Sh260 Million Fraud Case: Buuri MP Aspirant Eliud Gilisho Faces Court Scrutiny Over Fake Investors, Forged Passport and Threats to Businessman
By Milton Were A Sh260 million fraud investigation involving an aspiring Member of Parliament for Buuri Constituency has raised serious questions about an elaborate investment scheme, fabricated foreign investors, disputed identity documents and threats directed at a businessman who says he lost a fortune. Eliud Gilisho, also identified as Eliud Limuyu, is at the centre of the case following investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and approval of fraud charges by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP). Gilisho was said to have appeared in court on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, as the dispute involving businessman Tony Ketter continued to attract attention. The case centres on claims that Ketter, an ICT entrepreneur with business interests in Kenya, South Africa and Angola, was drawn into a sophisticated financial scheme built around a supposed breakthrough in weapons-detection technology. According to the complaint presented to investigators, what began as a proposal to finance an invention developed into a prolonged financial ordeal involving fictitious investors, frightening assassination claims, the disruption of established business relationships and the loss of approximately Sh260 million. Man imprignates and dumps women The accusations are particularly significant because Gilisho has expressed interest in contesting the Buuri parliamentary seat in the 2027 General Election. At issue is not simply the amount of money in dispute, but the methods investigators say were used to secure it and the questions the criminal proceedings must now resolve. Milimani Court Hears Sh122 Million Theft Charge Wednesday's court proceedings brought a significant development. A report published by Nairobi News confirms that Gilisho was arraigned at Milimani Law Courts over a Sh122 million theft charge involving NovoGames International Limited. The charge sheet states that the money was stolen between September 18, 2020, and March 25, 2024, when Gilisho was a director of the company. He denied the charge. His lawyers sought his release, while the prosecution raised concerns relating to his conduct and the complainant's safety. The court was expected to determine his bond application. The Sh122 million charge is distinct from the broader Sh260 million loss claimed by Ketter. That distinction matters: the court must determine the specific criminal charge before it, while investigators and the complainant have described a wider financial dispute. Fake American and French Investors at the Centre of the Investigation The DCI investigation describes a scheme in which Gilisho used fabricated identities to create the impression that wealthy investors from the United States and France were preparing to finance a revolutionary weapons-detection invention. Investigators say emails purportedly originating from foreign financiers were used to convince Ketter that the technology had attracted international interest and could generate substantial returns. Ketter's complaint describes how initial requests for relatively modest development funding escalated into repeated financial demands. The businessman told detectives that Gilisho gained his confidence before exploiting that relationship to obtain increasingly large sums of money. The investigation also examined the role of Samali Kirika, a Ugandan national who previously worked for Ketter and through whom Gilisho was introduced to the businessman. Her precise involvement remains a matter for investigators to establish. Assassination Claims and the Isolation of a Businessman One of the most disturbing elements of the complaint concerns claims that American interests wanted to assassinate Ketter and steal the supposed invention. According to the account presented to police, these warnings created an atmosphere of fear that contributed to Ketter's isolation from trusted associates and business partners. Investigators have described the use of fabricated threats and impersonation as central features of the scheme. Ketter says the experience disrupted his business operations in South Africa and forced him to return to Kenya. He also complained that individuals connected to the dispute subsequently targeted his family's land in Nandi County. These are serious accusations requiring scrutiny through documentary evidence, financial records and testimony. Israeli Passport and Conflicting Birth Dates Raise Further Questions Detectives have also raised questions about travel and identification documents associated with Gilisho. According to the DCI account, investigators recovered an Israeli passport they suspect to be forged, together with visa documentation including a United States visa. Investigators identified inconsistencies between dates of birth appearing on different identification documents and sought clarification from the relevant embassies. The authenticity of those documents and the circumstances in which they were obtained are separate issues that require official determination. Courtroom Confrontation With Journalists Gilisho's appearance in court also drew attention on his confrontation with journalists covering the proceedings. He told journalists to "fuck off" during the encounter at the court today. Journalists have a legitimate responsibility to cover criminal proceedings of public interest, particularly where a person seeking elected office faces serious financial accusations. Political Ambitions Under Scrutiny Gilisho's declared interest in the Buuri parliamentary seat gives the proceedings an additional dimension of public interest. The central questions now concern the financial transactions, the authenticity of the identities and documents examined by investigators, the circumstances surrounding Ketter's complaints and the evidence prosecutors will present in court. For Ketter, the proceedings represent an opportunity to have his complaints examined through the justice system. For Gilisho, they provide the opportunity to contest the prosecution's evidence and present his defence. The next stage of the case will be determined by the courts, where the evidence not the scale of the accusations or the confrontation outside the courtroom must establish the outcome.