Is Prisons Department taken over by a velvet revolution?

By John Gerezani

I have very serious business to cover today but let me begin by offering my heartfelt condolences to the families and relatives of the law enforcement agents mercilessly mowed down and left to rot for days in the stifling Suguta valley wilderness even as the annoying Mathew lteere made a perfunctory buck-passing trip in a chopper aptly escorted by two military choppers.

The sooner he gets out of Vigilance House for good the better for this country.

Secondly, congratulations are in order to the Police Service Commission for the public vetting of those aspiring to head the new looking service.

Of course, it was fun watching my buddy trying to spin his way out of his “Rambo Movie” series of police extra-judicial killings just as it was discomfiting to see a career cop face the public and confess that he knows all the drug dealing top politicians even though he won’t name or arrest any.

And the dude expects us to clap and hand him the job as a token for ineptitude? Come on, give us a break.

However, my main business today is on the velvet revolution that has apparently taken everyone in the Prisons Department by surprise, more so those who nursed ambitions of rising to the apex in the management cadre.

For a department long regarded as a stickler to detail to jettison all pretensions to civility and join the ranks of those who believe that laws and rules which do not serve their myopic and parochial interests are to be ignored as a matter of course is indeed a pointer to impunity taking an upper hand. In as much as the allure to be called “General” is tempting, l believe that any meaningful change must be codified in law lest one remains a musketeer with a hollow rank.

It is also my considered opinion that it is best practice that any new post in the civil service is advertised and a competitive and transparent vetting be done before a substantive holder is appointed to serve for a specified duration. Backroom manoeuvres designed to lock out perhaps more deserving rivals do not inspire confidence.

If anything, they reek of a reward system to shut up someone from squealing on what he or she knows about his or her superiors.

The last time l checked, an Act of Parliament No 90 that clearly states the ranks and hierarchical order of its staff was governing the Prisons Department.

I do agree that there were changes proposed during the Bomas Constitution parley, which could have made the department a distinct constitutionally recognised body, but the said changes were never to be as they were purged at the Naivasha Accord at the instigation of some ministry mandarins who realised that letting go the goose that lays the golden egg would be inimical to their interests.

It therefore came as a surprise when it was announced during the passing out parade on Friday, November 9, that officers who had undergone a promotional course that from then henceforth, warders would be known as constables, chief officers would be called inspectors while the commissioner would have the new title of commissioner general.

I am not aware of any parliamentary initiative to amend the Prisons Act Cap 90 so it would be prudent for the country to be told who decided to circumvent the law and why.

It is obvious that the policy makers at Jogoo House owe Kenyans an explanation as such changes cannot be made without their knowledge and approval.

 Perhaps it is time VP Kalonzo took a break from his campaign obsession and addressed more pressing matters in his docket before they snowball into a maelstrom that could torpedo his benign presidential ambitions.

He should also explain why the department does not have a substantive deputy commissioner more than a year since the former holder was run out of office for matters now in public knowledge.

Finally, could the Public Service Commission come clean on this matter?

The writer comments on social issue