Connect with us

Op-Eds

How to Do the Lifestyle Audits

6 min read.

If conducted transparently, the audits would breathe new life into our sinking public integrity regime and even turn the country into a shining example for the continent. What should not happen is for the President and his Deputy to be let off the hook – whatever else, let’s push for the public audit of the private lives of our state officers. By WILLY MUTUNGA.

Published

on

How to do the lifestyle audits
Download PDFPrint Article

Lifestyle audits of state/public officers is a great idea. Our political elites are never short of great ideas. For every great idea they generate, we must always ask the attendant question, namely, is there political will and commitment to implement the idea or is the idea yet another example of political distraction from what ails our nation?

In a public statement in May this year President Kenyatta told the nation there would carry out a lifestyle audit that would begin with him followed by the Deputy President. Who would oppose such a great idea? I do not recall anybody who did.

I remembered President Kibaki’s promise to Kenyans in December 2002 on ending corruption in Kenya. He said that the project of ending corruption in Kenya would start from the top. And indeed it did, starting from the Office of the President (OP) with one spectacular victim: the corruption Czar himself – John Githongo.

I remembered President Kibaki’s promise to Kenyans in December 2002 on ending corruption in Kenya. He said that the project of ending corruption in Kenya would start from the top. And indeed it did, starting from the Office of the President (OP) with one spectacular victim: the corruption Czar himself – John Githongo.

Githongo had to flee into exile in the UK because of his investigations into the Ango-Leasing series of scams. The rest as we say, is history as captured in the book, It’s Our Turn to Eat by Michela Wrong.

Lifestyle audits in Kenya can tell us who in the public service has eaten what, who continues to eat, who is likely to eat and what they like eating.

The audits, too, are about how as citizens we will stop the elite from chopping/eating our resources, about ending corruption by state/public officers and about the implementation of the vision of the Constitution as regards the integrity of such officers. 

Lifestyle audits are solidly anchored in our Constitution. Besides Chapter 6 of the Constitution on integrity and leadership, Article 10 provides for values of integrity, transparency, and accountability. Article 35 provides for the freedom of information. Other relevant articles of the Constitution include Articles 232 (values and principles of public service).

There are three specific statutes enacted by Parliament to implement the vision of the Constitution on integrity and leadership in Kenya. They are the Leadership and Integrity Act 2012 (for effective implementation of Chapter 6 of the Constitution); the Public Officer and Ethics Act, 2003; and Public Service (Values and Principles) Act, 2015.

Section 30 of the Public Officer and Ethics Act requires that state/public officers file their declaration of wealth when they join the public service, and subsequently do so every two years. These declarations should reveal the state/public officers assets and liabilities; and when they were respectively acquired.

Section 30 of the Act clearly subverts Chapter 6 and Articles 10 and 35 of the Constitution. It provides that while the declarations are filed and sealed, an application to access the declarations can be made to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) by anyone who shows a “legitimate interest and good cause in furtherance of the objectives of the Act.” In the event EACC decides to concede to the application it would afford the “affected party” an opportunity to make presentations on the application.

The Act provides for criminal sanctions if the information is republished without the permission of EACC. The Act cannot subvert the constitutional values of transparency, integrity, and accountability of the state/public officers about their assets and liabilities under the Constitution. Indeed, it has always been my argument that individual state/public officers can make such information public before applications are made for such information under Article 35 of the Constitution.

The objective of the Constitution and the statutes was to make state officers transparent and accountable to the Kenyan public with regard to their assets and liabilities. Undeniably, the mischief to be cured was dramatically revealed in the Nairobi gubernatorial debates last year. Miguna Miguna posed questions on how his fellow opponents had acquired their wealth. He alleged that his opponents had not been captains of industry but had accumulated their wealth through employment by public and private corporations, and through robust corruption. The opponents denied these allegations. A forensic lifestyle audit could have settled the issue.

Lifestyle audits are also about conspicuous consumption reflected in expenditures of expensive capitalist toys, travel, residential housing, skyscrapers, charity and philanthropy, investing abroad, food and booze, and day to day expenses incurred in carrying out a particular lifestyle. The audit seeks to find out where the money to sustain such lifestyles comes from. If it is found that it comes from raiding and stealing of public resources, that is, is blatant corruption then the public officer is criminally liable.

