Law cannot be blamed for corruption

Runyenjes Member of Parliament Cecily Mbarire told us on these pages that the “President’s hands are tied in a graft war.”

She advanced several reasons to bolster her case. On the face of it you would imagine that there is a serious problem with how the Constitution was crafted. But Ms Mbarire does not really provide evidence.

At its core, critical thinking entails the ability to gather credible proof to back one’s arguments. Throughout her ruminations, Mbarire does not cite any one piece or article of the Constitution that is a hindrance to the President as she tries to put it.

The President, after all does not act alone. He provides guidance, leadership and support even to independent commissions that may be deemed to be stand-alone. When this support is well meaning, it cannot be deemed to be interference.

I want to believe Mbarire was well-meaning even if her claims were predicated on logical fallacies. She seems to blame everybody else; media, civil society and the private sector, for corruption except the Government.

Bob Collymore declared his wealth as a way of showing goodwill towards the fight against corruption. The drive of course fizzled out soon after.

While the private sector may be more than willing to fight corruption, it lacks the instrument of sanctioned violence and coercive power, which are tools exclusively in the hands of Government.

If the President shares the feeling of Mbarire that the war on corruption has been all but lost, he must step up to the podium and tell us as much.

It is not helpful to claim that the Constitution should be changed to give the President a freer hand and then quickly turn around and warn us of the consequences of such action.

That is what Mbarire does.

She wishes on the one hand that civil society would push for changes in the law “as regards the President’s mandate to fight corruption.”

She regrets later that this power has been used to settle scores in the past. She concludes therefore that sobriety and honesty is needed to hedge our expectations on the war on corruption; I agree.

That honesty, sobriety and patience were lacking when the presidency cleared the hanky panky at the National Youth Service without (or maybe with) the benefit of any competent investigation.

His spokesman is on record having told us that no money was lost, that the concerned minister would stay put and those accusing her were only sore losers and perennial naysayers.

Many affidavits later and with the murky truth largely out, we are yet to get any apologies or even clarifications of what Manoah Esipisu meant.

Mbarire’s claim that "the corruption as currently structured demands that the President do (sic) nothing directly as regards fighting corruption,” is untrue, wild and outrageous.

I will try to be helpful. We need to read articles 3, 10, 73,74,75,75,131,154 and his oath of office as prescribed in the Third Schedule. Article 154 gives the President powers to fire a Cabinet secretary.

No need for perpetually begging them to step aside. The argument (s) as put forward also fail to take into account that the President is first and foremost a politician.

He has leverage over politicians who are responsible for tackling corruption.

A no-nonsense Parliament would put the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission perpetually on their toes. This does not need witch hunting.

These independent bodies are created with members being approved by Parliament and are removed through a petition presented to Parliament.

They live and die by Parliament. So that as the Executive head and political leader of a coalition, the lame duck President painted by Mbarire does not exist and was never contemplated by the Constitution.

Long before and after wars have been won or lost on the battlefield, the desire to control the narrative and write the story becomes key. People need to be told comfortable half-truths when the battle gets tough.

The spin around the lost war on corruption needs to be understood in this light.

Yet sophistry will only entrench the vice. It will merely embolden the corrupt. It will give fodder to both the so-called cartels and their foot soldiers.

It is very rare indeed for a government and its sympathizers to stand by and announce that they have lost to illegitimate and shadowy operatives, and still retain the moral prerogative to govern and rule legitimately.

It has been demonstrated that the laws are not to blame. Civil society and the media are merely doing what they exist to do.

Constitutions exist for adjudication and harmonious co-existence of society.

The Constitution of Kenya (2010) must be read by those who wish to blame it for runaway corruption.

It has been said that before you distort your facts, you may at least first have to check them and get them right.