Ruto asks Raila to come clean on graft (Youtube-Clip)

“But even as Odinga defended himself, deputy president William Ruto led Jubilee leaders in challenging the cord leader to be more open on whether he had personally benefited from corruption schemes in the country. The leaders especially want Odinga to explain whether or not, he abetted Mumias sugar company financial woes” (Kenya Citizen TV, 2016)

Advertisements

Kenya: Press Statement on the Status of the Recruitment of Chairperson, Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (21.11.2016)

Advocacy Brief on Kenya: 15th Session of the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 16-24 November, 2016 (21.11.2016)

Background

At the height of the violence that gripped Kenya after the disputed 2007 elections, the Party of the National Unity and the Orange Democratic Movement, who were parties to the conflict, wrote to the International Criminal Court (ICC) seeking its intervention to stop what they called genocide. A local investigatory commission with international participation found that some actions during the post-election violence likely met the threshold of crimes against humanity and recommended the establishment of a Special Tribunal for Kenya, or in the alternative, the handover of the sealed evidence to the Prosecutor at the ICC.

Efforts to establish the Tribunal were defeated by political forces aligned to suspected perpetrators, hence triggering the handover of evidence to the ICC and the subsequent investigation. Six Kenyans were named in connection with seven crimes against humanity charges; the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II confirmed charges against four suspects. Two suspects – Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto were subsequently elected President and Deputy President, respectively, before their trials could begin at the ICC. Thereafter, the Prosecutor withdrew charges against two suspects – Francis Muthaura and Kenyatta – citing witness bribery and intimidation, as well as failure by the Kenya government to cooperate with the court. The remaining case against Ruto and journalist Joshua arap Sang was terminated citing “intolerable levels of witness interference and political meddling”.

Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice (KPTJ) has followed closely the developments around accountability for the crimes committed during the 2007 post-election violence. Since the opening of the investigations in March 2010, we have observed certain shortcomings and challenges on the part of the Government of Kenya, the ICC, the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) and the African Union (AU). This brief seeks to focus on key issues emerging from the situation that the ICC and international justice finds itself in today, while drawing linkages from how the Kenya cases and other ICC cases were managed. KPTJ also makes recommendations on actions that require to be undertaken by the ASP, the ICC and African governments in order to address the emergent challenges.

1. Engage and Withdraw Simultaneously?

A Contradiction in the Mandate of the AU Open Ended Committee

1. The 27^th ordinary session of the African Union’s assembly in July 2016 issued a decision on the ICC[1] pursuant to a similar one from the previous session[2]. Besides praising the court’s termination of the case against Kenya’s Deputy President William Ruto, the AU outlined a five-point agenda for the Open-Ended Committee of Foreign Ministers on the ICC, which included the following:

• Engaging with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) before the January 2017 AU Summit and before the 15^th Assembly of State Parties in November 2016.
• Maintaining the earlier decision from January 2016, to develop a comprehensive strategy to inform the actions of AU member states that are party to the Rome Statute; a strategy that includes collective withdrawal from the ICC.
• Concluding a review of the ICC’s interpretation of Article 93 of the Rome Statute regarding the compulsion of unwilling witnesses to testify, with a view to inform debate at the 15^th
• Conveying the message that AU member states object to the inclusion of language requiring the UNSC to mandate UN peace-keeping missions to enforce arrest warrants in Africa.
• Utilising the AU Mission in Brussels, Belgium, as the secretariat to the Open-ended Ministerial Committee and provision of institutional support to the African Group in The Hague, Netherlands, to ensure effective coordination of its activities.

2. The AU has since held a meeting with the UNSC in September 2016 to present pre-formulated terms developed by the Open-ended Ministerial Committee as conditions to keep African States as parties to the Rome Statute. These conditions were as follows[3]:

• Immunity under the ICC’s Rome Statute for sitting heads of state and government as well as senior officials;
• Intervention of the ICC in cases involving African states only after those cases have been submitted to the AU or AU judicial institutions; and
• Reduction in the powers of the ICC Prosecutor.

