‘Rubbergate’ scandal brings to the fore endemic corruption in Kenya

The issue of impunity in Kenya has once again been highlighted by the “rubbergate” scandal where a US company has been fined for bribing key officials to get contracts. It follows on the heels of the “chickengate” scandal where key officials of the election management and examination bodies allegedly took bribes to channel contracts to a British company.

In both instances, foreign courts unravelled the endemic corruption that exists in Kenya and this only because it involved their companies. But for these foreign efforts we would never have known about this.

We can only imagine how much we have lost to domestic companies — and to companies that do not have laws similar to the US and UK— that bribe, safe in the knowledge that they have impunity.

But corruption can only end when decision makers do not solicit or accept bribes. It is great to go after the bribe-givers but the real perpetrator is the decision maker who solicits and accepts bribes.

This impunity is the challenge of our time. It pervades every part of our society. It is the reason for the existential challenges that we face with terrorism, insecurity and tribalism.

And it is the reason why we almost descended into civil war in 2008, if we accept the ICC Prosecutor’s brief in the Kenyatta case that was released in January.

NOT SERIALISED

The brief makes for fascinating reading, and it is amazing that not a single media outlet has serialised or condensed it into an easy read. We don’t have to agree with it, and yes, it has not been tested in cross-examination, but the fact that it passed the confirmation of charges stage and only lacked verification of the assertions, should mean we take it seriously.

Reading it makes it clear why Uhuru Kenyatta’s British legal team has released its own dossier, but unfortunately it does not respond to prosecutor’s stark arguments.

For instance, the prosecutor asserts that the problems started in September 2007, when a group led by Francis Muthaura decided that President Mwai Kibaki would retain power, “tupende, tusipende.” And when we remember that it was around then that the Electoral Commission of Kenya became the Electoral Commission of Kibaki, this begins to make sense. And things become clearer when we remember the attempt to use Administration Police as agents for Kibaki in known anti-Kibaki zones.

The whole notion of “revenge killings” in Naivasha and Nakuru is challenged when we learn that the Mungiki teams sent there had already been tested in Nairobi and wrought serious damage to purported ODM supporters.

BEEN KILLED

Other key points stand out. First, all the key Mungiki people reportedly involved in the planning and execution of the violence that Mr Kenyatta allegedly facilitated have been killed or disappeared since April 2008. Charles Ndung’u Wagacha, who was said to be in constant communication with Muthaura, was “… killed by police in April 2008.” Maina Diambo, a key Mungiki official was “arrested in June 2008 and subsequently disappeared.” Other senior Mungiki officials Naftali Irungu, aka Marcus, Anthony Mwenje (aka Noriega), Njoroge Gichere, Timothy Mburu Gatira, Njuguna Gitau Njuguna and George Njoroge Wagacha, were all killed or disappeared.

Unsavoury as these Mungiki leaders may have been, there has never been investigations or accountability for their killings and disappearances.

Second, it is noteworthy that a lot of the intermediaries are in senior state roles. Muthaura is the chairman of Lappset way beyond retirement age. Francis Kimemia, who attempted to become the new Muthaura, is Secretary to the Cabinet; Njee Muturi is Solicitor-General and John Mututho was appointed Nacada chairman after losing his parliamentary seat.

In other words, even though the case against Mr Kenyatta was withdrawn, the brief shows that there are many unanswered questions around the post-election violence.