"I was arraigned in court over some matter for which I was released on bail. When that date came I skipped court for I had to attend my mother’s burial," said the MP. He argued the only reason he got into trouble was he only absconded a court bond, which earned him a four-month jail term.
"I stayed behind bars for only two months then I was released by Justice Oguk following an appeal against my sentence. I never escaped from Kamiti and there is evidence to prove that I was set free by the High Court," he said, as he fought off a report in The Star on Tuesday, that he was jailed over forgery and booked in as prisoner Number KAM/1255/2000/LS. The newspaper carried an affidavit in which Kioko said he had been denied bond/bail and was in Kamiti serving a four-month sentence. He also listed several medical conditions he said he had and which could be complicated by prison conditions, adding he was from a poor family.
But in reference to the Mombasa case, Sonko appears to suggest it was one and the same case as the one that took him to Kamiti — and so, too, he argued was his innocence against forgery charges that is a common denominator in both. He said when he was arraigned before a magistrate in Mombasa over the contempt of court case; the magistrate allegedly sentenced him even as he explained he was attending his mother’s funeral the same day the case come up.
The MP denied ever forging documents aimed at acquiring a prime land in Mombasa. "All those stories being written about me are all false. They have even said all my parents are dead when it is only my mother who passed on," said an angry Sonko. He said the adverse publicity was meant to paint him as a criminal, somebody unfit to be a leader, "but I will not be cowed by those negative stories". He added: "My people know me and I am ready to serve them diligently." He added in reference to report: "One of the papers have named one Gideon Mbuvi Kioko as the one who escaped from Shimo La Tewa. Those are not my names. As per my ID my names are Gidion Mbuvi Kioko. The person whose details they published is not I even though the impression being created is that I am the one."
Sonko was already subject of rebuttals by Interim Independent Commission, which argued that vetting should have been the responsibility of political parties and disciplinary cases were not in its domain.
This was in reference to claims IIEC could have allowed a leader with a criminal past access to Parliament contrary to the requirements of the new Constitution. Outside Parliament, Sonko claimed there were attempts to tarnish his name and wondered why all those details about his past were being published days after his victory.