Bidco Boss accuses Nesbitt of manipulating trust in alleged dollar-for-shilling deal

Bidco boss Vimal Bhinji Shah recounted a series of events that unfolded after two individuals, Nicholas Alexander Nesbitt and Briton Boytorun Mehment, approached him at his home with what appeared to be a business offer.

During the visit, the pair introduced themselves as partners and presented themselves as people capable of supplying Bidco Africa with US dollars in exchange for Kenya shillings.

According to Shah, they claimed the arrangement would help support the company’s financial operations and ease its business processes.

Shah explained that the interaction at his residence eventually led to the signing of a Trade Finance Agreement.

On behalf of Bidco Africa Ltd, he entered into the deal, while Bulent Boytorun signed on behalf of Bee N Bee Kenya.

He revealed that the decision to go into the agreement was influenced by his existing relationship with Nesbitt, a connection he now believes was used against him.

Shah argued that Nesbitt took advantage of that relationship to lure him into the arrangement and ultimately mislead Bidco Africa Ltd.

While responding to an application by Nesbitt seeking to have the criminal charges against him dismissed, Shah stated that the entire transaction began based on representations made by Nesbitt and his business partner, which convinced Bidco to work with Bee N Bee Kenya Limited.

Feeling that the company had been deceived, Shah filed a complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations.

This complaint resulted in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions initiating charges against Nesbitt and his partner, although the co-accused has since left the country.

Nesbitt has pleaded not guilty to the conspiracy to defraud charges.

Shah insisted that the court should not interfere with the DPP’s constitutional mandate unless there is direct evidence showing misuse of power or violation of constitutional requirements.

He emphasized that Nesbitt had not provided such proof in the documents submitted.

The company stated, “We submit that no evidence has been tendered to show that the DPP abused his discretion or powers under the Constitution.” It added that the documents filed by Nesbitt only pointed to a civil dispute, which should not be used to derail a criminal case, since the two processes are fundamentally different.

The company further argued that the independence of the DPP must be upheld, and that courts only intervene when there is unmistakable evidence of misconduct or abuse of discretion.

It maintained that prosecutorial decisions are generally respected and only challenged in rare and exceptional cases.

According to the submission, “The Application by Nesbitt herein does not meet the threshold set as analysed hereinafter to warrant this Court to interfere with the discretion of the DPP,” the court heard.