3. Recent developments have seen South Africa, Burundi and The Gambia commence processes to withdraw from the ICC; seemingly as part of actualising the intention cited in the agenda of the Open-ended Ministerial Committee. These actions expose the agenda by the AU to be disingenuous and presupposes that the deliberations within the ASP would be futile.. The wave of withdrawals occurs against a counter-wave of support for the Court by countries including Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Botswana[4]; an indication that the strategy for mass withdrawal does not enjoy the consensus suggested by the AU decision of July 2016. These countries have suggested that concerns expressed by African states are not insurmountable and can be addressed within the framework of the ASP. Their support for the ICC underscores the fact that the obligations under the Rome Statute are State obligations and not AU obligations; as such, decisions on withdrawal will be based on national interest that cannot be assumed by the AU.

4. Furthermore, the strategy for AU member states to withdraw undermines the other outlined agenda items of engagement with the ASP, such as the review of the interpretation of Article 93 of the Rome Statute and the enforcement of arrest warrants. Such contradictory actions raise the question of whether the AU is negotiating ICC reforms in good faith.

5. In light of the foregoing, KPTJ recommends that:

• African States abandon and disregard calls for mass withdrawal from the Court and instead consolidate the member bloc to advance their concerns within the bounds of the ASP in deliberations based on good faith.
• African states should continue to publicly reaffirm their support for engaging with the ICC through the ASP and prevail on the AU to adjust its engagement strategy accordingly. We applaud the statements made by Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Botswana.
• An ICC Liaison Office should be established at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa to facilitate more productive and sustained communication between African States and the ICC as part of restoring a relationship that has become plagued by mistrust and misunderstandings.

1. Absence of Accountability?

Peace, Security and Stability

6. The characterisation of the ICC as undermining the peace and security of states or threatening their stability has become a recurring theme by those advocating disengagement or withdrawal from the ICC. In its notice of withdrawal, South Africa claims that its aspirations for the peaceful resolution of conflicts were being hindered by its obligations under the Rome Statute[5] to arrest Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir when he attended the June 2015 AU Summit in Johannesburg. Kenyan government officials have also previously described the cases against Kenyatta and Ruto as an existential threat to peace and stability.
7. A closer scrutiny of this assertion in the face of ongoing conflict situations suggests the contrary. The absence of accountability processes does not necessarily facilitate peaceful resolution of conflicts; the South Sudan and Burundi conflicts instead point to protagonists willing to escalate violence, even in the context of peace negotiations. Burundi and The Gambia have commenced processes to withdraw from the ICC at a time when their respective governments stand accused of acts of repression and mass human rights violations. Rather than advance the cause for peace, the clamour for withdrawal from the ICC is playing into the hands of those wary of the prospects of accountability in the aftermath of conflict. Even more concerning is an apparent trend of rising post-election violence, such as that witnessed in Kenya previously and in Gabon currently, or violence stemming from efforts to instal third-term incumbencies in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi. Such trends are bound to persist in the absence of mechanisms for accountability, of which the ICC is a critical component.
8. The assertion that the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (African Court) and its proposed expanded criminal jurisdiction through the Malabo Protocol would fill in any void created by a mass withdrawal from the ICC is erroneous. The African Court is a distant prospect for addressing the impunity gap: it is far from being operational. Since 2013, only five states namely Benin, Kenya, Congo, Guinea Bissau and Mauritania have signed but not ratified the Malabo Protocol, which requires the ratification of 15 states to begin operations. Kenya is the only state thus far that has made a financial pledge of USD 1 million to operationalise the court — a far cry from the resources required for a court of broad jurisdiction consisting of a mandate on human rights as well as international law and interstate disputes. It has previously been estimated that a singular international criminal trial costs USD 20 million to undertake. In addition, the protocol contains contentious provisions that undermine its viability as an alternative platform for international crimes, the most notable being the clause of immunity for sitting heads of state and senior government officials. As a testament to the inability of the African Court to be an immediate replacement of the ICC as desired by some, even South Africa through its Justice Minister has indicated that it will ask for a review of the Malabo Protocol to address contentious issues. Furthermore, limited progress has been made towards establishing national mechanisms that can sufficiently undertake the obligation of accountability for international crimes.
9. KPTJ recognises the pursuit of justice in conflict and post-conflict settings as an essential pillar of rebuilding democracies and restoring rule of law. These are the pathways to lasting peace, security and stability. Rather than push to void international justice mechanisms after the conflict to facilitate mediation, we recommend that:

