Forgery Queen: Optimum Registrars’ Jane Kabiu at Centre of Forgery Case as Victoria Karugu Reveals Gun Confrontation
An explosive family shareholding dispute has placed a company secretary under criminal prosecution, drawn two brothers into the dock and prompted serious concerns about the safety of the woman challenging the disputed transfer. A contested share transfer involving Mathara Holdings Limited has escalated into a criminal prosecution and a bitter dispute over the safety of complainant Victoria Nyambura Karugu, who says she was unlawfully pushed out of her ownership interest through documents she never authorised. At the centre of the corporate controversy is Jane Wangechi Kabiu, also known as Jane Kabiu Gitau, who served as company secretary of Mathara Holdings through Optimum Registrars. Kabiu is charged with forgery and knowingly presenting a disputed Share Transfer Form as genuine, accusations that strike directly at the professional responsibilities associated with her position. Her co-accused, Eric Mwaura Karugu and Benjamin Githara Karugu, face charges arising from the same disputed transaction. All three are accused of conspiring to defraud Victoria of her shareholding interest, while the two brothers face additional accusations relating to information given to a Directorate of Criminal Investigations officer. Victoria has maintained that the transaction was intended to remove her from the company's ownership structure without her consent. In an interview, she disputed the authenticity of the transfer and described the continuing conflict as far more serious than the KSh100 nominal value of the share cited in the accused persons' application for reduced bail. The controversy has also taken a frightening turn. Victoria accuses Benjamin Githara Karugu of confronting her and her security detail at Kiamara Estate in March 2026 and attempting to seize her bodyguard's firearm on three occasions. The incident is described in material submitted in opposition to the accused persons' bail-review application. The case raises an urgent question: how did a dispute over a corporate share transfer develop into criminal proceedings involving a company secretary, allegations of witness interference and a complainant seeking protection? Victoria Says the Share Transfer Was Designed to Exclude Her The criminal proceedings before the Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court arise from a transaction prosecutors date to May 2, 2012. According to the charge sheet in Criminal Case No. E644 of 2025, Victoria's ordinary share in Mathara Holdings Limited was transferred to Centurion Holdings Limited through a transaction the prosecution alleges was fraudulent. Victoria disputes having authorised the transfer. Her position is that the document presented as her genuine Share Transfer Form did not reflect her instructions and was used to deprive her of her rightful interest in the company. That allegation forms the foundation of the criminal case. Prosecutors have charged Kabiu with forging the disputed instrument and knowingly presenting it to the Director General of Business Registration Services as genuine. The significance of the transaction cannot be determined simply by looking at the nominal value assigned to the share. A share represents an ownership interest, and its economic importance may depend on the company's assets, ownership structure and the rights attached to it. Victoria's complaint is therefore about more than the loss of a document or a small amount of money. She says her position as a shareholder was interfered with through a transaction she never approved. Jane Kabiu's Role: Why the Company Secretary Is Central to the Case Jane Kabiu's position makes this prosecution particularly significant. She was not identified in the documents as the shareholder whose interest was being transferred, nor as the beneficiary of the disputed transfer. Her role was that of company secretary, a professional position associated with preparing, maintaining and processing corporate records. That distinction raises one of the most important questions in the case. If the disputed transaction was designed to remove Victoria from the company's ownership structure, how did the paperwork pass through the corporate administration process, and what part did Kabiu play in it? The prosecution's answer is contained in the charges against her. Kabiu forged the Share Transfer Form and subsequently presented the disputed instrument as genuine to the Business Registration Service. These are accusations of direct participation in the alleged documentary wrongdoing, not merely of failing to notice an administrative irregularity. Kabiu has denied the charges. Nevertheless, the allegations strike at the foundation of her professional responsibilities. A company secretary is entrusted with records that can determine who owns a business, who may exercise shareholder rights and what information appears in official company registers. Those responsibilities demand accuracy, proper authorisation and reliable documentation. In a family company where ownership is contested, those safeguards become even more important. A disputed transfer may have consequences for voting rights, control and the distribution of economic benefits. Benjamin Githara Karugu Named in Alleged Gun Confrontation The conflict took another serious turn on March 2, 2026, when Victoria says she encountered Benjamin Githara Karugu at Kiamara Estate. According to Victoria's account, Benjamin followed her while filming and confronted members of her security detail. She alleges that he then attempted on three consecutive occasions to seize a firearm from her close-protection officer. The allegation is recorded in the material opposing the accused persons' application for reduced bail. The documents identify Benjamin by name as the person accused of the conduct. Victoria says the incident was reported at Gigiri