Kenya MPs divided over graft chiefs
Debate on the suitability of three nominees to head the anti-corruption agency returns to Parliament on Tuesday afternoon in the face of sharp divisions among MPs.
Debate on whether to pass the three commissioners to the Ethic and Anti-Corruption Commission started on Thursday but was not concluded by the time Parliament rose.
It was an acrimonious debate as MPs discussed the Justice and Legal Affairs committee’s report that called for the rejection of Mumo Matemu as the chairman of the commission.
Mr Matemu, according to the committee’s report, should be rejected together with the two women, Prof Jane Onsongo and Ms Irene Keino, who were picked as commissioners to the commission.
President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga picked the individuals from a list submitted by a selection panel chaired by Rose Mambo. (READ: Kibaki, Raila pick Matemu new graft boss)
But the 11-member committee of Parliament reached a unanimous decision to reject the three with the argument that they lacked initiative, passion and drive to lead the crucial fight against corruption
After interviewing the three last Wednesday, the MPs concluded that the candidates had not demonstrated “sufficient interest in the fight against corruption”.
“All the nominees had excellent careers with excellent academic qualifications but lacked the passion to lead the Anti-Corruption Commission which qualifications could be relevant at other levels,” the MPs said in the report presented by vice chairman Njoroge Baiya.
The MPs also questioned the criteria used by the President and the PM “to by-pass the best candidates”. (READ: Blow to corruption war)
The Executive was accused of failing to include details on the criteria used to recommend them. Consequently, they recommended that future nominations be accompanied by an outline of the standards used.
They have recommended to Parliament to reject the report and have the Executive submit fresh names for consideration and approval “based on experience and passion for the fight against corruption”.
The nine-member selection panel had picked lawyer Okong’o Omogeni, Mr Matemu and Dr Sarah Kilemi in order of merit.
Prof Onsongo, a former assistant director of the defunct Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, had been picked alongside Mr Polycarp Omolo, Mr Robert Shaw and Ms Irene Keino as commission members.
But even before the debate kicked off, it was apparent that much was at stake given that it was preceded by intense lobbying.
Meetings were held outside Parliament to drum up support for the nominees and for a rejection of the MPs report.
The lobbying intensified after Thursday’s meeting, in particular by leaders supporting the nomination of Mr Matemu, a former commissioner with the Kenya Revenue Authority.
At the centre of the debate are claims that there were questions over the conduct and integrity of Mr Matemu, who has served as a KRA commissioner in charge of Support Services and as a senior legal officer at the Agricultural Finance Corporation.
MPs opposing Mr Matemu’s appointment accuse him of failure to collect Sh2.4 billion taxes in arrears from a company, Kingsway Motors and Automart Ltd, while he was a commissioner at the Kenya Revenue Authority. (READ: Matemu linked to Sh2.4bn scam)
Vetted nominees
Dr Boni Khalwale, chairman of the watchdog Public Accounts Committee, tabled documents relating to the issue, while committee member George Nyamweya said a similar dossier comprising sworn affidavits and court rulings had been presented to the committee that vetted the nominees.
However, questions are now being raised as to why the Legal Affairs committee did not include the allegations with supporting documents to their final report presented to the House.
Critics argue the allegations against Mr Matemu are ill-intentioned since as commissioner in charge of support services at KRA, he was only responsible for legal advice and litigation, a mandate outside that of collecting taxes.
In Parliament, Mr Nyamweya’s remarks aroused angry reactions by MPs who wanted to know why the allegations being used to block Mr Matemu from taking office were not part of the report.
On Monday, a member of the committee who could not be named because of House rules described the omission as “a costly error” attributing the failure to do so to the parliamentary secretariat.
But he explained that a tight deadline given to the committee which has been moribund for seven months led to the omission.
The committee had only about half an hour to compile the report and table it before the House on Wednesday afternoon, meaning it had to hurry up in what led to omitting of crucial attachment.
But the MP was quick to add that all was well since the documents tabled by Dr Khalwale are now records of the House.
It has now also emerged that some MPs plan to table documents they claim show malpractices at the Agricultural Finance Corporation when Mr Matemu was its chief legal officer.
This, the MPs claim, will further prove his unsuitability to lead the anti-graft agency.
On the other hand, another group of MPs are said to be ready with documents absolving Mr Matemu — who was last December honoured with a Presidential award of merit — from all the allegations.
According to the new law, if Parliament rejects any nomination, the Speaker shall within three days communicate its decision to the President and request him to submit fresh nominations.
The President shall within seven days submit to Parliament a fresh nomination from amongst the persons shortlisted and forwarded by the selection panel.
The upshot is that failure to pass the names today will leave the anti-corruption agency with a leadership crisis for a long time.
