 |
| In the war against corruption, the president's hands are tied! |
Kenya is in the grip of a vicious war on graft.
The tentacles of vastly networked cartels that collectively siphon millions each year from public institutions are so far-reaching that it will take more than the resignation or firing of individuals holding offices to root out corruption.
It’s a war, one with far more players and strategies than some actors in the civil society would care to admit.
Just like in the theatre of war, there are many battles to be fought, many targets to set and attain and most certainly, many combatants to face; all of whom are determined to retain their vested interests.
Endemic and systematised corruption as Kenya’s case illustrates, must be due to our economic culture and the way business is conducted.
Corruption in Government is not isolated nor does it occur in a vacuum where only Government is susceptible to graft.
Indeed, as Safaricom CEO Bob Collymore noted in January 2016, the private sector needs to honour their pledges made in November 2015 to help the Government to fight corruption as well; because usually they are the ones on the other side.
This is because 70 per cent of all perceived corruption has to do with public procurement, in which the private sector is heavily involved.
If 70 per cent of corrupt deals occur through the participation of the private sector, then we really must share the blame equally between both sectors.
This is a point that seems to have been completely overlooked by the civil society sector, which has been quite liberal with ultimatums to Government on the need to deal with corruption.
What I wish the civil society would do is agitate for changes within the law, as regards the President’s mandate to fight corruption.
The irony seems to be lost on them when they conveniently forget that they are demanding that the Government must follow the constitution without understanding that the constitution as currently structured, demands that the President do nothing directly as regards fighting corruption
Anyone paying keen attention to the fight against graft will note that exposing, investigating and prosecuting corruption involves several agencies, including the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations.
The police, anti-fraud units, whistle-blowers and the Judiciary. It beggars belief that anyone would expect the President, who is constitutionally mandated to deal with corruption only through these institutions, to be able to turn-around corruption cases overnight.
In a country where someone is deemed innocent until proven otherwise, the President should not even fire someone just because they are alleged to be corrupt!
Today we have set up independent institutions that check each other’s powers, especially as regards who to charge on claims that they are corrupt. It is a tedious process that takes forever.
It also gives the guilty a chance to play around with the law and manipulate events as they defend themselves.
This means that the process of fighting corruption cannot just occur in a flash, just like the process of creating the cartels and strategies to embezzle doesn’t happen spontaneously.
It is very frustrating to genuine believers in the need to eradicate corruption.
It makes one want to ask for the China option; death by firing squad, for corruption offenders. The psychological expectations of some of us are also set by the sensational media headlines we encounter every day.
We are being primed to expect something sudden and dramatic to occur in this war.
But we must remember what the 2010 constitution was trying to cure. We come from a history where political differences could put you in jail after ensuring you lost all your property.
If we give the power to determine who should be prosecuted on charges of corruption to a political figure, then we must accept that this power will sometimes be used to settle political scores. It has been done in our past.
We therefore need some sobriety as we conduct an honest scrutiny of the demands made upon the president in the war against corruption.
The reality of fighting the war on graft is that it is a process, a building up of several incidences and actions taken, and never one singular event that signal the end of war.
However, some of us clearly think that the president should be judge, jury and executioner of suspects of corruption, as well as being the one who repossess assets suspected to be illegally acquired.
If this is what we want, then we need to re look at our laws and agitate for the changes that will give the President requisite powers to do this.
No comments:
Post a Comment