(Written on 4th November, 2010)
The recent flurry of anti-corruption related activity has elicited much reaction in the media, both nationally and internationally. That in a span of under 14 days, two Cabinet Ministers, one PS, and the Mayor of Nairobi have all been relieved of duty is unprecedented. Except for the case of the former Minister for Higher Education, all the above-mentioned officials “stepped aside” to allow for investigations into the allegations against them.
Attention needs to be paid to this legal and constitutional oddity; this “stepping aside” which seems to be the latest method to sanitize officials before returning them to public office. Looking back into our recent history (post 2003), most Cabinet members who have been forced to step aside have found their way back into Cabinet. “Stepping aside” has become something akin to the ‘Commission of Inquiry’ of old; of which we knew we could expect no tangible outcome.
KACC has recently demonstrated new resolve. Again, history demonstrates that this has always been the case when any anti-graft institution comes under new leadership. The real test for them will be in the consistency and quality of their investigations, and whether the new Attorney General contemplated by the new constitution will have a more active prosecutorial disposition. A further test for us all lies in the ability to follow these investigations through to their logical conclusion: prosecutions, where this is sufficient evidence. This is where we have fallen short in the past.
While it is clear the provisions of the new constitution are beginning to bear fruit, let us not rejoice too much at a few small steps in the right direction. We must go further and hold our anti-corruption institutions, particularly KACC, to a much higher standard than ever before: and we must hold ourselves and our “leaders” to that standard as well.
The new constitution demands it: it provides that a State officer who contravenes the provisions of S. 75 (relating to Conduct of State officers) may in accordance with the disciplinary procedure for the relevant office be dismissed or otherwise removed from office.
Existing legislation demands it: S.62 (1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act provides that “A public officer who is charged with corruption or economic crimes shall be suspended…”
Commendable as these recent actions are, we must seek to standardize such action across the board. It is clear that there are more Cabinet Ministers, MPs, and other public officers who ought to be subjected to the same fate and administrative action as the four mentioned above. The selective application of these provisions inevitably results in the concerned party retreating to their ethnic community with the pathetic cry: “…we are being targeted”. Furthermore, such selective application weakens rather than strengthens the fight against corruption. It serves to entrench a retrogressive culture of apportionment of blame, under the guise of fighting corruption, designed to appease the masses while others equally culpable remain in office.
It is nothing short of scandalous to hear that individuals who “step aside” will continue to enjoy their full and unwieldy salaries. This boggles the mind! So is “stepping aside” a punitive measure? Let me see if I understand this: when one is implicated in a corruption matter, one need only take the seemingly meaningless action of “stepping aside”. You will then be rewarded with a well-earned rest from public office AND a full salary for work you have obviously not done! Once again, the taxpayer is the ultimate loser! This is a failing of our anti-corruption legislation, and is an area we should revisit urgently to clearly spell out what actions will be taken against those implicated in corruption, pending the outcome of investigations. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that such a person should continue to be a burden to the taxpayer. If those protesting their innocence so loudly are indeed sincere, they should write to the respective authorities, and voluntarily forego their salaries while not in office.
If we, as a country, hope to be taken seriously on a regional level and as part of a global community, we must first take ourselves more seriously. A piece-meal purge that gathers momentum today and dissipates tomorrow, is an-all-too familiar trend that we have seen in the past, and an ominous sign for the future. It is incumbent upon the Principals to match their recent words with actions, and extend the scope of current anti corruption efforts to all who serve in their Cabinet, in Parliament, and in public office. Only then will they embody the requisite seriousness to conclusively address the rampant levels of corruption.
As Kenyans, we must remain vigilant in the days and months ahead, as we seek to do better in the fight against corruption. In order to do this, we must have the moral fortitude to implement the new constitution to the letter!
