TI report is a collection of inaccuracies and falsehoods

By Njoki Ndung’u

A report launched last week by Transparency International Kenya (TI) that alleges rampant abuse of office and corruption by Parliament has predictably been the subject of talk shows and news analyses.

The report recaps some issues that have been in the public menu for a while. It revisits MPs exemption from taxation and the irony of Parliament deciding how revenue generated by taxpayers is spent. It ventures into debate on the apparent conflict of interest and the blurring of the line of the separation of power in MPs’ involvement in the management of the Constituencies Development Fund; their role in vetting presidential appointments and the concerns over the composition, functions and remuneration of the Parliamentary Service Commission.

Thankfully, most of these concerns have been addressed in the Proposed Constitution. If the latter comes to fruition, ideal solutions will, to a large extent, have been found.

But aside from these issues, there are salient concerns that cast a shadow on the report itself. If you consider the manner TI released it and the glaring factual errors contained therein, questions over the underlying motive and the integrity of the report are inevitable.

By virtue of name, TI creates certain basic expectations in the conduct of its affairs. Openness should be its second nature. Unless for genuinely confidential information, it should practice its own sermons by freely sharing information deemed to be of public interest. But days after releasing the report at a press conference, this latest document is not accessible in its official website. It is being treated like a confidential document subject to "limited release embargo".

I have made repeated requests to TI offices to no avail and subjected to cat and mouse games by TI staff typical of public offices that, ironically, TI often accuses of aiding corruption.

Unusual secrecy

The unusual secrecy and unavailability of this document to the public rang my alarm bells. Having found it through another source and read it, I now understand the furtiveness.

The authors demonstrate little knowledge of the workings of Parliament. The legislature not only debates and passes the national budget but it is also entrusted with legislative policy and reform. It runs under a complex set of rules, procedures, protocols, and traditions developed over decades of parliamentary practice.

The report reflects poor understanding of how political parties operate in Parliament. On the one hand it laments how party loyalists are rewarded and dissenters punished. On the other hand, it recommends parties should whip members to toe the party line – a contradiction. The report also states that it is the House Business Committee that appoints MPs to committees. This is untrue as this is the role of the party whips. Contrary to the report, there are several penalties for the breach of rules in the House. These include suspension or expulsion from the Parliament precincts, loss of salary and allowance, and censure.

The report is also misleading on the penalties that apply to defection or disciplinary measures that may lead an MP to lose his seat; the Political Parties Act clearly spells them out.

There are many more inaccuracies and distortions in the report. It makes scant reference to the laudable reforms that have transformed Parliament from a previously emasculated appendage of the Executive to a vibrant, independent, and progressive institution. Much of the alleged corruption in the report refers to the Moi era, yet since then Parliament has covered much ground in the anti-corruption agenda.

I find the report incredibly hypocritical in its indignation at lobbying in Parliament, which it labels a form of corruption. The report unfavourably cites the private sector like the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries for their attempt to influence legislation touching on their sectors.

The last time I looked, TI was lobbying Parliament on amendments on anti-corruption laws. Fida was wooing MPs on family law and gender violence.

Safe abortion

The Catholic Church was hosting breakfast for legislators to speak against safe abortion. The Media Owners were talking to MPs on the Media Bill.

What does this holier than thou attitude mean? That civil society has exclusive rights to lobby MPs?

If any allegations in the report are correct, the Speaker of the National Assembly, in his capacity as the Chair of the PSC, must act swiftly and call in Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission and deal with errant MPs. Hopefully TI will be willing to provide the information it says it has and that is credible for the law to effectively deal with the few rotten eggs in Parliament. But generally, most allegations border on libel and blanket condemnation, which are reflected in the resultant debate spiced with talk of the greed, immorality, thievery, irresponsibility, and disgusting behaviour of all MPs without a shred of specific accompanying evidence of the same. That many MPs are honest, hard-working champions in the fight against corruption is not reflected.

This is beyond regular and popular MP-bashing. Not so long ago, TI claimed unnamed ministers had allegedly stashed corrupt money in bank accounts abroad. When challenged for details, the claims could neither be defended nor verified. But apparently, TI never learnt useful lessons of how to lose credibility through populist and inaccurate allegations.