Recent endeavors by the government to institute frameworks aimed at fighting corruption and multi-agency team to spearhead war on corruption while seeking cooperation with international partners in tracking, recovering stolen assets, is an affront to the rule of law, and totally in contrast to the very tenets of the constitution, which must be fend off. Equally, the purported establishment of the State Intervention and Compensation framework to compensate victims of the Gen-Z powered protests is simply irascible.
The Kenyan constitution is hyped as one of the best and very progressive, with an elaborate chapter on human rights as enshrined in chapter 4, and chapter 15, which is elaborate on Constitutional Commissions and Independent Offices. The architects of the constitution with the vigilance of Kenyans wanted decentralization of power. Kenyans were tired with the idiocy of the then regime, which believed that one quota would be the epitome of a sacred leader, the best in all fields. You recall the times of Baba na Mama (Father and Mother) kind of usurping power and authority especially during the KANU era of despondency.
For the state to establish a Multi-Agency Team (MAT) on war against corruption (MAT), with exactions of a “whole-of-government” approach to ending economic crimes is just an open attempt to circumvent constitutional provisions. In a presidential proclamation issued under Executive Order No. 1 of 2025, the initiative seeks to enhance cooperation, synergy, and coordination among key state institutions charged with combating corruption, money laundering, and related crimes.
It is interesting that “the new team” draws membership from the Executive Office of the President, and the Office of the Attorney General, National Intelligence Service (NIS) and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and Financial Reporting Centre (FRC) are also involved. Others are Asset Recovery Agency (ARA), Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), Central Bank of Kenya (CBK), and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA). The proclamation states that other institutions may be co-opted as need arises.
A careful scrutiny shows that this TAM arrangement has a conglomeration of at least 11 institutions each with a distinct mandate as per constitutional, legal and official policy provisions. So where is the principle of separation of powers whereby each institution should, like a cog in gearwheel, pull on its own but contributing towards creating the torque? It would be more useful to fund and support the particular and the distinct offices, which carry out their duties and like a conveyor belt channel the issues to the next arm for further and appropriate action. For instance, The DCI can investigate a matter forwarded by PPRA and then EACC together with ARA can reposes the proceedings if the courts find that there is sufficient evidence and an order is made.
It induces me to believe that this kind of any arrangement is meant to slow down and entangle independent actors from pursuing their mandate as they are supposed to operate. This will eventually buy and waste time, wasting public resources with not tangible results.
The State Intervention and Compensation framework to compensate victims of the Gen-Z powered protests is another classical example of circumventing constitutional provisions by attempting a con game to pacify enraged citizenry. It should be known that the victims and their families want justice served through the legitimate constitutional and legal channels sanctioned by the courts of law. Besides the courts, there are constitutional entities, which can handle the matter. For instance, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) is the principle body to investigate matters human rights violations. Equally, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) is mandated to deal with matters of police excesses and therefore better placed to process cases of torture and police killings during the protests. Again, the bodies require proper resourcing in order to be able to carry out their mandate. Any other avenues to woo victims and their families is simply a con game. There also other laws in place like the Victims Protection Act (2014) which is sufficient to make payouts to the victims; hence, no need for new legislation or new frameworks.
It is therefore ironical that the state is busy initiating other avenues to address issues of graft and human rights, which are of grave nature, yet there are existing institutions and legal frameworks that can effectively address the matters.
The state needs to end this circus and simply, fund and adequately resource the existing constitutional and independent offices, state departments and other structures.
Leave a comment