Post by Onyango Oloo on Apr 4, 2015 2:57:31 GMT 3
A Digital Essay by Onyango Oloo
For the last week or so, Kenyans have been enthralled by the seemingly thermonuclear exposés on grand graft with the opening salvoes being unleashed by the head of state himself in a live dramatic address to the nation.
The newspapers; radio, television; our political cartoonist network; Facebook, Twitter, Google +; online discussion fora; Messenger, WhatsApp, text messages circulated around the country on everything from a rural donkey keeper’s Mulika Mwizi to a city savvy whizzkid’s iPhone, Samsung or HTC-nothing has so dominated animated conversation as the much vaunted “LIST” of top government officials, bureaucrats, technocrats and associated courtesans, sidekicks and drug pushers histrionically “named” and gloatingly “shamed”.
From all the pyrotechnic giddy excitement, it would be safe to assume that tens of millions of Kenyans have their bags packed, glancing anxiously at their wrist watches because Jesus Christ is descending at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport tomorrow urging us to promptly jump on the Heaven bound supersonic Dreamliner with St. Peter eagerly awaiting our urgent arrival at the pearly celestial gates yonder.
Well, Onyango Oloo did not purchase that one way extra-terrestial flight ticket.
Still stranded stubbornly on terra firma, I will sadly reprise my infernal recurring role of the perennial party pooper who crash lands day dreamers back to harsh down to earth realities.
By the way, did I or did I not hear the EACC commissioners grumbling in the National Assembly the other day about being arm twisted and manipulated into deleting some names and adding others which were not originally part of the now infamous “LIST” of apparent shame?
Incidentally, is it possible to shame a shameless person?
Would deeply amoral people recognize Lady Morality if she whacked them viciously across the face with a two foot long tilapia fish just plucked out of the deep freezer?
But I digress, so let’s leave fresh water sources of rich protein out of the discussion for the moment.
Because many of my long suffering readers always complain that Onyango Oloo takes a millennium to get to the frigging point, let me state upfront what my point actually is:
THIS WAR ON CORRUPTION IS A SHAM; A CAREFULLY CHOREOGRAPHED PR EXERCISE AIMED AT DIVERTING ATTENTION FROM MORE SERIOUS NATIONAL ISSUES.
There.
I have said it.
If you are reading this in a cybercafe, on your laptop, smartphone, tablet or other device, it is OK-go on NOW to the next thread, next posting, next tweet, next forward-that is if you are not waiting to ogle sheepishly at some illicit images of scantily clad human beings ensconced in some of the rather putrid dark corners dotting the red lit alleys of cyberspace.
KWAHERI!
Thanks for stopping by.
Now that they have all left, let me now share my perspectives with the three or four readers who are just plain curious as to where I am going with all this.
By the way, I never quite picked up the habit of partaking cannabis sativa and I will state without fear of contradiction that no chemicals-or mushrooms for that matter-altered the consciousness of the writer of this digital essay.
Let me commence with a quote from the Tax Justice Network:
To put corruption into proper perspective, we need to recognise the existence of illicit financial flows. These are defined by GFI as: “Money that is illegally earned, transferred, or utilised. If it breaks laws in its origin, movement, or use it merits the label”. Illicit flows are a massive problem. An estimated $1-1.6 trillion of illicit funds passes across international borders each year. Recent estimates put the figure for such illicit finance leaving developing countries at $800-$1.06 trillion per annum, which is up to 10 times what developed nations give out in aid. Illicit finance is a more useful term than capital flight. The latter has become bound-up with established perceptions of corruption, focused on resource-theft and public sector bribery. Illicit finance, by contrast, covers all of the world’s dirty money, whoever happens to be handling it and whatever they are handling it for. In contrast to the relatively small scale of illicit flows originating from bribery, GFI identifies that 30-35 per cent of illicit funds flowing out of the developing world are due to the activities of organised crime. Even more shockingly, they estimate that 60-65 per cent of illicit flows out of developing nations are due to commercially-evaded taxes, driven primarily by falsifying import and export prices. Such tax losses are especially painful for developing nations, since they force states to shift the tax burden onto the poorest who can least afford to pay, ensuring that governments lack the tax revenues required to invest and develop out of poverty. In many cases this lack of sustainable tax revenues ensures a continued dependence upon the dead-end of foreign aid. It is the illicit financial flows of the order identified by the World Bank which keep the poorest people on Earth poor. The world needs to catch up, and fast. Fortunately this is quite possible: high-end bribery, crime and abusive tax practices are all joined by a common thread.
