From the outset, it was clear that President Uhuru Kenyatta’s order that all heads of Procurement and Accounts departments in public institutions step aside to allow a lifestyle audit was fraught with inherent risks.
Our misgivings that it seemed as if the Government had not given much thought to the whole thing — from start to end — have been vindicated in a way.
The government now finds itself in a conundrum: It simply doesn’t know what to do with some of the employees who were found wanting.
Obviously, fearing a deluge of legal suits, the government won’t proceed to reprimand or sack those found to own unexplained wealth. Due care is needed.
The presidential decree was not foolproof and therefore, faced many challenges that to date, have not been adequately addressed.
For example; what were the rules of engagement?; who did the audit and what tool did they use?; and most importantly, what would become of the outcome?
Most critically, the lifestyle audit and vetting were not anchored in law and went contrary to the Employment and Labour Law, which spells out the circumstances under which employees can be reprimanded, suspended or sacked.
Additionally, the order was open-ended with no clear indication on closure. In fact, the exercise went on for close to six months before those given a clean bill of health reported back to work. No doubt, anything that lacked a terms of reference was prone to abuse.
And so now, a year later, the taxpayer is saddled with a wage bill of stay-at-home civil servants earning colossal amounts of money.
This newspaper has consistently cautioned that asking the officials to step aside would not of itself rid the country of corruption; a deeply-seated vice. We argued that more needed to be done. We also raised legitimate concerns that the manner information was extracted from the suspended officials deviated from the accepted norms and risked jeopardising the whole operation.
In the macabre operation, the senior officials were hooded and driven from the Office of the President at Harambee House to secluded houses on the outskirts of the city and interrogated by people they didn’t know (with no lawyers or witnesses) for up to five hours before they were driven back to the city and handed back their phones.
This was no good way to treat employees, however the degree of culpability. The officers have been subjected to untold trauma and distress. Waking up each day not knowing what will happen next, to not knowing whether they should look for other opportunities is simply traumatising.
The pursuit of justice is voided by an injustice committed in its quest. At the very least, they ought to be informed of their fate. And isn’t it unfair to taxpayers to pay a salary to people who don’t work, especially in these times?