Corruption remains a major concern in the country.
While there have been numerous scandals, the amount of resources and efforts put in place to counter corruption appears not to be commensurate to the results.
Both the Judiciary and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) have come under fire in recent years over the delay in finalising corruption cases.
Given the involvement of several government agencies in investigation and adjudication of such cases, questions abound as to the cause of the inordinate delays and low numbers of convictions despite money being lost.
The Judiciary’s decision to bar governors from accessing their offices is a welcome move in the war on corruption.
Recent events have seen the judiciary criticised for issuing lenient orders that are seen to deal a blow to efforts at combating corruption.
It has always been an uphill task to prosecute public figures given their wealth and influence.
This has seen most wealthy persons employ a battery of lawyers who would jump at the opportunity to flood the court with numerous applications during the pendency of a trial.
While the motives behind doing so might sometimes be well-intentioned, the effect has always been the dragging of the trial so that it remains ongoing for years.
With this, the zeal of prosecuting the matter is likely to diminish and so would the public scrutiny that is typical of most high-profile trials, which are occasioned by swamped courtrooms and newspaper headlines.
Delays in prosecution also provide a conducive environment for witness and evidence tampering, and if the witnesses are not intimidated by this, then the constant summons and appearances in court is likely to weary them.
The Judiciary, however, now seems to be fighting back. With the recent decisions against Samburu County boss Moses Lenolkulal and Kiambu’s Ferdinand Waititu, business is no longer as usual.
The provisions of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act seem to have come to the rescue of the public with the barring of the governors from accessing their offices.
Section 62 of the Act provides for the suspension of public officers or state officers who are charged with corruption or economic crime.
The provision provides that the public office/state officer shall receive half pay with effect from the date of the charge until the conclusion of the case.
The Section however does not apply with respect to an office if the Constitution limits or provides for the grounds upon which a holder of the office may be removed or the circumstances in which the office must be vacated.
While debate rages on whether access to the office means inability to discharge their mandate as governors, it is evident that the orders shall have an effect on their engagement with their respective county governments.
In any event, such orders will have the effect of putting public officials in a dilemma of whether to frustrate the trial with numerous applications or finalise and either resume duties or be found guilty.
Whether such orders could be the much-needed silver bullet in prosecuting high profile cases remains to be seen. What is obvious is the Judiciary’s renewed resolve to walking the talk in dealing with graft.
Mr Lusweti is a human rights lawyer; [email protected]