(The Financial Secrecy Index and Corruption, Tax Justice Network, 2009).
In March 2006, the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group of the British Parliament published the Other Side of the Coin, a 31,242 word report looking at the responsibility of the UK to combat corruption and money laundering focusing on Africa which identified three areas where the UK would contribute to the fight against corruption in Africa, namely, tackling the supply side of corruption; bribe payments and mechanisms in international trade and credit that facilitate corruption; grappling with the laundering of the proceeds of corruption and safeguarding aid to ensure it does not become caught up in corruption or support corrupt leaders.
In a particularly revealing passage on page 19 of the report we read:
We have to understand supply as well as the demand side of corruption. Who is offering the bribe and who is laundering the proceeds of corruption? In many cases western companies and western agents have been guilty of offering and paying bribes to government officials to secure contracts and other advantages. Western banks have been implicated in laundering the proceeds of corruption and western shell companies and trusts have been set up to facilitate this. Western financial experts have also been accused of assisting corrupt officials to launder their illicit funds. And the international community, both donors and the private sector, have been guilty of turning a blind eye to rampant kleptomania.There are numerous cases that demonstrate the role played by foreign companies in Africa in paying bribes, and facilitating other forms of corruption. Despite much anecdotal evidence from businessmen themselves and investigative journalists, there are few quotable cases involving UK companies because at the time of writing, no UK company or individual has been prosecuted in the UK for bribery of a foreign public official. Unfortunately this does not mean it is not taking place. Secondly it is worth noting that large inflows of money to a government that does not have either the political will or the institutional capacity to ensure that money is fully accounted for, can in effect fuel corruption. Such money may come through FDI where resources such as oil are found, or in the form of aid, or loans. If western companies, governments and multi-lateral donors do not insist on high anti-corruption standards, they may be adding to the problem. Fear o f detection means that the proceeds of corruption, like other ‘dirty money’, need to be laundered. The international financial system is riddled with loopholes. Poor enforcement of laundering regulations lead some experts to suggest there is as much as $1 trillion of illicit cross border flows annually. Unfortunately the UK, including the City of London and Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, has been implicated in this practice. Accusations of hypocrisy have been leveled against the UK and other western countries for condemning corruption in Africa without their role addressing supply side and laundering issues: “With one hand, the West has pointed its finger at corrupt African leaders, whilst, with its other hand, its bankers, lawyers, accountants, art dealers, health authorities, universities, estate agents and embassies have been actively or passively encouraging wealth out of Africa into the West’s economies.” If we want to be taken seriously by African leaders and African citizens when we condemn corruption and increase aid, we must address the corruption problem holistically. Because the UK has taken a lead in the international community on supporting development in Africa, there is now a call for the UK to take a similar leadership role in tackling the international structures that support corruption.Without this type of action – in effect, putting our own house in order and ensuring our own policies are joined up – African efforts to tackle corruption will be undermined.
(The Other Side of the Coin, 2006).
You can download the document via this link.
The Supply Side of Corruption.
That is one of big chunks missing in the ongoing nauseating cacophony about ufisadi this, corruption that, list of shame yada yada yada yakety yakety yak yabber jabber yammer blah blah blah.