• African states fully implement and consistently apply already established norms on democracy, peace and security as a preventative measure to conflict including: the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance and; the African Governance Architecture.
• African states must critically reflect on and address the issues of the African Court’s capacity, accessibility, legal standards outlined for crimes under international law and expunge provisions conferring immunity on sitting Heads of State and senior government officials. This process must not be rushed or predicated on a manufactured crisis precipitated by a strategy of mass withdrawal from the ICC.
• African states should establish robust and credible national mechanisms to address the accountability question at first instance and in complementarity with regional and international mechanisms. They must also broaden their policy considerations to include comprehensive reparation programmes for victims of international crimes.
• Disparity between State Obligations and Reality?

A look at State Cooperation

10. The Kenya and Sudan cases have exposed the frailties within the Rome Statute framework in as far as state cooperation is concerned. These cases have laid waste to the presumption that States will willingly engage with the court in the face of cases seeking to prosecute sitting heads of state, their deputies or powerful elites in close proximity to power. State cooperation has only demonstrably worked in instances where the target for prosecution is a vanquished foe of conflict as seen in the cases of Uganda and Cote d’Ivoire, that are fast advancing a notion of “victor’s justice”. This challenge is further compounded by the fact that the final recourse for addressing the lack of state cooperation rests with the ASP. The ASP being a political organ of the Rome Statute is influenced by political rather than purely legal considerations in making its decisions, which makes the issue of resolving the non-cooperation of states problematic. A final challenge to state cooperation is the failure of the United States, China and Russia to ratify the Rome Statute while also being members of the UNSC with the power of referral of matters to the court. This has created the notion of double standards within the international justice system and emboldened other states to disregard cooperation with the court.
11. KPTJ calls on the members of the UNSC who have not ratified the Rome Statute to display leadership on State cooperation with the court by first ratifying the Statute and utilising its discretion on referral and deferral in a manner that adheres to the objectives of the Statute. We further wish to reiterate that state cooperation must denote effective cooperation that facilitates the mandates of the respective organs of the court and not feigned cooperation which creates the perception of facilitating the court but in fact consists of using procedural and technical obstacles to undermine the court. We call on the ASP to adopt a consistent and objective legal standard in the assessment of state cooperation.
12. Are there lessons to be learned?

Taking stock of the experience in the Kenya cases

12. The Kenya cases and the manner of their termination carry critical lessons for consideration to inform future actions by the court and the content of reforms within the strategic plans of its respective organs. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) as well as the bench on various occasions decried the instances of witness tampering and intimidation as well as non-cooperation by the state in responding to the OTP requests for information and a failure to execute ICC warrants of arrest with respect to three Kenyans suspected of witness tampering. This in fact has led to a finding of non-compliance against Kenya and led to its referral to the ASP under article 87(7) of the Rome Statute. In the midst of all this, was an unprecedented and disruptive diplomatic effort that deliberately exerted political pressure on the court with a view to influencing the outcome of the Kenya cases. It is arguable that these diplomacy efforts yielded the concession of excusing President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto from continuous presence at their trial and that the current wave of withdrawals from the ICC on the basis of an apparent bias by the court against Africans are a fallout from these diplomatic efforts. The capitulations of the cases have also pointed to significant flaws in the investigative and prosecutorial approaches that informed the development of the cases and must lead to some introspection from the relevant mechanisms. The fact that the Trust Fund for Victims is yet to commence operations in Kenya cannot go without mention.
13. KPTJ urges all the organs of the court to reflect on these experiences and take due cognisance of the following lessons and recommendations:

• The ICC, particularly the ASP, should do more to ensure that it does not allow political statements to interfere with the judicial independence of the Court.
• The ICC should ensure that it takes steps to respond to messages of a political nature and correct inaccurate statements in a timely manner. In addition, it should ensure that such key messages reach the right audiences, including victims and affected communities.
• The Court should continue to build its relationship with African States that openly support the mandate of the ICC; in addition, the ICC should do more to improve its relationship with, and image at, the AU.
• The Trust Fund for Victims should commence operations in Kenya, as victims have received little to no assistance from the Kenyan government.
• The Prosecutor should carefully consider when to request ‘summons to appear’ as opposed to ‘warrants of arrest’ and take into account the individual circumstances of each accused person in doing so, particularly their potential to intimidate witnesses and interfere with evidence.
• Swift action should be taken by the Prosecutor and the Court in instances of non-cooperation by States Parties. Any instances of non-cooperation should be resolved as speedily as possible, in such a manner that the outcome of proceedings on non-cooperation can be applied to strengthen an ongoing case and not be delayed to the point that the outcome is only of academic significance.
• The Prosecutor should continue to carry out a review of its investigative strategies and methods in order to improve its chances of success at trial.
• The Prosecution should ensure that its staff are able to spend as much time as possible on better understanding the context and nuances of a given situation country.

1. Pursuit of reform without prejudice?

UN Reform vs ICC Reform

14. The unique role played by UNSC in referral and deferral of cases before the ICC means that the debates on reforming the court and reforming the UN and in particular the UNSC have inevitably intersected. We have witnessed both undertones and overt accusations of imperialism and undue influence directed at the court on account of cases on Africa referred to it by the UNSC (Libya and Sudan). Arguments made to amend the Rome Statute to confer immunity for sitting heads of state and senior government officials are laced with grievance against the UNSC permanent five members possessing a de facto immunity from prosecution under the ICC on account of their veto power. The end result is a misdirected effort to amend the Rome Statute or in the extreme withdraw from the ICC on the basis of perceived excesses that are better addressed by engaging the broader debate of UN reforms.

15. While KPTJ acknowledges the slanted relationship of the UNSC with the court and supports a robust conversation on its reforms, we call on states not to misdirect the agenda of reforming the UNSC into discussions on improving the functions of the court and occasion amendments to the Rome statute that sacrifice the future of the court as part of a bargaining process on UNSC reforms. We call on African states in particular, to distinguish the broader question of UN reforms as enshrined in the “Ezulwini Consensus” from the question of reforming the Rome Statute and reflecting on the performance of the court. We call upon African member states to the Rome Statute not to sacrifice the promise of justice for victims of atrocity crimes at the altar of grievance against the unequal power relations represented by the UN Security Council.

end/kptj/16.06.2016

——–

About KPTJ:

This brief was prepared by Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice (KPTJ), a coalition of Kenyan citizens and over 30 organisations working in the human rights, governance and legal fields that came together during the crisis over the disputed results of the 2007 presidential election to seek truth and accountability for the elections and the widespread violence that followed; and who continue to work closely with the victims of that period. It is a brief update on the situation in Kenya as pertains to pursuing accountability for the crimes against humanity committed during the 2007-2008 Post-Election Violence as well as its adherence to its obligations under the Rome Statute.

[1] Assembly/AU/Dec.616 (XXVII)

[2] Assembly/AU/Dec.590(XXVI)

[3] Press Release: “UN/African Union: Reject ICC withdrawal”. Available here: http://www.khrc.or.ke/2015-03-04-10-37-01/press-releases/552-un-african-union-reject-icc-withdrawal.html

[4] Article: “Which African states slammed Burundi, South Africa and Gambia’s withdrawal from ICC?” Available here: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/which-african-states-slammed-burundi-south-africa-gambias-withdrawal-icc-1589711

[5] https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/South-Africa-Instrument-of-Withdrawal-International-Criminal-Court.jpg

UN Experts criticize Kenya Police for Excessive Use of Force against Peaceful Protesters (10.11.2016)

The demonstrators were protesting against alleged government corruption when police used teargas and batons to disperse them.

