Why Muthama wants woman barred from using his name

Former Machakos Senator Johnson Muthama on Friday moved to court, seeking to have his name removed from a 36-year-old woman’s birth certificate.

Muthama filed his case before High Court Judge Chacha Mwita. He sued the Civil Registration Bureau, the Secretary of the Bureau of Services, the Director General of Immigration Services, and the Attorney General, claiming that the document erroneously indicates he is the father of one Christiana Wahu, while her biological father is different.

 The Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) commissioner also cited Wahu and her mother, Nina Maria Wanjiku, as interested parties, stating that her continued listing in her birth certificate is a violation of his rights.

Muthama said that Wahu has a birth certificate, a passport and an identification card indicating that she is his daughter. He argued that despite formally writing to the government agencies for the removal of his name has fallen on deaf ears.

The former Senator revealed that he had footing financial needs for the 36-year-old, including school fees, but asserted that it was not an admission that he fathered or assumed parental responsibility.

He accused Maria of assisting Wahu in getting the crucial documents using the wrong information back in 1998. According to him, Maria is currently facing a criminal case in relation to the contested documents.

 The said birth certificate has been used by the first interested party to obtain consequential national documents, specifically the National Identity card and the Kenyan passport, which are presently valid and in use. These derivative documents carry the false information contained in the forged certificates, therefore perpetuating an illegality in official state record,” said Muthama.

Muthama stated that Wahu was born on Christmas Day in 1989 in Mombasa. According to him, her birth certificate was issued on January 8, 1990.

Muthama further stated that the father of the child in the document was said to be one James Ndichu Githinji, while her mother was Nina Maria Wanjiku Straulino.

He argued that Maria went to Thika, and without his consent and knowledge, obtained a birth certificate on January 20, 1998 and listed him as Wahu’s father.  He claimed that she also altered her daughter’s place of birth.

“This forgery has been unlawfully circulated, fundamentally misrepresenting my paternity and status in official records. The forgery was unlawfully relied upon to procure government documents, including a Kenyan passport and a national identification card, perpetuating the falsehood,” he claimed.

Muthama stated that when he became aware of the alleged irregularities, he reported the issue to the Kilimani Police Station Directorate of Criminal Investigations.

According to him, a probe allegedly revealed that the crucial document was a forgery.

The politician added that he formally wrote to the registrar, demanding a recall and cancellation of the passport, the ID and the birth certificate on July 15, 2025.

In court, Muthama said that paying Wahu’s school fees was an act of a good gesture.

“ Any financial assistance I previously extended to Christiana for school fees or other needs was purely a gesture of goodwill and does not amount to acknowledgement of paternity. Treating such benevolence as proof of parentage would distort the facts and further compound the injury caused by the forged document,” he said.

According to him, the only solution was to have the documents recalled and cancelled.

A DCI covering report filed by Muthama alleges that Maria was initially married to Ndichu. The report also reads that she allegedly claimed that she was married to Muthama while she had two children, a son and Wahu. She also claimed that Muthama had documents of the entire family and that she had allegedly not recovered them from him after allegedly breaking up.

The conclusion was that the document was made while Wahu was a minor, hence she could not be criminally held liable. At the same time, it indicated that her mother and Muthama knew each other, but it was unclear whether they were married or not.

“ None of them provides proof of the same,” the report reads in part, adding that Maria had an opportunity to question the authenticity of the alleged forged birth certificate but let her daughter use it despite knowing there was one which was acquired at birth.

At the same time, it indicated that the two had not stolen anything of value from the politician but indicated that an offence of making a document without authority, forgery and uttering a false document had been committed. It recommended that Maria be charged.