenya.
Her other two postgraduate degrees are in alternative dispute resolution from California State University and the law of internal displacement from the Institute of International Humanitarian Law in San Remo, Italy.
She began her career in the legal system in 1990 as a District Magistrate II (Prof.) and progressed through the ranks to become a Resident Magistrate before beginning her own solo practice at A. Amadi & Company between 1997 and 2003, advocates.
Between 2003 and 2008, Mrs. Amadi held the position of Deputy Executive Director at the Federation of Women Lawyers of Kenya (FIDA), and from 2008 to 2011, she served as the National Coordinator of the National Legal Aid and Awareness Program (NALEAP), under the Ministry of Justice’s National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs. She served as a consultant prior to being named the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary.
Chief Registrar Of The Judiciary Appointment
Amadi was appointed Chief Registrar of Judiciary on January 11, 2014, replacing Gladys Shollei, who had been sacked.
Anne Amadi’s KSh 102m gold scandal
Ms Amadi, alongside her son Brian Ochieng, two other Kenyans, and a Liberian citizen have been sued by Bruton Gold Trading LLC, a gold trading firm registered in Dubai, which claims to have lost $742,206 between September 22 and October 21, 2021.
According to an affidavit by the trader, Mr. Demetrios Bradshaw, the money was meant for the purchase of 1,500 kilograms of gold bars, but the precious metal was never delivered to the buyer in Dubai.
The other defendants in the case are Andrew Njenga Kiarie, Kikanae Topoti, Daniel Ndegwa Kangara alias Daniel Muriithi and Edward Taylor alias Mboronda Seyenkulo Sakor, a Liberian passport holder.
Mr. Ochieng (Amadi’s son), Mr. Kiarie, and Mr. Topoti are advocates in the law firm, Amadi and Associates, while Mr Kangara was representing a company called Universal Gold Logistics Limited (UGL) and Mr Sakor was said to have been the vendor of the gold.
High Court judge David Majanja on Thursday certified the case as urgent and froze several bank accounts belonging to Ms. Amadi and the law firm- Amadi & Associates Advocates, pending the determination of the case.
How Anne Amadi Scandal Money Was Distributed
The $742,206 (Sh101m) is reported to have been disbursed to purchase 1,500 kilograms of gold bars.
However, Mr. Bradshaw says, no gold was ever exported.
Mr. Sakor then informed him that a court order prohibiting the transfer of the gold to him had been issued.
Mr Bradshaw later learned that the suit had in fact been filed by one of the advocates from the same firm, but was subsequently withdrawn and that the order that had been sent to him was different from the actual order that had been issued by the court.
He then filed a complaint with the police, who investigated the matter. The investigations showed that the money deposited was withdrawn by Mr. Ochieng and one of his partners in the law firm, Mr. Kiarie.
In his suit, Mr Bradshaw says Ms Amadi and the three advocates, on behalf of the firm and in their personal capacity, together with Mr Kangara and Mr Taylor illegally obtained the money from him and want them compelled to refund the cash, with interest and cost of the suit.
He says the account into which the money was paid was opened by Ms. Amadi. In support, he attaches a letter Ms. Amadi wrote to the bank, requesting the opening of a US dollar and Kenya shilling accounts. In the letter to the bank, dated June 9, 2020, and referenced, “Request to open a client account”, Ms. Amadi states: Refer to the above-referenced matter, hereby requesting the opening of an advocate’s client account at your renowned banking institution. I have since left private practice and therefore exempted from having a practicing certificate, however, I have appointed Brian O. Amadi (Id. No. ….) and Andrew Njenga Kiarie (ID No…) as signatories to the said account….. We would like to open both a Kenyan shilling and a US dollar account. The mandate of the account shall be for both of the signatories of the account to sign.
Also in the court documents is a letter from the Law Society of Kenya, dated March 7, 2022, which states: “We confirm that, according to our records, Kimani James Kinyanjui, Kiarie Andrew Njenga, Kinoti Dennis Murithi and Amadi Brian Ochieng advocates have declared to be associates in the firm of Amadi and Associates Advocates.”
There’s also a registration certificate from the Business Registration Services, dated August 23, 2022, which states that a law firm by the name, of Anne Amadi and Associates was registered on November 9, 2012, and its proprietor was Anne Atieno Amadi.
Mr Bradshaw states that investigations into the case had revealed that the funds, which were received through the law firm were withdrawn in cash by Mr Ochieng and Mr Ndegwa.
“Simply put the defendants herein orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to obtain money from the plaintiff,” his lawyer Murage Juma and Company said.
After getting wind that the matter was being investigated, Mr. Ochieng allegedly called for a meeting and committed to refund the money plus losses incurred by the firm, Mr. Bradshaw says. The law firm wrote a letter to the trader’s advocates on May 10, last year, and forwarded two cheques totaling $9,000 as a commitment.
Mr. Bradshaw’s advocates accepted the cheques on account that the entire amount would be refunded and requested a proposal on the settlement of the balance.
In the plaint, Mr Bradshaw claims that Ms Amadi in telephone conversations, made proposals to clear the amount within six months, but this was declined because there was no security.
The case was heard exparte (meaning the defendants or their lawyers were not present) and the defendants are yet to file their defenses.
Justice Majanja directed the case to be mentioned on May 23.