Exactly one week before Uhuru Kenyatta addressed the nation, the Devolution Forum had issued an ultimatum giving the President seven days to address the ballooning scandals unraveling within the two years Jubilee had been in power, citing 20 in particular, including: the 24.6 billion shilling laptop venture; the 63.5 billion JKIA tendering scandal; the 8.3 billion Chickengate fiasco; the 220-327 billion Standard Gauge Railway tendering controversy; the inflated 175 billion Lamu coal project; the much talked about 100 million Hustler jet; the 8 billion shilling Karen alleged land grab linking 40 Jubilee affiliated politicians and business types; the 9 billion shilling single sourced award to Safaricom to install CCTV cameras; the headline grabbing Weston Hotel/Langata playground saga that had protesting primary school kids being terrorized and tear gassed on live television; the NSSF Tassia II and Hazina Towers 13 billion probe; the fractious Mara Narok violent face offf over 3 billion KAPS revenue not forgetting the outrage over the purported 20 billion shillings minted from illegal charcoal exports from Kismayu involving KDF personnel purportedly protecting the country from Al Shabaab militants in Somalia.
Here is an excerpt from Devolution Forum’s press statement:
Under Jubilee, old arguments once used to justify mega-corruption have resurfaced and are being used for the same purpose. The Anglo-Leasing scandal, that affects three presidents, including the current president, was justified on the grounds that the contracts in question were necessary to secure the country from acts of terrorism. The unprecedented insecurity that the country has faced in the last two years makes it clear that this argument was false when it was first made, and remains false today. Yet, it is the argument that is at the heart of the increasingly unaccountable relationship between the Kenya government and Safaricom, a company that set out to provide mobile telephony but which is now held out as a provider of security solutions, in contracts that have been awarded through single sourcing and at prices Safaricom determines. The entry of Chinese companies on the Kenyan corruption scene has significantly reduced the possibility of accountability because these companies are prepared to pad kickbacks into contract prices, which is what explains the pricing variations witnessed during the Jubilee era.
It is also instructive to note the observations of the same civil society advocacy/lobby group responding to President Kenyatta’s state of the nation address:
The President announced on a previous occasion that the government would audit all contracts that had been issued by his government. However, it remains unclear what the parameters of the proposed audit would be, when it is proposed to commence, what methods will be used, who will conduct the audit, what timelines it is proposed to take, and what are the expected outcomes of the exercise. It would also be useful to know what the role of the public will be in the audit, and what the scope of its coverage will be. It is not possible to hold the government accountable for the promised audit unless these answers are provided well in advance of the audit. It is proposed that an instrument like a notice in the Kenya Gazette, stipulating the answers to these questions, would be a reasonable way of starting out. We would like to use this occasion to suggest to the president and the anti-corruption leadership in his government ideas that might be employed and which we think would provide clarity to some of these issues.
The Jubilee government must publish a list of all the contracts that have been issued by the government whether or not these are going to be the subject of the proposed audit. There should be provided sufficient particulars in relation to each contract, including the of the contract, the amount of money involved, the financing arrangements and commitments, the entity to which the contract was awarded and the current status of the contract. The publication of such a list will provide a shared data base and a common of reference in relation to the exercise that has been announced.
A common problem with contracts awarded by the Jubilee government has been an underlying arbitrariness, one that has seen a consistent disregard of questions of fitness for purpose and sustainability. The audit must seek answers on what due diligence went into the contracts, what opportunities were provided for public consultation, whether feasibility studies were undertaken prior to the award of the contracts, and what amount of public consultation went into discussions leading to the award of the contracts.
There has been a systematic disregard of the Public Procurement Disposal Act in a large number of contracts, an egregious form of which has been the fact that a large number of these contracts were awarded without competitive bidding. The audit must make specific findings on whether or not the contracts were subject to the Public Procurement Act.