Undeniably, the mischief to be cured was dramatically revealed in the Nairobi gubernatorial debates last year. Miguna Miguna posed questions on how his fellow opponents had acquired their wealth. He alleged that his opponents had not been captains of industry but had accumulated their wealth through employment by public and private corporations, and through robust corruption. The opponents denied these allegations. A forensic lifestyle audit could have settled the issue.

One critical value in the Constitution and the statutes enumerated here is the participation of the people. Lifestyle audits cannot be credible, transparent, and accountable without vigorous participation from the public.

Conducting lifestyle audits for the President and the Deputy President will be a project that will perhaps be a first in Africa, and among only a very few in the world. However, it is the manner in which it will be conducted that will put Kenya on a democratic trajectory of accountability and transparency in our politics.

The methodology of doing this is not rocket science. It should be fairly simple. I offer a skeleton framework of the process of the lifestyle audit for public debate and for putting meat into the framework (pun fully intended!). This framework is based in the provisions of the Constitution and those of the attendant statutes.

We start with deciding who will carry out the audits and the appointing authority. We have state offices that can do this work headed by the office of the Auditor-General. Other offices would include Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), the Office of the Deputy Public Prosecutor (ODPP), the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Controller of Budgets, among several others. To ensure public participation in the exercise, both civil society and corporate sectors should also be represented.

Since we rarely trust our national institutions, we will need to bring in foreign audit firms, foreign IT firms etc. I am sure the international community would have no problems footing the bill for this important foreign oversight. The time frame for this audit should be as short and as soon as possible.

The appointing authorities should properly be the other two arms of government that are not involved at this stage, namely, Parliament and the Judiciary. The Speakers of Parliament and the Chief Justice could appoint a team within the constitutional value of participation of the people. Both arms could call for nominations from corporate, civil society, and international participants, conduct the appropriate vetting and make the appointments. The Chief Justice would swear-in the team. The work of the team will also involve participation of the people. The media could be asked to cover the work of the team live.

Since we rarely trust our national institutions, we will need to bring in foreign audit firms, foreign IT firms etc. I am sure the international community would have no problems footing the bill for this important foreign oversight.

Courts have clarified what constitutes public participation under the constitution. The Chief Justice is familiar with these constitutional guidelines and can make sure they are complied with.

Making public the declarations of wealth of the President and the Deputy President will usher in robust public participation. There will definitely be public debates about the declarations and their respective veracity. The audit team will, of course, conduct a forensic lifestyle audit and address the issue of the veracity and integrity of these declarations.

There will be consequences arising from this exercise. If taxes have not been paid, KRA can demand them. Indeed, the respective state officers can invoke their mandates and legally act within them once the audit is over.

The results of the audit must be made public and allow robust participation of the people. Such participation is to test the political will and commitment of the exercise. Any gaps found in the process by this public participation should be referred to the auditing team so that it can seek answers from the President and his Deputy.

If the process is successfully completed it would put to rest the critique that the lifestyle audit is about political witch hunts and intra-elite struggles about who becomes President of the Republic in 2022. The process will not be seen as yet another of the political distractions by our elites. It would breathe life into the constitutional provisions on integrity of our political leaders and state officers.

A new culture of transparency and accountability will start to grow and will be nurtured. Kenya would be the pride of Africa (pun not intended) and the rest of the world. Our political leadership and state officers will thereafter occupy the pride of place currently occupied by the ordinary people of Kenya, our athletes, the Kenya Sevens, our heroines and heroes.

Let the debate on this issue continue. What we must not do is to let the President and the Deputy President off the hook. We must seize upon this opportunity to test their respective fidelity to the Constitution, Oaths of Office and the promise of democracy to the people of Kenya.

Research by Juliet A. Attelah

Related links

Lifestyle audits and the Constitution
Unease and confusion over lifestyle audit order
DP Ruto’s ally challenges Uhuru to include his family and Jomo Kenyatta’s wealth in the lifestyle audit
Uhuru throws last dice in bid to secure legacy
Don’t politicise lifestyle audit as that only ‘incriminates’ opposers
Lifestyle audit first step in detecting corruption
Legal hurdles stand in way of lifestyle audit
Lifestyle audits are for the living, Oscar Sudi told on Mzee Jomo Kenyatta
Uhuru’s order on lifestyle audit received major boost
Lifestyle audit can prove one’s innocence
Rift in Jubilee widens as Ruto’s allies hit back
Boniface Mwangi: Which lifestyle audit? But we know the thieves in Kenya!
Government to conduct lifestyle audit from July
Officers’ horror as audit includes lie detector test
MPs demand lifestyle audit of Anne Waiguru
Politicians and experts clash over lifestyle audit for State officers

Avatar
By

Dr Willy Mutunga is a public intellectual and former Chief Justice of Kenya.

