Police officers in Kirinyaga County are hunting down a pastor accused of stealing Ksh2 million from a small Anglican church. Pastor Gilbert Kariuki was tasked to furnish the church with 410 plastic seats in a tender awarded on February 9, according to a report by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
The pastor was also anticipated to collaborate with his wife on the church project, which was estimated to cost little more than Ksh2 million. According to DCI, the individual failed to deliver the seats to the church on April 10 as specified in the agreement.
Furthermore, it was revealed that the pastor had gone missing and was unable to be reached by church officials. Suspecting that they had been duped, church officials reported the incident to local police, who initiated a manhunt for the pastor.
“As reported by the church faithful at Wang’uru Police Station, the man of the cloth swindled them for their money before disappearing. Efforts to reach him turned futile, prompting the church vicar to file the report.
“Police immediately swung into action and successfully apprehended the suspect,” read the statement in part.
The pastor was arraigned in court following his detention, with the police pursuing allegations of acquiring money under false pretense. Yet, the DCI did not say if the pastor’s wife was being investigated in connection with the event.
As a result, the police warned the public about the increasing number of fraud cases in tenders targeting churches and other places of worship. Churches were consequently warned to exercise caution when dealing with merchants posing as clergymen and women.
The pastor has however responded saying that he has already been presented in court and that he was arrested for delaying to deliver the said seats. He has insisted that he did not steal.
“Firstly, we want to clarify that the Apostle involved voluntarily appeared in court in response to a summons. No arrest was made. The court proceedings were conducted appropriately, and a fair ruling was made based on the facts of the case,” he has said.
“Secondly, it is important to note that the case before the court pertains to a delay in delivery, not a complete failure of delivery. The delay occurred due to a mistake made by the manufacturing company, which produced the wrong design. The court, after careful consideration, directed the client to wait for the additional time requested to rectify the error,” he said.