Police Station under OB No. 31/02/03/2026 and subsequently referred to the DCI in Kiambu. The reported conduct is exceptionally serious. A confrontation involving an attempt to take a loaded firearm from a security officer could rapidly place the complainant, the officer and other people nearby in danger. That distinction is essential, even as the allegation warrants scrutiny. The court must be able to examine the complainant's account, the bodyguard's evidence, any available recordings and the relevant police records before determining what happened. Nevertheless, the incident has become relevant to the broader dispute because Victoria has cited it in seeking protection while the criminal proceedings continue. Victoria's Bodyguard Becomes a Key Figure in the Safety Dispute The bodyguard's role is central to understanding the reported confrontation. According to Victoria, her security officer was carrying out his protective duties when Benjamin approached and attempted to seize his firearm. She says the encounter happened three times, creating a situation she regarded as threatening. The bodyguard's name is not established in the supplied documents. Identifying him without verification would risk attributing the incident to the wrong person. His testimony, however, could be important. As the person said to have been physically involved in the confrontation, he may be able to describe what occurred, the distance between those involved, whether anyone touched the weapon and what actions were taken to prevent escalation. Any footage recorded during the encounter could also help investigators establish the sequence of events. The available material does not prove that the firearm was removed from its holster or that Benjamin obtained possession of it. Those are matters requiring direct evidence. What is clear is that Victoria has formally raised the incident as a safety concern and that it has featured in the dispute over bail conditions. Eric Mwaura Karugu's Role in the Corporate Dispute Eric Mwaura Karugu is the second accused in the criminal proceedings and is charged alongside Kabiu and Benjamin with conspiracy to defraud Victoria of her shareholding interest. He also faces a separate accusation concerning information provided to a DCI investigator during the investigation into the disputed transfer. According to reporting on the original charges, prosecutors alleged that Eric and Benjamin gave false information to Inspector Peter Ouma at DCI headquarters on February 5, 2025, concerning the circumstances in which Share Transfer Forms were signed. Both denied the allegations. Eric also swore the affidavit supporting the accused persons' July 2026 application to reduce their bail conditions. In that application, the accused relied on the nominal KSh100 value of the disputed share to argue that the existing cash bail was excessive. Eric's role therefore extends beyond his status as a co-accused. He is also the person who placed the defence's principal bail-review arguments before the court through his affidavit. The KSh100 Argument That Has Intensified the Controversy The accused are seeking relief from bail conditions that require KSh700,000 cash bail each, or the alternative bond terms imposed by the court. Their argument focuses partly on the fact that the disputed transaction involved one ordinary share with a nominal value of KSh100. The prosecution strongly disputes the suggestion that this figure captures the seriousness of the case. The distinction matters because the nominal value of a share is not necessarily its economic value. A single share may carry ownership rights that depend on the company's capital structure, assets and the rights attached to the particular class of shares. More importantly, forgery is not made insignificant by the amount printed on a disputed document. If a company ownership instrument was falsified, the integrity of the registration process would be at issue regardless of whether the nominal value was KSh100 or a much larger figure. The court must still consider the accused persons' right to reasonable bail. Bail is not punishment, and the seriousness of a charge does not automatically justify an excessive financial condition. Prosecutors Raise Concerns About Witness Interference The prosecution's opposition to reduced bail has introduced allegations extending beyond the original share transfer. The complainant's material identifies former Mathara Holdings employee Brenda Wanjiru Irungu in connection with concerns about attempts to influence witness evidence. The material specifically names Kabiu and Eric Mwaura Karugu in those allegations. The accusations raise questions that the court may need to examine because the criminal prosecution depends on reliable testimony and authentic corporate records. A case involving disputed signatures, share transfer instruments and company filings may require evidence from people who worked with the relevant documents or knew how the company's administrative processes operated. If witnesses are improperly pressured, the court's ability to establish the facts could be compromised. Equally, an accusation of interference cannot substitute for proof. The appropriate course is for any such complaint to be investigated and tested through lawful procedures, with both the complainant and accused persons afforded their respective rights. Internal Affairs Letter Raises Questions About Police Handling Another significant development concerns a complaint Victoria lodged against police officer CI John Marubu. A letter dated July 16, 2026, from the National Police Service Internal Affairs Unit states that her complaint was investigated and that the Inspector General of Police concurred with recommendations for disciplinary action. The document confirms that the complaint received formal consideration within the police accountability system. It does not, however, establish that Kabiu, Eric or Benjamin