Op-Eds

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Published

on

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive
Download PDFPrint Article

The tyranny of numbers, a phrase first applied to Kenyan politics by one of Kenya’s most well-known political commentators, Mutahi Ngunyi, was repeated ad nauseum during the week of waiting that followed Kenya’s 2013 general elections.

In ads published in the run-up to the 2013 elections by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), people were told to vote, go home and accept the results. Encouraged by a state that had since the 2007 post-electoral violence dominated public discourse and means of coercion, the military pitched camp in polling stations. Many streets in Kenya’s cities and towns remained deserted for days after the polls closed.

According to Ngunyi, the winner of the 2013 elections had been known four months earlier, that is, when the electoral commission stopped registering voters.

In a country whose politics feature a dominant discourse that links political party and ethnicity, the outcome of voter registration that year meant that the Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto-led coalition, the Jubilee Alliance, would start the electoral contest with 47 per cent of the vote assured. With these statistics, their ticket appeared almost impossible to beat. For ethnic constituencies that did not eventually vote for Uhuru Kenyatta – the Jubilee Alliance presidential candidate in 2013 – a sense of hopelessness was widespread.

For them, a bureaucratic, professionalised, dispassionate (even boring) discourse became the main underpinning of the 2013 elections.

This was not the case in 2017.

Uhuru Kenyatta, pressured by opposition protests and a Supreme Court ruling that challenged his victory and ordered a re-run, met with Raila Odinga – his challenger for the presidency in the 2013 and 2017 elections – and offered a settlement. It became known as the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI).

In his 2020 Jamhuri Day speech, Uhuru reiterated that the purpose of the BBI process is to abolish the winner-takes-all system by expanding the executive branch of government.

As he explained it, the challenge to Kenya’s politics is the politicisation of ethnicity coupled with a lack of the requisite number of political offices within the executive branch that would satisfy all ethnic constituencies – Kenya has 42 enumerated ethnic groups.

The revised BBI report that was released on 21 October 2020 (the first was published in November 2019) has now retained the position of president, who, if the recommendations are voted for in a referendum, will also get to appoint a prime minister, two deputy prime ministers and a cabinet.

Amid heckles and jeers during the launch of the revised BBI report, Deputy President William Ruto asked whether the establishment of the positions of prime minister and two deputy prime ministers would create the much sought-after inclusivity. In his Jamhuri Day speech, the president conceded that they wouldn’t, but that the BBI-proposed position of Leader of Official Opposition – with a shadow cabinet, technical support and a budget – would mean that the loser of the presidential election would still have a role to play in governance.

One could not help but think that the president’s statement was informed by the fact that Odinga lost to him in both the 2013 and 2017 presidential elections –  this despite Odinga’s considerable political influence over vast areas of the country.

The 2010 constitution’s pure presidential system doesn’t anticipate any formal political role for the loser(s) of a presidential election. Raila held no public office between 2013 and 2017, when he lost to Uhuru. This did not help to address the perception amongst his supporters that they had been excluded from the political process for many years. In fact, Raila’s party had won more gubernatorial posts across the country’s 47 counties than the ruling Jubilee Alliance had during the 2013 elections.

While Raila’s attempts to remain politically relevant in the five years between 2013 and 2017 were largely ignored by Uhuru, the resistance against Uhuru’s victory in 2017 wasn’t.

The anger felt by Raila’s supporters in 2017 following the announcement that Uhuru had won the elections – again – could not be separated from the deeply-entrenched feelings of exclusion and marginalisation that were at the centre of the violence that followed the protracted and disputed elections.

The reading of Kenyan politics that is currently being rendered by the BBI process is that all ethnic constituencies must feel that they (essentially, their co-ethnic leaders) are playing a role in what is an otherwise overly centralised, executive-bureaucratic state. This is despite the fact that previous attempts to limit the powers of the executive branch by spreading them across other levels of government have often invited a backlash from the political class.

Kenya’s independence constitution had provided for a Westminster-style, parliamentary system of government, and took power and significant functions of government away from the centralised government in Nairobi, placing significant responsibility (over land, security and education, for instance) in the hands of eight regional governments of equal status known in Swahili as majimbo. The majimbo system was abolished and, between 1964 to 1992, the government was headed by an executive president and the constitution amended over twenty times – largely empowering the executive branch at the expense of parliament and the judiciary. The powers of the president were exercised for the benefit of the president’s cronies and co-ethnics.