Secrecy has shrouded the identity of the entities that have benefited from the contracts. The directors and beneficial owners of a large number of the companies that have been awarded government contracts remain unknown. There are well-founded suspicions that in a number of these contracts, the beneficiaries are public officials who have adopted the convenient shroud of corporate secrecy to do business in circumstances that imply a conflict of interests. The fear of conflict of interest cannot be allayed unless the true identities of the persons that the government is doing business with are established.
Under the Jubilee government, there has been a systematic disregard of the provisions of Chapter Six of the Constitution. Indeed, this government can trace its origins to the crippling attack on Chapter Six that allowed the President and his Deputy to vie for elections despite the challenges they faced at the time.The consequence is that the government has tolerated a situation where a number of public officials who serve in the government would not pass the constitutional requirement regarding integrity.
The Jubilee administration continues to nominate persons who are clouded by doubt over their integrity and independence. This is particularly so in the ongoing vetting of the President’s nominees to the Judicial Service Commission whose impartiality and integrity have been called into question. In particular, the appointment of the former executive director of the President’s political party is questionable and should be withdrawn.
The Jubilee administration and indeed other political parties continue to nominate and support individuals of dubious integrity to elective office. This has greatly contributed to corruption in the legislative assemblies as well as undermining the legislative mandate of this critical arm of government. The President failed to suggest ways in which his party will rein in unsuitable representatives. Indeed it continues to nominate individuals of dubious integrity such as the recent nomination of Ferdinand Waititu: The High Court made a finding of lack of integrity against him, based on very offensive public utterances he made in 2012, targeting a particular ethnic community. He has now been cleared to run for office as Member of Parliament for Kabete in the by-election expected in that constituency.
(March 29, 2015 Press Statement by the Devolution Forum)
Why has Uhuru Kenyatta not stepped aside over the lap top and Standard Gauge Railway controversies?
Why has William Ruto not stepped aside over Weston Hotel/Langata Playground, Mara Narok and the Hustler Jet scandal?
Why has the Jubilee Government not RESIGNED to pave way for fresh presidential, national assembly and county elections?
For the last week or so, Kenyans have been enthralled by the seemingly thermonuclear exposés on grand graft with the opening salvoes being unleashed by the head of state himself in a live dramatic address to the nation.
The newspapers; radio, television; our political cartoonist network; Facebook, Twitter, Google +; online discussion fora; Messenger, WhatsApp, text messages circulated around the country on everything from a rural donkey keeper’s Mulika Mwizi to a city savvy whizzkid’s iPhone, Samsung or HTC-nothing has so dominated animated conversation as the much vaunted “LIST” of top government officials, bureaucrats, technocrats and associated courtesans, sidekicks and drug pushers histrionically “named” and gloatingly “shamed”.
From all the pyrotechnic giddy excitement, it would be safe to assume that tens of millions of Kenyans have their bags packed, glancing anxiously at their wrist watches because Jesus Christ is descending at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport tomorrow urging us to promptly jump on the Heaven bound supersonic Dreamliner with St. Peter eagerly awaiting our urgent arrival at the pearly celestial gates yonder.
Well, Onyango Oloo did not purchase that one way extra-terrestial flight ticket.
Still stranded stubbornly on terra firma, I will sadly reprise my infernal recurring role of the perennial party pooper who crash lands day dreamers back to harsh down to earth realities.
By the way, did I or did I not hear the EACC commissioners grumbling in the National Assembly the other day about being arm twisted and manipulated into deleting some names and adding others which were not originally part of the now infamous “LIST” of apparent shame?
Incidentally, is it possible to shame a shameless person?
Would deeply amoral people recognize Lady Morality if she whacked them viciously across the face with a two foot long tilapia fish just plucked out of the deep freezer?
But I digress, so let’s leave fresh water sources of rich protein out of the discussion for the moment.
Because many of my long suffering readers always complain that Onyango Oloo takes a millennium to get to the frigging point, let me state upfront what my point actually is:
THIS WAR ON CORRUPTION IS A SHAM; A CAREFULLY CHOREOGRAPHED PR EXERCISE AIMED AT DIVERTING ATTENTION FROM MORE SERIOUS NATIONAL ISSUES.
