Will Jubilee, a fractious outfit, prosecute its insiders?

President Uhuru Kenyatta outside Parliament before his State of the Nation speech on March 26, 2015. PHOTO | JEFF ANGOTE |

What you need to know:

  • It is difficult to believe the temporary departure of Saitoti and Kiraitu during Kibaki’s tenure had been any more than a public relations exercise.

President Uhuru Kenyatta’s directive that public servants implicated in corruption in a previously undisclosed report prepared by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission has caused an understandable buzz in the political scene.

According to the President, implicated public officials will be required to step aside as prosecutions against them begin since, presumably, investigations have been completed.

The media are already awash with names of persons implicated in the investigation. These include key political figures, both in the government and the opposition.

While the President has been hailed as courageous, the country has been in similar situations before, when what appeared like strong accountability measures were taken against the President’s men.

On all the previous occasions, nothing ever became of those measures.

In October 1990, Nicholas Biwott, a Cabinet Minister, and the late Hezekiah Oyugi, a Permanent Secretary, and both powerful figures in the Moi administration, were arrested during investigations into the death of former Foreign Minister Robert Ouko.

Biwott, a much-dreaded personality and close confidante of the President, was held in custody for two weeks and lost his cabinet position.

Eventually, however, nothing ever came of the investigation. While he stayed out of cabinet for a long time, Biwott remained a member of the President’s inner circle and his enormous clout was undiminished.

Eventually, in 1997, Moi returned Biwott to his cabinet. By the time Moi retired in 2002, Biwott had long since been full restored to his much-feared status in the Moi government.

In February 2006, Finance Minister David Mwiraria resigned his position as Finance Minister following allegations that he had been involved in the Anglo Leasing scandal, on which he wanted an investigation that would clear his name.

While no known investigation took place, in July 2007, President Kibaki re-appointed Mwiraria to the cabinet as Minister for Environment.

Two weeks after Mwiraria had resigned, he was followed out of cabinet by two other ministers, the late George Saitoti, then the minister for Education, and Kiraitu Murungi, the minister for Energy.

The two resigned on the same day, the former voluntarily stepping aside to pave way for investigations into allegations of his involvement in the Goldenberg scandal and the latter over allegations that he had put pressure on John Githongo, who had served as the anti-corruption adviser in the Kibaki government, to go slow on investigations into the Anglo Leasing scandal which he was then leading.

In July, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Joseph Nyamu cleared Saitoti of any wrongdoing, and expunged his name from the Bosire Commission Report, which had implicated him in the Goldenberg scandal. The court also ordered a permanent stay of prosecution against Saitoti, thus absolving him from the scandal for the remainder of his life.

In November, President Kibaki reshuffled his cabinet, re-appointing both Saitoti and Kiraitu. Over two unrelated corruption scandals, the two who had left the cabinet on the same day, returned on the same day. It is difficult to believe that their departure from cabinet had been any more than a public relations exercise.

SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT

The country will be watching to see the unfolding situation following the President’s directive that those implicated in corruption must vacate office unless they are cleared.

The situation that he faces is slightly different from what Moi and Kibaki faced before.

The two former presidents, responding to immense public pressure, were forced to go through the motions of showing their close confidantes the door but, after a safe wait, they eventually rehabilitated them, having ensured that no lasting damage came their way.

While Moi and Kibaki were politically more secure than Kenyatta has been, they still could not find the courage to take the political risks attendant in enforcing accountability against corruption.

It is difficult to see how Jubilee, a coalition and therefore an inherently fractious outfit, can possibly prosecute its insiders, some of whom, like Charity Ngilu, enjoy founder status.

Further, Kenyatta faces an additional complication in that, due to devolution, some people in public office, and whom the President is going after, are not necessarily members of the ruling group.

If, as is possible, this is another public relations exercise, the President can give a quiet assurance to those in his corner that nothing is intended out of the proposed prosecutions and that he will eventually return them to the fold.

However, the President has much less room for giving such assurances to opposition governors and senators, against whom prosecutions are reportedly intended.

The President’s approach creates difficulties for the opposition which had loudly demanded accountability against corruption, and whose members are now also said to be targeted for prosecution.

The opposition cannot possibly argue that the government should charge public officials but spare the opposition from prosecution. In all likelihood, the intended prosecutions will be selective and will, of necessity, encompass government figures.

However, the anti-corruption war also provides the perfect chance to deal with key opposition figures.

The lesson for the opposition is that those who dwell in glass houses cannot throw stones. To demand accountability of the government, they must first do so of themselves.

While the government can employ public relations to shield its members from prosecution there is nowhere for the opposition to hide