Let Kenya not ‘chicken’ out of graft cases

Sentencing in the Smith & Ouzman case involving payment of bribes to top officials of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) of Kenya and the Kenya National Examinations Council (Knec) is due on February 12.

Two directors of the UK firm — Christopher Smith and Nicholas Smith — were convicted of two and three counts of corruption, respectively, on December 22.

They were also found guilty of making similar payments to the Ministry of the Interior in Mauritania. The maximum sentence for this offence is seven years.

The Kenyan case involved the award of printing tenders worth Sh50 million. Ten officials of the defunct IIEC and five from Knec were named as accomplices in the scheme in which costs were inflated by up to 38 per cent to cater for kickbacks.

Several of these officials are still in office, some occupying significant positions that demand a high threshold of integrity. Their involvement, as reported in documents presented in court, creates serious misgivings on their ability to conduct business in a manner beyond reproach.

INTEGRITY ISSUES

Following the judgment, Kenya’s Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) said that it was investigating the case. We would have expected the public officials to resign as investigations proceed.

The Constitution of Kenya sets a high threshold of integrity in public office. Unfortunately, neither the letter nor the spirit of Chapter Six has been cultivated in the public sphere.

This case serves to undermine public trust in the IEBC, which already faced credibility issues after the 2013 General Election. Four former officials are currently facing charges of abuse of office and failing to follow procurement procedures while purchasing Electronic Voter Identification Devices equipment used in the elections.

The requisite evidence to advance the investigations and prosecutions is not hard to come by. This has been billed as one of the best documented cases, with loads of written evidence filed in court implicating senior public officials.

EACC should seek mutual legal assistance and obtain the evidence from UK’s Serious Fraud Office. The guilty verdict entered against the company’s directors strongly backs legal action against their alleged accomplices in Kenya.

POOR RECORD

Unfortunately, Kenya has a poor record of pursuing corruption cases, including those involving overseas corruption. The 2012 case in which government officials allegedly received bribes from the staff of two subsidiaries of the Oxford University Press (OUP) in Kenya and Tanzania springs to mind.

Improper payments were allegedly made to government officials for two contracts to supply textbooks for two World Bank-financed projects. OUP acknowledged the claims of misconduct. The World Bank acted by blacklisting the two subsidiaries for three years while OUP received a conditional non-debarment.

No action was ever taken against the Kenyan government officials involved.

The 2011 case in which former Cabinet minister Chris Okemo and former KPLC managing director Samuel Gichuru are wanted in the UK over money laundering and related charges has taken a lull.

Thus from past experience, it is critical that individuals named in the Smith & Ouzman case not be let off — the “chicken” must come home to roost. Kenyans lost money. Compensation must be paid for this loss and the damaged reputation of the affected institutions.

The president has recently expressed frustration at the slow pace of the fight against corruption. This is his moment to demonstrate his commitment to tackle graft from the top, and crack the whip.

Mr Kimeu is executive director, Transparency International-Kenya