GENEVA, Switzerland, November 10, 2016 -A group of UN human rights experts* has condemned a violent clampdown on a peaceful protest in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, while urging the authorities to investigate claims of excessive use of force and arbitrary arrest – both against demonstrators and journalists – and to hold all perpetrators accountable.
The demonstrators were protesting against alleged government corruption when police used teargas and batons to disperse them. A number of people are reported to have been injured or detained during the incident on 3 November.

“Interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is inexcusable at any time, but it is especially repugnant when demonstrators are calling for government accountability,” the experts said. “Protesters may sometimes raise uncomfortable truths, but holding people in power to account is a central function of peaceful assemblies in a democracy.”

The experts also expressed alarm at the timing of the crackdown, less than a year before Kenyans elect a new president in August 2017. They said creating an environment where opinions could be expressed peacefully was key to avoiding a repeat of the wave of violence which followed the disputed presidential poll in 2007.

“Beating protesters does not make their grudges go away. Rather, it intensifies them, because it sends the message that the government does not care,” they stressed. “This approach does not foster a culture of dialogue; it fosters a culture of violence, which is exactly the opposite of what Kenya needs right now.”

The UN independent experts also expressed grave concern over reports that police had attacked journalists covering the protest, in some cases damaging their equipment.

“International law protects the right of everyone – including journalists and human rights defenders– to observe, monitor and report on such events,” the experts said. “It also imposes a duty on States to protect the rights of monitors to do their jobs, even if the gatherings turn violent. Attacking journalists who perform this important public duty is simply unfathomable.”

The UN Special Rapporteurs called on the Kenyan authorities to respect the demonstrators’ fundamental rights at future protests, and noted that they would be watching developments closely.

(*) The experts: Mr Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Mr. David Kaye, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Mr. Michel Forst, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

Kenya: To the Public Accounts Committee (Parliament), Media Houses and All Interested Parties (08.11.2016)

Kenya: Police tear gas Journalists covering anti corruption protests (Footage)

Opinion: President Kenyatta ill-will to tackle Corruption

“When it comes to this issue of corruption that has been at the centre stage of Kenyan public debate, it has frustrated me as President. And I would say why: because the pressure is on me to do something about corruption” (…) “I then sit back and ask: show me an administration, since independence that has tackled corruption like I have done. I have removed everybody who has ever been named or touched upon on the issue of corruption” (…) “I have done my part, at great expense – political. I have told them to step aside, and they have done it; whether guilty or innocent, I suspend them for three months until investigations are concluded” (…) “By the way that pronouncement by itself is unconstitutional. I have no power to suspend them” (…) ”I wish there was a way guilty persons could be charged, but nothing! We set up a multi-agency so that we can coordinate our affairs, still no movement” (…) ““I have taken the actions that I can take within the Constitution. I have given all agencies resources to fight corruption, and I challenge any agency to come out and say that I haven’t given them the resources. I stand accused that the executive is not doing its work. What do you want me to do?” – Uhuru Kenyatta at the State House at the ‘Anti-Corruption & Accountability Summit’ on the 18^th October.

Well, Honourable His Excellency President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, your under fire for corruption scandals, something that has been rampant during your administration. There been all kind of corruption scandals all the way into the Judiciary and the Supreme Court, into businesses and even in Parliament. Senators, Governors, Members of Parliament, investors and all kind of people, even Cabinet Secretaries has been burning in your period as the Executive.

This isn’t just about the Kenya Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). This isn’t about that, though that is a tool used by the President for his legitimate fight, even as it been an unused tool since John Githongo we’re “fired” in 2005 by the Mwai Kibaki administration. Since then the EACC has just been a puppet for the Governments of Kenya.

So if the President Kenyatta can complain about the dockworkers and the administration in Mombasa for their corrupt behaviour as they trade the goods through the dock, before it gets loaded on land. There been as long as I remember been the first people the Kenyan Presidents hurried to accuse, but for some reason never sack civil servants running the Mombasa Docks, which for me sounds weird.

