When Muthaura paid to insult Kenyans’ intelligence
By Robert Shaw

It is bad enough finding out that the previous government and this one have literally given away billions of shillings of taxpayers’ money in corrupt deals. It is unforgivable when Muthuara, on behalf of the Government, spends even more money to tell us that the situation is not as bad as all that (naughty media again) and that all is now under control.

Muthaura may be Head of the Public Service and Secretary to the Cabinet but that does not give him the authority to insult the intelligence of Kenyans and to literally make them pay for these insults. He has used taxpayer’s money for these advertisements and I suggest the relevant amount be docked from his salary and returned to whichever budgetary allocation it came from.

Concern is not just about the vacuous and sieve-like contents of the statement. It is also about what we must do to thoroughly clean out the active remnants of corruption that are still happily festering away in a number of government closets. The passports and forensic science laboratory scams show this clearly. We need clarity on who should be responsible for what and who should implement what in the purging process. We also need to see those who have committed these economic crimes being charged and punished.

First, the statement itself. I think the best way to summarise it is that there are hardly any Kenyans who either took it seriously or who believed it. That is a damning indictment on Muthaura and the Government as a whole, especially when it comes to the issue of credibility. It had a sneering patronising style more akin to the 1980s.

References to settling scores and sensationalising do not wash with today’s more sceptical, informed and empowered public. As to substance, well, there was not much of it. As for contradictions, yes, there was one glaring one. How can you state: "Corruption investigations are complex and may take time", then promise there will be "no sacred cows" and swiftly follow that with a blanket exoneration of the Narc government’s ministers and permanent secretaries?

And is this really Muthaura’s pigeon? What about the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission or the Permanent Secretary for Ethics and Governance, or even the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs himself, or all three of them? Muthaura’s statement smacks of bureaucratic whitewash.

But more worrying are some of the remedial and preventative proposals made. Creating an inter-ministerial procurement committee and a unit specialising in public-private partnership financing are just more of the same thing. They are just additional layers of bureaucracy with the same fault lines, especially when it comes to both internal and external accountability. That is the nub of the problem.

Some of the suggestions put forward by several non-governmental organisations, Transparency International (Kenya) included, have much more value. One of them is to restrict what can be classified as "security" procurements. It appears that a number of procurements shelter under this umbrella — not because they have a high security value but because the relevant tendering procedures can be circumvented. We should bring in a professional, external agency to advise on what should and should not be in the high security classification.

A parliamentary committee should be set up to scrutinise the genuine security procurements. Its members should be sworn to secrecy, with serious penalties if breached. It is absolutely essential that there be a vetting process that is independent of the decision makers and mainstream government.

This principle should not just be confined to Parliament. It is important to ensure that the media and public policy bodies can scrutinise and publicise without fear or threat. In this respect, the Official Secrets Act should be reviewed and a Freedom of Information Bill introduced.

Another proposal it makes is to insist that potential bidders for security projects be locked into anti-bribery and integrity pacts as a prerequisite for qualification. This should help to exclude the briefcase and other shadowy outfits. It would also enlighten us to what commissions or facilitation payments are made.

Together, these proposals, along with a tightening up of the whole procurement process, would do much more to squeeze out procurement corruption from government than these two additional government committees.

••••

As D-day approaches for the implementation of the National Social Health Insurance Scheme, it is clear that many questions remain about how it will work or not work and whether it runs the danger of just becoming another tax. The concept is a laudable one, but it runs the risk of falling flat on its face if it is not workable. The Government should postpone the introduction of this project and all players, government and private sector included, should get round a table and thrash out what needs to be done to ensure such the scheme works.

Copyright © 2004 . The Standard Ltd