Communications regulator should guard its hard-won reputation
What you need to know:
- Chapter Six of our Constitution on leadership and integrity, while very well written, is rarely followed by our public and State officers.
- Indeed the CA had proceeded to invite new applicants to fill in the vacant positions, and interviews were ongoing.
- Observing that the dollar figures involved are colossal, one can predict that this fight is perhaps just getting started.
Lately, the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) board has lately been in the news for the wrong reasons.
A squabble about a section of board members who insist they are still board members, despite a court ruling ordering otherwise, is making headlines.
The current board was appointed after successfully going through the gruelling government recruitment process aimed at fulfilling Chapter Six of our Constitution on leadership and integrity.
The gruelling steps include chasing the burdensome CID clearance, EACC clearance, KRA clearance, Credit Reference clearance, HELB clearance, among others.
However, recent happenings at the CA board shows that getting all these documents may not necessarily have been a reliable predictor for good behaviour as a board member.
Chapter Six of our Constitution on leadership and integrity, while very well written, is rarely followed by our public and State officers. Article 73 reads in part that:
- the authority assigned to a State officer shall be exercised in a manner that is: -
(i) consistent with the purposes and objects of this Constitution;
(ii) demonstrates respect for the people;
(iii) brings honour to the nation and dignity to the office and
(iv) promotes public confidence in the integrity of the office;
Clearly, the recent happenings at the CA, in which different sections of the board are squaring it out with each other in public, have broken each and every of section of the above Article.
On one hand, the Chairman of the Board and the Cabinet Secretary for ICT believe that the old Board stood dissolved, following the advice of the Attorney General to withdraw the government appeal against the original ruling that disbanded the board.
Indeed the CA had proceeded to invite new applicants to fill in the vacant positions, and interviews were ongoing.
But sections of the old board would hear none of this. They went ahead and filed a suit to reinstate them to the board, and allegedly got orders stopping interviews of new board members and reinstating them to office.
Thus emboldened, a few of them marched back to the CA headquarters, apparently to attend a self-convened board meeting, only to find police blocking their way. Confrontation and scuffles ensued, with one former board member finding himself in police custody, a guest of the state.
It appears that sections of the board did not get the memo about Article 73 of the Constitution. Public service is good, and often quite sweet, due to the perks and opportunities that accompany it.
However, the extent of resistance and persistence that have been demonstrated in order to retain public office at the CA board raises some questions.
Whereas every appointee has a right to appeal against wrongful dismissal, it needs to be done with some measured decorum, particularly where reputations of key public institutions are at stake.
The Communications Authority of Kenya, originally the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) was created in 1998, following the liberalisation of the telecommunication and broadcast sectors.
Since then it has stood out as one of the best-managed public agencies in Kenya, both at local and international forums.
What is this bone of contention that can make board members squander a local and international reputation that has been hard-earned over close to twenty years?
Whereas the legality, or otherwise, of the board revolved around the technicalities of the recruitment process, emerging details of the dispute revolve around corruption allegations related to the license renewal fee for Airtel Kenya.
Apparently, in one board meeting, it was resolved that Airtel Kenya pay US$5.4 million (Sh546 million) to renew their license. In a subsequent board meeting, however, the figure was revised and Airtel Kenya asked to pay US$27 million (Sh2.7 billion) instead.
Emerging details further state that after Airtel Kenya had gone to court to appeal against this new resolution, one of the board members approached Airtel with a view to ‘assisting’ them get another resolution that would be more favourable to them.
Observing that the dollar figures involved are colossal, one can predict that this fight is perhaps just getting started. It is likely to get more ugly and protracted, with the operations and reputation of the Communication Authority going down the drain.
Something needs to be done to arrest the situation, and it needed to be done by yesterday.
Additionally, whatever is done must include mechanisms to protect the future CA board from repeating the same cycle of public misdemeanour.
Mr Walubengo is a lecturer at the Multimedia University of Kenya, Faculty of Computing and IT. Email: [email protected], Twitter: @jwalu