There.
I have said it.
If you are reading this in a cybercafe, on your laptop, smartphone, tablet or other device, it is OK-go on NOW to the next thread, next posting, next tweet, next forward-that is if you are not waiting to ogle sheepishly at some illicit images of scantily clad human beings ensconced in some of the rather putrid dark corners dotting the red lit alleys of cyberspace.
KWAHERI!
Thanks for stopping by.
Now that they have all left, let me now share my perspectives with the three or four readers who are just plain curious as to where I am going with all this.
By the way, I never quite picked up the habit of partaking cannabis sativa and I will state without fear of contradiction that no chemicals-or mushrooms for that matter-altered the consciousness of the writer of this digital essay.
Let me commence with a quote from the Tax Justice Network:
To put corruption into proper perspective, we need to recognise the existence of illicit financial flows. These are defined by GFI as: “Money that is illegally earned, transferred, or utilised. If it breaks laws in its origin, movement, or use it merits the label”. Illicit flows are a massive problem. An estimated $1-1.6 trillion of illicit funds passes across international borders each year. Recent estimates put the figure for such illicit finance leaving developing countries at $800-$1.06 trillion per annum, which is up to 10 times what developed nations give out in aid. Illicit finance is a more useful term than capital flight. The latter has become bound-up with established perceptions of corruption, focused on resource-theft and public sector bribery. Illicit finance, by contrast, covers all of the world’s dirty money, whoever happens to be handling it and whatever they are handling it for. In contrast to the relatively small scale of illicit flows originating from bribery, GFI identifies that 30-35 per cent of illicit funds flowing out of the developing world are due to the activities of organised crime. Even more shockingly, they estimate that 60-65 per cent of illicit flows out of developing nations are due to commercially-evaded taxes, driven primarily by falsifying import and export prices. Such tax losses are especially painful for developing nations, since they force states to shift the tax burden onto the poorest who can least afford to pay, ensuring that governments lack the tax revenues required to invest and develop out of poverty. In many cases this lack of sustainable tax revenues ensures a continued dependence upon the dead-end of foreign aid. It is the illicit financial flows of the order identified by the World Bank which keep the poorest people on Earth poor. The world needs to catch up, and fast. Fortunately this is quite possible: high-end bribery, crime and abusive tax practices are all joined by a common thread.
(The Financial Secrecy Index and Corruption, Tax Justice Network, 2009).
In March 2006, the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group of the British Parliament published the Other Side of the Coin, a 31,242 word report looking at the responsibility of the UK to combat corruption and money laundering focusing on Africa which identified three areas where the UK would contribute to the fight against corruption in Africa, namely, tackling the supply side of corruption; bribe payments and mechanisms in international trade and credit that facilitate corruption; grappling with the laundering of the proceeds of corruption and safeguarding aid to ensure it does not become caught up in corruption or support corrupt leaders.
