Naema Tandao 
FELICITAS AWINO
After a nationwide discovery of the counterfeit fertilizer most people including farmers accused the Agriculture Cabinet Secretary,Mithika Linturi for the distribution of the fertiliser as they counted losses as a result of the fake fertiliser.
This led some of the Members of parliament to seek his impeachment as they thought he was sleeping on the job.
In response to the mounting pressure and public outcry, investigations were launched to uncover the truth behind the distribution of the counterfeit product. The focus shifted towards the National Cereals and Produce Board, the government agency responsible for the procurement and distribution of agricultural inputs.
As the investigations progressed, several managers of the National Cereals and Produce Board emerged as the primary suspects in the fertilizer scandal. Evidence began to surface, pointing towards their involvement in the procurement and distribution of the fake fertilizer. The managers were subsequently apprehended and brought before the court to face charges related to their alleged role in the scandal.
In the courtroom, the managers pleaded not guilty to the charges leveled against them. They vehemently denied any involvement in the procurement or distribution of the counterfeit fertilizer, claiming that they had been unaware of its fraudulent nature. Their defense argued that they had followed standard procedures and protocols in their duties, and any wrongdoing should be attributed to external factors beyond their control.
The court proceedings became a focal point for the public, as people eagerly awaited justice and accountability for the immense losses suffered by the farmers. The case garnered significant media attention, with daily updates on the testimonies, evidence, and arguments presented in court.
As the trial continued, the prosecution presented a compelling case, highlighting the managers’ alleged involvement in the procurement process and their failure to conduct proper quality checks on the fertilizer. Witnesses were called to testify, providing crucial information that further incriminated the accused managers.
On the other hand, the defense team worked tirelessly to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, questioning its authenticity and reliability. They argued that the managers had been scapegoated and that the real culprits responsible for the counterfeit fertilizer had yet to be identified.
The court proceedings were closely monitored by the public, who demanded justice and accountability for the farmers who had suffered immense losses. The outcome of the trial would not only determine the fate of the accused managers but also set a precedent
