Memorandum to President Kenyatta tells of rot at anti-graft agency

Differences within the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission have brought to light a letter to the President that makes grave allegations against chairman Mumo Matemu.

Written in September 2014 and signed by the vice-chair of the commission, Irene Keino, and the other commissioner, Prof Jane Onsongo, the letter accused Mr Matemu of “lack of desire to fight corruption and lack of vision”.

The letter sets out specific allegations against Mr Matemu, among them that while the agency was investigating the Anglo Leasing scandal, Mr Matemu was “secretly engaged in meetings with the architects of the scam i.e Mr Kamani”.

The two commissioners also alleged that since Mr Matemu joined the commission, “matters to do with Charterhouse Bank have resurfaced”.

They observed; “we are not sure that the chairman is not involved”.

The letter further accused Mr Matemu of “failure to consult and inform the commissioners” as a result of which “important commission issues are communicated yet they have not been discussed or communicated to the commissioners and the chief executive”.

The commissioners accused Mr Matemu of blocking amendments to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act, which were contained in a Bill that had been passed by Parliament and was awaiting presidential assent.

They claimed that Mr Matemu “sponsored some MPs from his community to frustrate this vital amendment” and, further, that “we are aware that [Mr Matemu] is using the chairman of Law Society of Kenya to write to you objecting to the signing of the Bill”.

The letter says that Mr Matemu “interferes with operational matters and the motives are sinister”.

It cites, as an example, that Mr Matemu had formed the habit of requesting for specific investigation files “through unofficial methods” and that he avoided making status update requests through the chief executive.

The commissioners had since requested the chief executive to put in place methods that would defeat Mr Matemu’s informal access to investigation files.

The letter accused Mr Matemu of failing to foster unity in the commission and instead fuelling “interpersonal wars to divide and rule”, and asserted that the chairman “has an insecure personality where he thinks everyone is after his seat”.

The letter alleged that Mr Matemu was using the gutter press “to defame and malign the image of senior staff and commissioners” and of “using Members of Parliament to fight the commission”.

The letter stated that Mr Matemu had publicly claimed that “he joined the commission to make money and not to fight corruption”.

The commissioners claimed that Mr Matemu had frustrated several internal processes that had started before he assumed office. These included the opening of regional offices which had stalled “due to a lack of vision and strategic leadership from the chairman”.

Also, the results of job evaluation had remained unimplemented and the process of developing a simplified version on the code of conduct “stalled after the chairman assumed office”. The letter alleged that the chairman had frustrated further progress in this area.

They also blamed Mr Matemu for a lack of interest in implementing a decision that had been made to acquire land for the commission’s headquarters.

The letter expressed concern that “the man at the helm has only one agenda which is to make money and bring the institution down”.

There was no public mention of the letter at the time it was written. In the wake of the disclosure of the letter, which was leaked to the media, State House spokesman Manoah Esipisu acknowledged that the President had received the letter and that his only responsibility was to verify the claims in the letter with a view to deciding on the next course of action.

Given the delay in making a public acknowledgement of the existence of the letter, or of the fact that there appears to be serious problems in the commission, it is tempting to conclude that there was no intention to do anything about the complaints.

It is arguable that the substance of the letter constitutes allegations of gross misconduct requiring the invocation of removal proceedings against Mr Matemu. The procedure for such removal involves a petition to the National Assembly.

PRESIDENT'S POWER

If satisfied that the petition has substance, Parliament would transmit the petition to the President who has power to suspend the person, and appoint a tribunal to inquire into the suitability of the person to remain in office.

Also, the manner in which the two commissioners chose to deal with their complaints fell outside the constitutional orbit for resolving this kind of issue, and their conclusion that “an intervention by (President Kenyatta) is most welcome”, constitutes an appeal to patronage, rather than an attempt to solve a serious issue.

In the circumstances, it is impossible to understand Mr Esipisu’s statement that the role of the President’s office is to verify the facts about the complaint.

CLOSED RANKS

In truth, the President would only have such a role as an act of patronage over the commission, reflecting the multi-dimensional challenges facing the fight against corruption.

It is interesting that while six months ago, the two commissioners were sufficiently aggrieved as to make a written complaint to the President against their chair, the three of them seem to have closed ranks in the light of the recent infighting where they have taken Mr Matemu’s side, with whom they no longer have a problem, and against the embattled deputy CEO, Mr Michael Mubea.

It is difficult to imagine how these serious allegations can be wished away or what could have happened to make the commissioners change their minds about Mr Matemu.