By 2010 there was not a meaningful decentralised system of government. The executive, and the presidency at its head, continued to survive attempts at limiting their powers. This has continued since 2010.

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Beyond the minimum of 35 per cent of national revenue that the BBI report proposes should be allocated to county governments, it is less clear whether the country’s leaders are prepared to decentralise significant powers and resources away from the executive, and away from Nairobi.

Perhaps the real solution to the challenges of governance the BBI process purports to address is to follow the prescriptions of the defunct Yash Pal Ghai team – it went around the country collecting views for constitutional change in 2003-2004.

According to a paper written by Ghai himself, the Ghai-led Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) had no doubt that, consistent with the goals of the review and the people’s views, there had to be a transfer of very substantial powers and functions of government to local levels.

The CKRC noted – much like Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga now have – that the centralised presidential system tends to ethnicise politics, which threatens national unity.

Kenyans told the CKRC that decisions were made at places far away from them; that their problems arose from government policies over which they had no control; that they wanted greater control over their own destiny and to be free to determine their lifestyle choices and their affairs; and not to be told that they are not patriotic enough!

Yes, the BBI report has proposed that 5 per cent of county revenue be allocated to Members of County Assemblies for a newly-created Ward Development Fund, and that businesses set up by young Kenyans be exempted from taxation for the first seven years of operation. However, this doesn’t amount to any meaningful surrender of power and resources by the executive.

In emphasising the importance of exercising control at the local level, Kenyans told the CKRC that they wanted more communal forms of organisation and a replacement of the infamous Administration Police with a form of community policing. They considered that more powers and resources at the local level would give them greater influence over their parliamentary and local representatives, including greater control over jobs, land and land-based resources.  In short, Kenyans have always yearned for a dispersion of power away from the presidency, and away from the executive and Nairobi. They have asked for the placing of responsibility for public affairs in the hands of additional and more localised levels of government.

This is what would perhaps create the much sought-after inclusivity.

But as the BBI debate rages on, the attention of the political class is now on the proposed new positions within the executive branch. And as the debate becomes inexorably linked to the 2022 Kenyatta-succession race, questions centring on political positions will likely become personalised, especially after the political class cobbles together coalitions to contest the 2022 general elections.

Meanwhile, ordinary Kenyans will be left battling the aftermath of a pandemic, and having to deal with the usual stresses brought on by a political class seeking their votes for another round of five years of exclusion.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others

The coming election in Uganda is significant because if there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment.

Published

on

Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others
Download PDFPrint Article

Western powers slowly tied a noose round their own necks by first installing Uganda’s National Resistance Movement regime, and then supporting it uncritically as it embarked on its adventures in militarism, plunder and human rights violations inside and outside Uganda’s borders.

They are now faced with a common boss problem: what to do with an employee of very long standing (possibly even inherited from a predecessor) who may now know more about his department than the new bosses, and who now carries so many of the company’s secrets that summary dismissal would be a risky undertaking?

The elections taking place in Uganda this week have brought that dilemma into sharp relief.

An initial response would be to simply allow this sometimes rude employee to carry on. The problem is time. In both directions. The employee is very old, and those he seeks to manage are very young, and also very poor and very aspirational because of being very young. And also therefore very angry.

Having a president who looks and speaks like them, and whose own personal life journey symbolises their own ambitions, would go a very long way to placating them. This, if for no other reason, is why the West must seriously consider finding a way to induce the good and faithful servant to give way. Nobody lives forever. And so replacement is inevitable one way or another.

But this is clearly not a unified position. The United Kingdom, whose intelligence services were at the forefront of installing the National Resistance Movement/Army (NRM/A) in power nearly forty years ago, remains quietly determined to stand by President Yoweri Museveni’s side.

On the other hand, opinion in America’s corridors of power seems divided. With standing operations in Somalia, and a history of western-friendly interventions in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and even Kenya, the Ugandan military is perceived as a huge (and cut-price) asset to the West’s regional security concerns.

The DRC, in particular, with its increasing significance as the source of much of the raw materials that will form the basis of the coming electric engine revolution, has been held firmly in the orbit of Western corporations through the exertions of the regime oligarchs controlling Uganda’s security establishment. To this, one may add the growing global agribusiness revolution in which the fertile lands of the Great Lakes Region are targeted for clearing and exploitation, and for which the regime offers facilitation.

