It is how the Treasury did it that is undermining the milestone policy on the engine capacity of government vehicles. That, in a way, is the treachery of our government systems and actors, in which even well-intended policy tends to stumble in the execution.

The Treasury, as the custodian of our financial resources and acting as lead managers of our economic development and fiscal policies, has a right to end wastage of public resources. This right includes determination of benefits of employment, which can be extended to public officials on a sustainable basis.

Whilst we support the policy of one-car-1800 cc limit, we have serious issues with its implementation strategy. It is a case of a commendable policy mismanaged and made to appear unnecessarily deceitful by those charged with implementation.

The fundamental question remains: Why has the one car-1800cc policy been made to look like a Passat-car policy? Is it a case of wilful incompetence by those implementing the policy, or an opportunistic quest by internal and external actors?

Today, debate is raging on the blanket order and questions are being asked whether or not there may have been some selfish motivation on the part of some of those involved. It is this that has made this procurement the subject of cryptanalysis.

Why Passat? Did the procurement comply with government’s regulations? Who stands to gain, if any? Who undermined this policy? Thus, it is no longer a debate on one-car 1800cc policy — the issue is degenerating into a Passat-car policy, and questions are centering on the transparency of the procurement and whether it is any way a moneymaking scheme.

What, then, are the pertinent issues and how can the Treasury cure the malaise with respect to other public official excesses?

Firstly, we must consider the question of what luxurious comfort our public officials can enjoy on taxpayers’ account. In this determination, if we cannot afford, that would be essentially the position. We must end this nuisance of haughtiness at taxpayers’ expense, which is not only unsustainable expenditure, but clearly is unjustifiable in the light of current priorities.

The question remains: What constitutes a sustainable and acceptable cost of public officials’ grandeur to taxpayers? This must be on the basis of what the people can afford, and this should be the authorised and legitimate charge on the Exchequer. It must not and cannot be on the basis of whimsical desires of public officials — no matter the status of their responsibilities.

Our system of governance, however, unfortunately encourages official excesses in what can be characterised as unjustifiable trappings of status opulence. It is no surprise, therefore, that the new policy requiring Kenyan officials to limit their grandeur at the state’s expense is receiving bare-knuckle resistance in some quarters. Why? These officials are used to extravagance, which they cannot sustain in their ordinary course of livelihood.

Indeed, many of yesteryears’ top officials, including the political power elite, have since been humbled by actual realities of life outside office. Many of these retired public officials cannot sustain their past extravagance in their current stations of life.

Kenyans, however, continue to watch with disdain as many public officials display excessive grandiose in terms of bodyguards and chase cars. Thus, efforts by Treasury to rein in on this excess is commendable and must be supported by all taxpayers, so long as they remain transparent. Secondly, Treasury must now refocus the policy as a well-intended measure, which demands the need to maintain flexibility on the vehicle model subject to being limited at 1800cc. This calls for a transparent system of determining vehicle models which are compliant with respect to engine capacity, purchase price, operating costs and utility. An independent committee of experts should be asked to evaluate possible options with a clear view of arriving at at least three models for competitive reasons.

The effective value is to avoid a monopolistic captive market, which will see an increase in purchase prices and maintenance costs. Moreover, the accusations would be politically unbearable with actual possibility of being a policy riddled with scandals. The Public Watchdog considers the PS at Treasury to be among few public officials who have endured external pressure while safeguarding public interest.

Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta — who is also the Finance Minister — cannot possibly be courting political suicide through misuse of public resources, as his foes are inferring. Indeed, we would want to believe Uhuru’s inherited personal worth should insulate him against possible temptations of ‘pourboire’, which has made many Finance ministers gullible.

Thus, it is up to Uhuru as Minister for Finance and Mr Joseph Kinyua, as PS to the Treasury, to chose how to re-navigate Treasury’s policy directions. As the saying goes: The taste of the pudding is in the eating!

Thirdly, the disposal of non-compliant vehicles must be done transparently to ensure taxpayers obtain commensurate value. Furthermore, current vehicles of 1800cc must be retained, as there would be no justifiable basis for their disposal.

Finally, Treasury must rein in on other excesses such as the continued first class flights by public servants at the taxpayers’ expense. This is matter of compelling public interest.