By Anyang’ Nyong’o
On Wednesday Prime Minister Raila Odinga, convened a meeting of senior Government officials, including ministers, to discuss the low capacity use of development funds. Quite often money voted for development, or obtained from development partners for the same purpose, is returned to the Treasury at the end of the financial year because it is not spent. The reason this happens varies.
But one thing is certain: As a Government we have been slow to adopt our procurement laws to facilitate efficient absorption of development funds and to respond creatively to sources of such funds that can complement Government treasury resources.
When under pressure to improve accountability and transparency in Government following the wanton outbreak of corruption, we responded quite appropriately by putting in place draconian procurement procedures that have now become an albatross around our neck.
Civil servants are afraid to take any major decisions on procurement issues else they run a foul of these complex procedures.
More than that; a culture of suspicion and backbiting has emerged in the corridors of Government that is eating up the avenues of efficiency like a terrible cancer. The surprising thing is that it exists even at the highest echelons of political power.
There is a general belief that every decision maker cannot put pen to paper until “there is something in it for him or her,” and others up the ladder must likewise “be taken care of.” In come those who compete for Government tenders; nobody loses a tender without “having been treated unfairly”.
The end result is perpetual litigation before the Procurement Oversight Authority windy investigations by the Kenya Anti-Corruption Authority questions by private notice in Parliament posed on behalf of the disgruntled losers. Am not saying in the least that corruption cases does not exist in Government; it does. But there are neater and more scientific ways of preventing and dealing with corruption.
First, let the rules of the game for procuring goods and services be well known and well laid out. Two, let those who are eminently qualified to run the show be allowed to do their work without let or hindrance. We have done this at the Kenya Medical Supplies Agency since 2008 and everything has been moving smoothly since. “We have been undertaking similar reforms to improve performance and productivity at the NHIF since 2008 with the support of development partners, and in particular the IFC. Hence subscribers more than quadrupled in four years.
Unnecessary and uninformed interference from without may easily undo our achievements under the guise of seeking to improve procurement procedures.”
Three, let responsibility for procuring be done by those legally and institutionally recognised for doing so; quite often it is the interfering with procurement processes “from above” that begins to mess up things and when problems arise, the “above people” are the first to cry foul and then begin playing the executioner’s role. And that is why some civil servants become shy about making major decisions. It is better to call a spade a spade and not a big spoon!
Four, let the private sector play by the rules and not try to exploit political connections so as to subvert procurement in their favour, especially when due process does not work in one’s favour. This does not mean we criminalise lobbying; but lobbying must be done within the bounds of law and not as a subversion of law.
Five, it is important to recognise why we have developed the system we have today and why we are in the process of changing this system. Ministers are the political heads of ministries while Permanent Secretaries are the accounting heads of ministries.
The two have to work together. We have had, however, since the birth of the coalition Government, situations where certain forces within Government push Permanent Secretaries to work against their ministers in the execution of Government functions. Or situations where lines of authority are “subverted from above,” in a bid to facilitate “the scoring of political points.” This is done at the risk of undermining optimal performance in Government.
When such things happen, we cannot expect important decisions affecting the use of development resources to be made efficiently. Let ministers guide ministries in terms of policy, priorities and the implementation of Government programmes. Let Permanent Secretaries ensure that systems work efficiently, cost effectively and productively, so that Government output is maximised and unnecessary side shows minimised.
I do not think that we got enough time during the Kenyatta International Conference Centre discussions on Wednesday to discuss the many pertinent issues that cause low absorption of development funds in Government. Nor did we have time to discuss the equally important need to develop a culture of trust and synergy within Government.
Wednesday was a good beginning, and the PM needs to be congratulated for this initiative. But the dialogue needs to continue, and each ministry should write confidential reports to the PM’s office on the analysis of the problem and the way forward.
I have a strong feeling that we need to do this before we extend the dialogue to development partners. While I accept competing interests within the coalition Government, such competition should not occur at the expense of achieving efficiency in Government and maximising the output in what Government does.
I see that part of the slowing down in implementing development projects can be explained by the actions of those who misinterpret and misapply this competition to the detriment of the Government as a whole. I have plenty of examples that I can only discuss confidentially within the framework of Government.
