The recently introduced Conflict of Interest Bill 2023 has set off a firestorm of debate and fury across the country's leadership circles.
Before the tabling of the Bill at the Senate, President William Ruto’s Cabinet had given the piece of legislation a thumbs up, with the official line being for it to impose stringent sanctions designed to deter public officials from engaging in government business to amass ill-gotten wealth.
This controversial Bill seeks to eliminate corrupt practices that have turned many public officers into overnight millionaires despite their relatively modest salaries.
The approval of the Bill by the Cabinet marked a significant step towards tightening the rules around conflict of interest in public service.
A dispatch following the Cabinet’s approval highlighted that the legislation would herald a new dawn in the management of public affairs by introducing strong legal safeguards.
“This paradigm shift, once enacted into law, would mark the end of the era where public servants would subordinate their official duties to their private and commercial interests,” the Cabinet said in its statement.
The Conflict of Interest Bill 2023 includes several crucial clauses that public officials must adhere to, ensuring a clear separation between their official duties and private interests.
Firstly, the Bill prohibits public officers from being parties to or beneficiaries of contracts for supplying goods among other things with any reporting entity.
"A public officer shall not be a party to or beneficiary of a contract for the supply of goods, works or services with any reporting entity," the bill read in part.
This measure aims to prevent any potential conflicts where officials might exploit their positions for personal gain.
Secondly, the Bill bars public officers from acquiring interests in partnerships, private companies, or other legal entities that have contracts with their reporting entity.
"A public officer shall not be a party to or beneficiary of a contract for the supply of goods, works or services with any reporting entity," the clause stated. This clause seeks to eliminate any indirect benefits that could arise from such associations.
The ambitious proposal also mandated public officers to submit comprehensive declarations of their income, assets, and liabilities, including those of their spouses and dependent children under 18.
Further, it proposed that the initial declarations must be submitted within 30 days of appointment, and subsequent declarations must be made biennially and upon leaving office.
Another clause also limited public officers from submitting false or misleading information and classified it as an offence under the bill.
It warned that non-compliance with the declaration requirements also attracts significant penalties, including fines and potential legal consequences.
The Bill restricted public officers from engaging in any other gainful employment without permission from the reporting authority.
Controversial Amendments by Senators
However, some public officials have raised concerns about the administrative burden and potential privacy issues linked to the extensive disclosure requirements.
They argue that while the Bill’s objectives are commendable, a balance must be struck between transparency and the right to privacy for public servants.
Narok Senator Ledama Olekina and some of his colleagues mutilated the Bill, stating that it had violated Article 50 of the Constitution which provides that every accused person has the right to a fair trial.
Olekina moved an amendment to insert a new sub-clause that explains circumstances a public officer can be a party to a government contract.
“A public officer may be a party to a contract for the disposal of goods in relation to a computer, a telephone or any other device capable of storing personal information and the computer, telephone or the device was for the exclusive use of the officer,” the amendment by Olekina read.
Olekina urged Senators to delete another clause that barred a public official from having an interest in partnerships and private companies that can receive contracts or deals from the government.
The Narok Senator also pushed for the removal of a clause on the declaration of income, assets and liabilities by public officers.
Senators from both divides voted to water down the proposed law and defeat its initial purpose.
Bomet Senator Hillary Sigei rallied the House to amend clause 19 which prohibited public officers from securing contracts with public entities.
The successful omission of the above clause will allow public officials to benefit from tenders floated by State agencies.
The majority of the proposals above have been expunged from the Bill after the Senate reigned over it, with interested parties asking the National Assembly to give it a lifeline.
The Bill has sparked mixed reactions among various stakeholders. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) warned that the amendments proposed by senators risk crippling the war against corruption.
"In addition to verbal attacks and insults directed to EACC, Senator Olekina, made false allegations and misled the country on the content of the Bill and implications of the amendments introduced by the Senate," a statement from EACC said in part.