We are now in the midst of the unravelling National Youth Scandal (NYS) where billions of shillings went into forged companies of the ones running the NYS fund. That is blowing up and making the CS Sicily Kariuki looking silly, while the main architect hopes to go scotch free like her fellow comrades Josephine Kabura.

This together with a mix-up at the Ministry of Health, that has been diverting funds as well, CS Cleopa Maliu has tried to explain the situation, but the companies that been implicated has done what they can wash their hands clean of the dirty acts of the MOH. The Tax-payers 5 billion shillings just vanished into thin-air and made little progress of the sick. That Mobile Health Stations we’re actually rebranded containers and other projects from the Ministry we’re flawed has further damaged the reputations of the Ministry and their Economic Policies.

If this two wasn’t enough in the times of the Kenyatta Presidency the “Chickengate” and the Independent Boundaries and Electoral Commission (IEBC) has been sacked for their corrupt trades, where they used deliveries to add “chickens” on the recites so they could get extra commissioned for making sure By-Elections happen orderly, even using foreign producers of ballots to skim-off tax-payers monies. This within bound of the current leadership and their hard-work against corruption!

It’s not like Uhuru Kenyatta is earning fortunes on the system today with his giant corporation like Brookside Diaries, that got business with Sameer Agricultural And Livestock Limited in Uganda, also owns a huge stake at the Inyange Industries in Rwanda. He has a stake in the Banque Internationale Pour l’Afrique au Congo (BIAC) in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This together with the valuable Heritage Hotels in Kenya; other corporations are the Commercial Bank of Africa (CBA) that has subsidiaries outside of Kenya as well. In media he owns the Mediamax Group: which controls the K24, Kameme FM and People Daily.

When you owns these businesses and knows the practises well, than he doesn’t see it fit to rock-the-boat. Just keep business as usual as his corporations are growing in size nationally and internationally. This while the government practises are weaker and mediocre, the business aspect is rising. Why should he work against his own corporations, which wouldn’t be a good look as the owner?

Well, at the same time the government has added debt, but also had another questionable Corruption scandal – the Eurobond we’re by September 2016 there we’re actually 215 billion shillings that was unaccounted for. That has never really been explained, even if the International Monetary Fund that been discussing with the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) and CS Henry Rotich tried to explain it through an all of a sudden transaction to JP Morgan Chase Account in New York in January 2016, that 2 years after the release of the questionable transactions and sale of the Eurobonds.

So I have just these issues that I remember right now, concerning the Jubilee and Kenyatta Government of the present day. With these kind of activity doesn’t make feel like the EACC or any kind of Anti-Graft activity has ever occurred. There are so many more like the Athletics Organizations concerning the Nike Apparel and Agreement between them and NOCK for the Rio Summer Olympics of 2016. So the runners and such we’re not supported as they we’re supposed to do, as the Government and Selected Officials we’re selling the clothes instead of giving it to the Athletes. That is just another one of the corruption scandals in his term.

I do not get the feeling that President Kenyatta has done what he could, what he should, but what he would prefer, to keep it at this present time with business as usual. Not caring about the cases, not interfering, not creating laws or amend government bodies to get more power to intervene on the corrupt behaviour. The President has kept it day-to-day and not tried to stop it. Because it is his loyal troops who are eating of the tax-payers plate. They are bending the laws and accountability to secure funding of the made-up corporations that got tenders by the NYS scandal and so on.

President Kenyatta, if you cared; I am if you’re really serious why does the amount cases keep piling and why is so many people walking scotch free after stealing, thieving and embezzling away government funds? Why do this people walk the streets without any prosecutions or trials of their cases? Why? What does it take to make them guilty of blue-collar crimes?

The real chicken thief is in the nearest sell of Eldoret or Kisii. But if they we’re suits sophisticated stealing like the Anglo-Leasing deal with the Kenya Defence Force than the men and woman walk talking to Kidero or any other governor with a grin. This is the same happing in your time and under your permission Mr. President. Time to act upon that!! If you meant the words you uttered out of your mouth in the State House in October this year. Peace.   

