President William Ruto's unveiling of a new police uniform last week deserves scrutiny on two fronts; the wisdom of the decision itself, and the manner in which it was procured.
The uniform introduced is, by all accounts, the same colour scheme abandoned by the previous administration under President Uhuru Kenyatta. It is difficult to characterise this as a reform of any consequence, and harder still to justify as a national priority when public confidence in the police service is at its lowest ebb in recent memory.
Citizens have watched officers act with impunity, including in cases of abductions and extrajudicial killings, often with the apparent sanction of the Executive. When the President and his Cabinet Secretary for Interior urge officers to shoot rather than arrest suspects, a change of attire does nothing to address the erosion of public trust that follows.
An officer housed in a tin shack, or one whose salary cannot meet basic needs, is not better served by a uniform than by decent housing and fair pay. The reforms envisaged under the Ransley Report and the 2010 Constitution promised these things, along with mental health care and operational independence. The public is entitled to ask whether they have been achieved, and why Sh2.8 billion has gone to dressing 56,000 officers.
Secondly, the procurement process raises serious concerns. Investigations by The Standard into Nalitex Limited, the principal supplier, show a firm incorporated barely two years ago, with a registered Nairobi office that could not be located on inspection. Its postal address is shared with an audit firm whose principal has documented financial ties to a Ruto family investment vehicle, and with a property business reportedly linked to the First Family. Its sole shareholder on record is, according to public information, a primary school teacher who never reported to her last posting. These are facts any credible procurement process should have addressed.
When the previous administration changed the uniform, the contract went to the National Youth Service, a public body answerable to Parliament and the Auditor General. No comparable explanation has been offered for departing from that precedent. The public deserves answers: Was this tender competitively bid? How many firms participated, and what were their quotations? Was due diligence conducted on the successful bidder, and if so, what did it find?
Kenya's procurement law exists, basically, to prevent public contracts going to entities connected, however indirectly, to those in power. Where such connections exist, the appearance of conflict of interest is itself damaging, regardless of what further investigation may establish. The institutions charged with investigating such matters remain under executive control, which makes public vigilance and independent journalism necessary.
The rule of law cannot be applied selectively; rigorous against the ordinary citizen, permissive toward the politically connected. What is required now is not further explanation of the uniform's design, but full transparency on how this contract was awarded, and to whom and whether the taxpayers got value for money.