Such human resource is hard to replace and therefore not casually disposed of.

These critical resource questions are backstopped by unjust politics themselves held in place by military means. The entire project therefore hinges ultimately on who has the means to physically enforce their exploitation. In our case, those military means have been personalised to one individual and a small circle of co-conspirators, often related by blood and ethnicity.

However, time presses. Apart from the ageing autocrat at the centre, there is also a time bomb in the form of an impoverished and anxious population of unskilled, under-employed (if at all) and propertyless young people. Change beckons for all sides, whether planned for or not.

This is why this coming election is significant. If there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment. Even if President Museveni is once again declared winner, there will still remain enough political momentum and pressure that could be harnessed by his one-time Western friends to cause him to look for the exit. It boils down to whether the American security establishment could be made to believe that the things that made President Museveni valuable to them, are transferable elsewhere into the Uganda security establishment. In short, that his sub-imperial footprint can be divorced from his person and entrusted, if not to someone like candidate Robert Kyagulanyi, then at least to security types already embedded within the state structure working under a new, youthful president.

Three possible outcomes then: Kyagulanyi carrying the vote and being declared the winner; Kyagulanyi carrying the vote but President Museveni being declared the winner; or failure to have a winner declared. In all cases, there will be trouble. In the first, a Trump-like resistance from the incumbent. In the second and the third, the usual mass disturbances that have followed each announcement of the winner of the presidential election since the 1990s.

Once the Ugandan political crisis — a story going back to the 1960s — is reduced to a security or “law and order” problem, the West usually sides with whichever force can quickest restore the order they (not we) need.

And this is how the NRM tail seeks to still wag the Western dog: the run-up to voting day has been characterised by heavy emphasis on the risk of alleged “hooligans” out to cause mayhem (“burning down the city” being a popular bogeyman). The NRM’s post-election challenge will be to quickly strip the crisis of all political considerations and make it a discussion about security.

But it would be strategically very risky to try to get Uganda’s current young electorate — and the even younger citizens in general — to accept that whatever social and economic conditions they have lived through in the last few decades (which for most means all of their lives given how young they are) are going to remain in place for even just the next five years. They will not buy into the promises they have seen broken in the past. Their numbers, their living conditions, their economic prospects and their very youth would then point to a situation of permanent unrest.

However, it can be safely assumed that the NRM regime will, to paraphrase US President Donald Trump, not accept any election result that does not declare it the winner.

Leave things as they are and deal with the inevitable degeneration of politics beyond its current state, or enforce a switch now under the cover of an election, or attempt to enforce a switch in the aftermath of the election by harnessing the inevitable discontent.

Those are the boss’ options.

In the meantime, there is food to be grown and work to be done.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

Uganda Elections 2021: The Elephant Website Blocked Ahead of Poll

For about a month now, some of our readers within Uganda have been reporting problems accessing the website. Following receipt of these reports, we launched investigations which have established that The Elephant has been blocked by some, though not all, internet service providers in the country.

Published

on

Uganda Elections 2021: The Elephant Website Blocked Ahead of Poll
Download PDFPrint Article

Dear Readers/Viewers,

For four years now, The Elephant has been one of the premier online sources of news analysis in the East African region with a fast-growing readership across the African continent and beyond.

For about a month now, some of our readers within Uganda have been reporting problems accessing the website. Following receipt of these reports, we launched investigations which have established that The Elephant has been blocked by some, though not all, internet service providers in the country.

We have further ascertained that the directive to do so came from the Uganda Communication Commission (UCC) and was implemented beginning 12 December 2020, when we noticed a sudden traffic drop coming from several providers in Uganda, including Africell and Airtel. A forensics report, which provides technical details on the blocking, is available here.

We have written to the UCC requesting a reason for the blocking but are yet to receive a response.

The Elephant wholeheartedly condemns this assault on free speech and on freedom of the press and calls on the Ugandan government to respect the rights of Ugandans to access information.

We would like to assure all our readers that we are doing everything in our power to get the restrictions removed and hope normal access can be restored expeditiously.

As we do this, to circumvent the block, a Bifrost mirror has been deployed. Readers in Uganda can once again access The Elephant on this link.

Thank you.

Best Regards

John Githongo
Publisher

Continue Reading

Trending