Kenya: Petetion to His Excellency the President Uhuru Kenyatta for Expedient and Decisive Action against Grand Corruption (03.11.2016)

Kenya: Public Action against Mindless Theft and Waste of State Resources (01.11.2016)

A Statement Issued by the Kenyan CSOs on November 1, 2016

Since independence, Kenyan public has been treated to a cocktail of abominable theft, plunder, squander and waste of public resources, while the institutions tasked with the mandate to probe and deal with the said scandals have repeatedly sanctified the same. Bailed  as the most corrupt and unaccountable administration in Kenya’s political history so far, the Jubilee regime’s 4 years in power has been characterized by rampant, reckless  and mindless  looting  and misappropriation of state coffers.

The situation in the country remains so grave and dire that the official Auditor General’s report  for 2015 found that just 1% of Kenya government spending and  a quarter of the entire 1.6  trillion shillings budget was properly accounted for. Current reports indicate that Kenya loses approximately 600Billion shillings out of its annual budget of 2 trillion (close to 30%) through wanton theft and waste.  Imagine what this amount could do in supporting health care for the poor, provision of quality basic education, clean water or employment for our youth?  

Specifically, the Kenyan CSOs note with concern the following systemic  and vicious failures of the political establishments, both at the national and county levels: That as noted by John Githongo, a prominent anti-corruption crusader, “corruption in Kenya has deepened and widened since President Uhuru Kenyatta came to power in 2013”.

1. Mega scams such as the  National Youth Service Saga, “Chicken Gate” Scandal; land grabbing; flawed tendering in the  Multi-Billion Standard  Gauge Railway; Misappropriation of devolved funds and current  Afya House Scandal in the Ministry of Health  among others remain unsolved. That majority of those adversely mentioned in the above scams are either close associates or relatives of senior state/public officers thus deepening vested interests and political complicity.
2. That the institutions mandated to provide leadership in the fight  against corruption have terribly failed to live  up to the Kenyan public expectation; from the presidency, Judiciary, Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, office of the Director of Public Prosecution, Office of the Attorney General.
3. That the president has failed to demonstrate genuine, bold and effective political will and leadership to combat corruption over the years. His admission of inability to battle graft in a recent state house anti-corruption summit sums it all.
4. That the judiciary has failed to put in places mechanisms to expedite corruption related cases. As a result such cases take too long in courts. This has delayed justice and only encouraged corruption to thrive.
5. That the Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission has failed to effectively and independently deliver on its key mandate; law enforcement, investigation and corruption prevention in the discharge of its functions. This has rendered the institution a friendly environment for the corrupt. In fact on many occasions the EACC has sanitized the corrupt.
6. That most of the alleged grand corruption prime suspects have been exonerated through a sham process while those who have not been exonerated have not been prosecuted either but remain free to enjoy their loot.
7. That most of the state/public officers who have declared their wealth have done so in private, thus without adequate public disclosure.  This is a precedence set by the presidency hence incapacitating the public to hold both state and public officers accountable for their wealth.
8. That the government has failed to demonstrate greater transparency in procurement processes by not publicizing information on tender analysis, detailed contractor profiles including list of directors, engagement contracts, project implementation plans, bills of quantities and other related information.

It’s in response to the president’s admission of helplessness, his inability to act, and the failure by the different state agencies to admit responsibility in the midst of wanton theft of state resources, that the Kenyan Civil Society is calling a national mass demonstration to demand for urgent and systematic actions against mega corruption in Kenya.

1. The demonstration will take place on Thursday (03/11/2016) from freedom corner and will end with a submission of a petition with a Demand List to the president.
2. The Demand List will capture the practical actions that the President should implement in line with his legal and political mandate and obligations.
3. We therefore call upon the public and the media to turn up for the demonstration. We also request members of the public to come dressed in red and carry a whistle and the Kenyan flag.

We have planned sustained political actions to ensure zero tolerance to and increased accountability for public theft in Kenya.

Kenya: “Re: Request for Information Relating to the Tax Returns of H.E. William Samoei Ruto” (24.10.2016)