Opinion divided on calls on Rotich to step aside
SEE ALSO :End of the road beckons CS Rotich“There should be no discussion on the CS leaving office. Where systems work, when one is in a similar situation, his conscience alone guides him to leave office,” Ms Chesoni said. Delicate situations She added that it was “disturbing” that people who found themselves in delicate situations still held onto their offices instead of vacating them. Transparency International Kenya Executive Director Samuel Kimeu said Rotich should have stepped aside the moment he was called for questioning. “Alternatively, President Uhuru Kenyatta should ask him to step aside. Kenyans should be worried that we have over-borrowed and over-stolen. Instead of punishing the corrupt and recovering the loot, we have increased taxes to mitigate the impact of corruption,” said Mr Kimeu.
SEE ALSO :This man RotichHe said the investigation must continue “to its logical conclusion”. International Centre for Policy and Conflict Executive Director Ndung’u Wainaina said Rotich and his fellow officials should quit. “It is a Government requirement that withdrawing Sh1 million has to be accompanied by a valid reason. But now we have many cases of billions of shillings being withdrawn when Rotich, his Treasury officials and the Central Bank of Kenya are quiet,” said Mr Wainaina. He said the anti-corruption crusade would only be won if Chapter Six of the Constitution was fully implemented. “We see key accountable points have not been met by Rotich. Why is he still in office and why has Uhuru not sacked him?” he asked.
SEE ALSO :State ‘inflated’ loan insurance by Sh10bIt was also the experts’ view that with the budget-making process near the tail end, Rotich could not afford the distractions and pressure that came with spending long hours with investigators seeking answers on Sh21 billion in questionable payments to build Arror and Kimwarer dams in Elgeyo Marakwet. But MPs interviewed termed calls for the CS to step aside premature. They argued that so far, there was no incriminating evidence against Rotich. They, however, said if found culpable, he must leave office or be sacked. Minority Leader and Suba South MP John Mbadi said it was unfair to call for Rotich to vacate office just because he had been questioned by the DCI. He noted that there was no information implicating the CS of anything. “Being questioned to write a statement does not necessarily mean that the CS has done anything wrong. We should be patient and wait for the DCI to conclude its work. If there is impropriety on his part, then the President will have no option but to sack him,” said Mr Mbadi. Custodian of resources He added: “There is an element that he could be giving evidence that would see him as a witness and not a suspect. I would be disappointed if the outcome of the probe indicted Rotich. He is supposed to be the custodian of our resources and it would be unfortunate if he took part in the plunder of the same.” Justice and Legal Affairs Committee chairman and Baringo North MP William Cheptumo also termed the calls for the CS to leave office premature. He said Kenyans must allow the investigating agencies to finish their work and make a determination on who was responsible for any losses without resorting to public lynching of a civil servant just because he had been questioned on the matter. “It is premature to demand that he steps aside. We also must stop this character assassination and allow for objective investigations. “What if we call for his stepping aside then he is not implicated in any wrong? We will have already tainted his name in the eyes of all,” said Mr Cheptumo. The lawmakers said the Treasury boss had not been named as a suspect in the ongoing investigations. “Let us not castigate him for being grilled. We will not have to wait long for the outcome of the probe. If he is indicted, then he should leave office and be prosecuted,” said Homa Bay Woman Representative Gladys Wanga. Makueni Senator Mutula Kilonzo Jnr said Rotich, as the chief accounting officer, should be accountable for the prudence of public expenditure.