In a particularly revealing passage on page 19 of the report we read:
We have to understand supply as well as the demand side of corruption. Who is offering the bribe and who is laundering the proceeds of corruption? In many cases western companies and western agents have been guilty of offering and paying bribes to government officials to secure contracts and other advantages. Western banks have been implicated in laundering the proceeds of corruption and western shell companies and trusts have been set up to facilitate this. Western financial experts have also been accused of assisting corrupt officials to launder their illicit funds. And the international community, both donors and the private sector, have been guilty of turning a blind eye to rampant kleptomania.There are numerous cases that demonstrate the role played by foreign companies in Africa in paying bribes, and facilitating other forms of corruption. Despite much anecdotal evidence from businessmen themselves and investigative journalists, there are few quotable cases involving UK companies because at the time of writing, no UK company or individual has been prosecuted in the UK for bribery of a foreign public official. Unfortunately this does not mean it is not taking place. Secondly it is worth noting that large inflows of money to a government that does not have either the political will or the institutional capacity to ensure that money is fully accounted for, can in effect fuel corruption. Such money may come through FDI where resources such as oil are found, or in the form of aid, or loans. If western companies, governments and multi-lateral donors do not insist on high anti-corruption standards, they may be adding to the problem. Fear o f detection means that the proceeds of corruption, like other ‘dirty money’, need to be laundered. The international financial system is riddled with loopholes. Poor enforcement of laundering regulations lead some experts to suggest there is as much as $1 trillion of illicit cross border flows annually. Unfortunately the UK, including the City of London and Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, has been implicated in this practice. Accusations of hypocrisy have been leveled against the UK and other western countries for condemning corruption in Africa without their role addressing supply side and laundering issues: “With one hand, the West has pointed its finger at corrupt African leaders, whilst, with its other hand, its bankers, lawyers, accountants, art dealers, health authorities, universities, estate agents and embassies have been actively or passively encouraging wealth out of Africa into the West’s economies.” If we want to be taken seriously by African leaders and African citizens when we condemn corruption and increase aid, we must address the corruption problem holistically. Because the UK has taken a lead in the international community on supporting development in Africa, there is now a call for the UK to take a similar leadership role in tackling the international structures that support corruption.Without this type of action – in effect, putting our own house in order and ensuring our own policies are joined up – African efforts to tackle corruption will be undermined.
(The Other Side of the Coin, 2006).
You can download the document via this link.
The Supply Side of Corruption.
That is one of big chunks missing in the ongoing nauseating cacophony about ufisadi this, corruption that, list of shame yada yada yada yakety yakety yak yabber jabber yammer blah blah blah.
Exactly one week before Uhuru Kenyatta addressed the nation, the Devolution Forum had issued an ultimatum giving the President seven days to address the ballooning scandals unraveling within the two years Jubilee had been in power, citing 20 in particular, including: the 24.6 billion shilling laptop venture; the 63.5 billion JKIA tendering scandal; the 8.3 billion Chickengate fiasco; the 220-327 billion Standard Gauge Railway tendering controversy; the inflated 175 billion Lamu coal project; the much talked about 100 million Hustler jet; the 8 billion shilling Karen alleged land grab linking 40 Jubilee affiliated politicians and business types; the 9 billion shilling single sourced award to Safaricom to install CCTV cameras; the headline grabbing Weston Hotel/Langata playground saga that had protesting primary school kids being terrorized and tear gassed on live television; the NSSF Tassia II and Hazina Towers 13 billion probe; the fractious Mara Narok violent face offf over 3 billion KAPS revenue not forgetting the outrage over the purported 20 billion shillings minted from illegal charcoal exports from Kismayu involving KDF personnel purportedly protecting the country from Al Shabaab militants in Somalia.
Here is an excerpt from Devolution Forum’s press statement:
Under Jubilee, old arguments once used to justify mega-corruption have resurfaced and are being used for the same purpose. The Anglo-Leasing scandal, that affects three presidents, including the current president, was justified on the grounds that the contracts in question were necessary to secure the country from acts of terrorism. The unprecedented insecurity that the country has faced in the last two years makes it clear that this argument was false when it was first made, and remains false today. Yet, it is the argument that is at the heart of the increasingly unaccountable relationship between the Kenya government and Safaricom, a company that set out to provide mobile telephony but which is now held out as a provider of security solutions, in contracts that have been awarded through single sourcing and at prices Safaricom determines. The entry of Chinese companies on the Kenyan corruption scene has significantly reduced the possibility of accountability because these companies are prepared to pad kickbacks into contract prices, which is what explains the pricing variations witnessed during the Jubilee era.
