Why our MPs can’t be trusted with probes on crucial national matters

The investigation by the Joint Committee of the National Assembly on contraband sugar and the failed consequent report was a rather expensive opportunity down the drain to address legacy issues around the sugar ecosystem.

By default or design, the Kanini Kega and Adan Haji led Joint Committee Report was a dud dead on arrival – a product of faceless Machiavellianism, shambolically done and inconsistent in content. The report failed to deal with a few fundamental issues that would have addressed intrinsic issues affecting the sugar industry.

Firstly, it skirts around the issue of who should be held responsible for surplus sugar imported under the duty-free window. Who between the Treasury and Ministry of Agriculture should take the greatest responsibility for the excess sugar that flooded the market in 2017? Here, the committee makes a mockery of the report in glaring irregularities. It avers that Agriculture CS Mwangi Kiunjuri and his ministry’s direct role in making requests to the National Treasury to import sugar and or to bring forward the duty free period for the importation of sugar.

“The Ministry of Agriculture, (para 2.30) advised the Treasury that there was no more need for sugar importation hence the need to revoke Gazette Notice. No. 9801.” However, instead of revoking the gazette notice, Treasury CS Henry Rotich “moved” the deadline, states the report.

Then comes the fact that while the duty-free period was a free for all to import, drawing over 194 companies, there are 14 companies that were allowed to import sugar after the period had lapsed, on the recommendation of the Agriculture CS – a matter not delved conclusively by the committee. Who were these 194 companies? Did they all play by the rules? What was the role of the Sugar Directorate of the Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) which falls under Ministry of Agriculture, the agency responsible for licensing sugar importers?

Secondly, the committee fails to conclusively pinpoint which agency or agencies or persons are culpable for the contamination of sugar. This is despite an avalanche of evidence of mishandling during the offloading at the Port of Mombasa and warehouses around the country. The report is however clear that no mercury was found in all tested sugar samples – a critical statement probably expunged from the recommendations.

Other than quality certification before import that the report states was done through the Certificate of Conformity (COC) [meaning that sugar was only possibly contaminated through poor handling after it had entered Kenyan borders], the report names Port Health, Sugar Directorate, Radiation Protection Board, Kenya Revenue Authority and Kenya Ports Authority as other agencies that approve the release of sugar. It is silent on the appearance of these critical bodies and their role in ensuring product safety.

Further, conspicuously, only one certification company, SGS, was called in to testify and the basis for this was not given in the report. Why were other bodies not invited to appear before the committee? During the hearings, former Kenya Bureau of Standards (Kebs) MD (whose appearance is expunged from the report), tabled all COCs for all sugar imports as well as names of all firms that checked the sugar overseas. In short, this means all sugar that landed in Mombasa was fit for consumption. Why did the committee not invite all firms that certified sugar abroad? Why did they not visit Kebs laboratories, the Government Chemist and even travel to some of the countries where sugar came from, including some African countries?

The report has rather curious recommendations seemingly grounded on shaky ground. It names the AFA for failing to withdraw licenses of blacklisted firms but prefers no action against them in the recommendations. Without a single mention in the report, it indicts in the recommendations, the then Cabinet Secretary of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives Adan Mohamed without specific evidence of breach of process by Kebs which falls under Ministry of Trade.

Finally, the Joint Committee and the report fail to demand conclusive evidence from Interior CS Fred Matiang’i vis-a’-vis his claims on existence of sugar laced with mercury.

Given that most of the sugar consignment samples tested were found to have acceptable levels of heavy metals such as copper and lead (only one sample had mercury traces), the report is silent on the unsubstantiated inferences by the Interior CS – that is likely to cause irreparable damage to a manufacturing industry dependent on sugar. Authoritatively to note, a lot of contraband sugar goes through porous borders manned by law enforcement.

-The writer is public policy and advocacy specialist