Why procurement officials’ vetting should be done within the law

Corruption has become endemic in Kenya. It has evolved into a cankerous sore that threatens the very fabrics that hold our country together. This cancerous economic disease has affected investor confidence, service delivery, professionalism, tourism and security among other facets of our individual and collective lives.

In his Madaraka Day speech, President Uhuru Kenyatta that all procurement and accounting officers in government would be vetted afresh.

This is a position that deserves the support of all patriots, stakeholders, professionals and users of public service. If this is properly done, and within the provisions of the law, there is a chance the war against corruption will have begun in earnest.

Vetting of heads of procurement and accounting units serving in government is rational and the timing spot-on in the wake of incessant headline-grabbing reports of high-level corruption.

To many Kenyans, corruption has become entrenched by some bureaucrats, who incidentally are entrusted with the duty of care in matters public finance.

But as we embark on this noble process, we cannot fail to be guided by the Constitution, international best labour practices, rules of natural justice and other existing laws regulating employer-employee relations. We must guard against turning this well-meaning process into a witch-hunting expedition.

To begin with the government, as an employer, should strive to gain the trust of the targeted officials. It has an uphill task of explaining why it has become necessary for these officials to step aside while previous vetting of judges and magistrates as well as that of law enforcement officers were entrenched in law and the officers never asked to step aside during the process.

The previous vetting of public officials was well-structured and the officers knew well in advance what to expect during the entire process.

Equally, the heads of procurement and accounting units are professionals, who have acquired their skills through a rigorous training and qualification processes. It is only fair that they are treated with decorum even as they are subjected to the vetting.

At this point, however, the question that begs an answer is “why the double standards now?” Does the Public Service Commission Act allow for the stepping aside of these officers? Isn’t there concern that the process conforms to constitutional and legal provisions?

Article 47 of the Constitution provides that ‘every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, reasonable and procedurally fair’.

Article 232 on values and principles of public service requires the government to ensure there is accountability for all administrative acts. Given the officers are a valuable human resource engaged with clear terms and conditions of service, it will only be fair that the Employment Act and necessary labour law practices are adhered to and seen to be in force during the vetting.

It is also important to bring to the attention of assessors the current legal landscape, which provides a plethora of statutes that guarantee rights and privileges of employers and employees alike and heed Chinua Achebe’s advice that we should not throw out the baby with the birth water.

Secondly, the government must reach out to all stakeholders to insulate the process against vagaries of self-interest. For that to succeed, the assessors must be clearly identified. It goes without saying that such individuals need to be beyond reproach akin to that of Caesar’s wife.

For the process must conform to the doctrine of equity which states that, ‘those who come to equity must come with clean hands’ and hence the assessors should be subjected to a rigorous scrutiny to avoid picking a feline to shepherd a flock of sheep and end up turning the process into a mere charade.

For the process to be effective, the vetting panel must come up with a full proof vetting tool to be applied objectively and in a structured way to all candidates.

The process must also navigate away from the pitfalls of personal vendetta and outright witch-hunt that may come with it. If this process is not insulated from these pitfalls, it can turn into another witch-hunting debacle akin to what transpired in Europe or better still Josef Stalin’s purges in the former Soviet Union.

The procurement and accounting officers must, be subjected to a fair process. This will not only attract support but will also infuse confidence and trust in the entire process.

READ: Omtatah's bid to stop vetting of procurement officers flops

Thirdly, to exorcise the ghosts of corruption from our midst, the process should not be selective but should include all officers involved in the procurement cycle.

On this account, one wonders why heads of procurement and account units have been picked out in a procurement chain that consists of 28 stages and more precisely the heads of accounting units only come in at stage 25.

The net should be thrown far and wide to rope in all officers in the procurement process without exception. The process starts at stage zero with the user department.

It must be noted that if a process involves construction, there is an alley of officers involved such as architects, quantity surveyors, civil engineers, lawyers, economists, transactional advisors among others.

We must therefore subject all to a similar process if the war against corruption is to succeed. There should be no sacred cows. What is good for the goose must be good for gander.

It will be prudent to involve professional bodies like ICPAK in the vetting process. It must be noted that ICPAK has a Code of Conduct binding all its members.

Additionally, the institute’s members are bound by international professional standards issued by International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). Any vetting that does not infuse and embed professional ethics requirements may not achieve much.

Makori is chief executiveof Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK). [email protected]