It is also instructive to note the observations of the same civil society advocacy/lobby group responding to President Kenyatta’s state of the nation address:
The President announced on a previous occasion that the government would audit all contracts that had been issued by his government. However, it remains unclear what the parameters of the proposed audit would be, when it is proposed to commence, what methods will be used, who will conduct the audit, what timelines it is proposed to take, and what are the expected outcomes of the exercise. It would also be useful to know what the role of the public will be in the audit, and what the scope of its coverage will be. It is not possible to hold the government accountable for the promised audit unless these answers are provided well in advance of the audit. It is proposed that an instrument like a notice in the Kenya Gazette, stipulating the answers to these questions, would be a reasonable way of starting out. We would like to use this occasion to suggest to the president and the anti-corruption leadership in his government ideas that might be employed and which we think would provide clarity to some of these issues.
The Jubilee government must publish a list of all the contracts that have been issued by the government whether or not these are going to be the subject of the proposed audit. There should be provided sufficient particulars in relation to each contract, including the of the contract, the amount of money involved, the financing arrangements and commitments, the entity to which the contract was awarded and the current status of the contract. The publication of such a list will provide a shared data base and a common of reference in relation to the exercise that has been announced.
A common problem with contracts awarded by the Jubilee government has been an underlying arbitrariness, one that has seen a consistent disregard of questions of fitness for purpose and sustainability. The audit must seek answers on what due diligence went into the contracts, what opportunities were provided for public consultation, whether feasibility studies were undertaken prior to the award of the contracts, and what amount of public consultation went into discussions leading to the award of the contracts.
There has been a systematic disregard of the Public Procurement Disposal Act in a large number of contracts, an egregious form of which has been the fact that a large number of these contracts were awarded without competitive bidding. The audit must make specific findings on whether or not the contracts were subject to the Public Procurement Act.
Secrecy has shrouded the identity of the entities that have benefited from the contracts. The directors and beneficial owners of a large number of the companies that have been awarded government contracts remain unknown. There are well-founded suspicions that in a number of these contracts, the beneficiaries are public officials who have adopted the convenient shroud of corporate secrecy to do business in circumstances that imply a conflict of interests. The fear of conflict of interest cannot be allayed unless the true identities of the persons that the government is doing business with are established.
Under the Jubilee government, there has been a systematic disregard of the provisions of Chapter Six of the Constitution. Indeed, this government can trace its origins to the crippling attack on Chapter Six that allowed the President and his Deputy to vie for elections despite the challenges they faced at the time.The consequence is that the government has tolerated a situation where a number of public officials who serve in the government would not pass the constitutional requirement regarding integrity.
The Jubilee administration continues to nominate persons who are clouded by doubt over their integrity and independence. This is particularly so in the ongoing vetting of the President’s nominees to the Judicial Service Commission whose impartiality and integrity have been called into question. In particular, the appointment of the former executive director of the President’s political party is questionable and should be withdrawn.
The Jubilee administration and indeed other political parties continue to nominate and support individuals of dubious integrity to elective office. This has greatly contributed to corruption in the legislative assemblies as well as undermining the legislative mandate of this critical arm of government. The President failed to suggest ways in which his party will rein in unsuitable representatives. Indeed it continues to nominate individuals of dubious integrity such as the recent nomination of Ferdinand Waititu: The High Court made a finding of lack of integrity against him, based on very offensive public utterances he made in 2012, targeting a particular ethnic community. He has now been cleared to run for office as Member of Parliament for Kabete in the by-election expected in that constituency.
(March 29, 2015 Press Statement by the Devolution Forum)
Why has Uhuru Kenyatta not stepped aside over the lap top and Standard Gauge Railway controversies?
Why has William Ruto not stepped aside over Weston Hotel/Langata Playground, Mara Narok and the Hustler Jet scandal?
Why has the Jubilee Government not RESIGNED to pave way for fresh presidential, national assembly and county elections?
Onyango Oloo
Easter Weekend (Friday April 3-Saturday April 4, 2015)
Nairobi Kenya
Easter Weekend (Friday April 3-Saturday April 4, 2015)
Nairobi Kenya