directed the officer's conduct. Nor does it set out the complete investigative findings or prove that the original share-transfer investigation was deliberately compromised. Those distinctions should not prevent further questions. What conduct prompted the disciplinary recommendation? Was the recommended action implemented? Did the Internal Affairs Unit identify shortcomings that affected evidence collection or the handling of the complainant's reports? These are matters on which the relevant police authorities could provide clarification. The criminal court must ultimately determine the share-transfer charges on admissible evidence, independently of any unproven speculation about the motives of individual investigators. Why Victoria's Participation Matters Victoria is the person prosecutors say was deprived of her ownership interest, making her participation and protection important aspects of the wider proceedings. She has also been involved in related litigation concerning the estate of former Attorney General James Boro Karugu. A May 2025 High Court ruling identifies Victoria as an applicant and Jane Kabiu Gitau and Eric Mwaura Karugu among the respondents in succession proceedings. new.kenyalaw.org The existence of related family litigation helps explain the broader context of the dispute. It does not prove the criminal charges. Victoria has sought to participate in proceedings affecting her interests, and concerns have been raised about opposition to her involvement. Kenyan law recognises victims' rights to participate in criminal proceedings, subject to the court's control of the process and the accused persons' fair-trial rights. That means Victoria has a legitimate interest in being heard through the procedures permitted by law, while the ODPP remains responsible for conducting the prosecution. The Optimum Registrars Question The allegations against Kabiu have placed the professional responsibilities of company secretaries under close examination. A company secretary is not simply a person who types minutes or files forms. The role involves maintaining and processing records that can have major legal consequences for shareholders, directors and companies. A disputed share transfer should be capable of being traced through the relevant authorisations, signatures and statutory documentation. That is why the prosecution's accusations against Kabiu are so consequential. She is accused of conduct directly connected to the authenticity of an ownership instrument. The supplied case summary also refers to a 2018 professional undertaking associated with Optimum Registrars concerning missing allotment forms and minutes. The original undertaking has not been independently authenticated for this article, so its exact wording and legal implications remain to be established. Questions remain about the procedures followed in processing Victoria's disputed share transfer, the documents available to support it and the instructions relied upon by those involved. The Court Must Separate the Charges From the Subsequent Allegations One danger in a dispute of this magnitude is that different accusations can become blurred. The original criminal charges concern the alleged conspiracy, disputed share transfer, forgery and information supplied to investigators. The reported firearm confrontation concerns Benjamin and Victoria's security detail. The witness-interference concerns involve separate allegations that must be independently substantiated. The Internal Affairs Unit letter concerns a complaint against a police officer. Each matter deserves proper investigation, but none should automatically be treated as proof of another. For Kabiu, the prosecution must establish her alleged role in the false document. For Eric and Benjamin, it must prove the conduct attributed to them in the charge sheet. For the firearm allegation, investigators must determine what happened during the confrontation at Kiamara Estate. The court's responsibility is to ensure that serious accusations are neither ignored nor accepted without evidence. A Case That Tests Trust in Corporate Records The Mathara Holdings controversy is ultimately about whether company ownership records can be trusted and whether people who challenge disputed transactions can pursue legal remedies safely. Victoria maintains that her share was transferred without her consent. Prosecutors have brought criminal charges against three people, including a company secretary whose professional role is directly connected to corporate documentation. The accused deny wrongdoing and remain entitled to the presumption of innocence. At the same time, Victoria's account of the firearm confrontation, the concerns raised about witnesses and the Internal Affairs Unit's response to her police complaint make the broader dispute difficult to dismiss as a routine disagreement between relatives. The KSh100 nominal share value does not resolve those questions. Neither does the existence of a criminal charge prove guilt. What is needed is a full examination of the disputed transfer, the supporting documents, the evidence of those who handled them and the subsequent incidents that have raised concerns about the complainant's safety. For Jane Kabiu, the central question is whether the prosecution can prove that a company secretary entrusted with corporate records knowingly participated in the use of a false ownership document. For Benjamin Githara Karugu, the separate question is what evidence establishes the reported confrontation with Victoria's armed bodyguard. For Eric Mwaura Karugu, the court must determine his alleged role in the disputed transaction and the information supplied to investigators. Victoria is entitled to have her complaint addressed through a fair legal process without intimidation or improper interference. The case will ultimately be judged not by the force of the accusations, but by the evidence produced before the court.