The implementation of the Kenya Education Sector Support Program (KESSP) was seen as a final bright star falling into alignment. However, nine years down the line, this program is on the verge of collapse. Close to 4.6 billion of the total money injected into KESSP has been embezzled.
Yet the government is desperately and frantically engaged in semantics in a bid to downplay the enormity of this embezzlement. What the public is hearing is that this money has been misappropriated. However, there is a huge gulf in terms of meaning between embezzlement and misappropriation. The latter may occur due to unauthorized and unregulated virement. On the other hand, embezzlement is outright theft of public finances. So far all indications are that this is an outright act of embezzlement. In fact a few individuals are set to appear in court for theft. However the money that these individuals are alleged to have stolen is less than two hundred million. The million dollar question is where is the rest of the over four billion shillings?
There can only be two plausible explanations. First it could be that though the money was allocated to the Ministry of Basic Education, treasury did not release all of it. This explains why Professor Ongeri has requested parliament to give him more time to reconcile figures. He probably has a point given that treasury has of late been a target of unrelenting opprobrium especially from the Ministry of lands for allegedly sitting pretty on money meant for the resettlement of IDPS. Treasury has on the other hand insisted that it had duly released all the funds. To date, intrigues still surround these funds. Given this history with treasury it is only after Professor Ongeri reconciles the figures that the public can determine the whereabouts of the unaccounted billions.
The second explanation is that a few bureaucrats in the Ministry of Basic Education are being used as a smokescreen to conceal the real faces behind the four billion scam. Obviously the real culprits are people high up in the citadel of political power. They probably need these billions to put in place effective political campaign machinery that will shake all the four corners of the country. KESSP thus became a perfect conduit pipe to harness the necessary billions. This could explain why Professor Ongeri is unshaken even as the public is exposed to the damning audit report. Later he had the gall to furiously spin strange tales in parliament. He even indicted the public for demanding for his immediate resignation. In the opinion of Professor Ongeri anyone remotely associating him with this scam must be too benighted, uncomprehending or completely misinformed. It is hardly surprising that he imagines that calls for his resignation are an “orchestrated evil scheme” to bring him down politically. To this end, he has sought parliament’s protection!
According to Professor Ongeri the fact that his name is not mentioned anywhere in the audit report is enough for him to be vindicated. But there is something in his demeanor that savors of deceit. His utterances are indicative of a minister shirking responsibility. He must be reminded that as the substantive minister, he is the chief custodian of public funds in the ministry of Basic Education. He has the responsibility of ensuring that any public finances including debts incurred by the Government on behalf of the Kenyan people is managed and administered in a transparent and accountable manner.
In this regard, I implore parliament not to take seriously Ongeri`s rhetoric for in so doing parliament will only be sanctifying the depths of his errors and imagine (as he has done) that there are hidden motives in the public`s call for his resignation. Contrary to what Ongeri believes, this insidious scheme threatens to bring down (not him), but the future of millions of the poor Kenyan children and the future of the country as a whole.
His denial reminds me an Igbo saying that states that “a rock behind the sea does not hear rainfall even if it rains torrentially.” This is because such a rock is always wet to notice the rain. Like this rock, Professor Ongeri is absolutely drenched in the FPE scam. No matter the torrential outpouring of complaints from the public, he is simply tone deaf.
Finally, the true picture on graft among public officers would be incomplete if President Kibaki`s nine year presidency that has been punctuated by stunning inaction is omitted. The only time he seemed active was last year when he suddenly found the voice to denounce the PM`s suspension of professor Ongeri and William Ruto over corruption allegations. Later on he gave a fiery speech in parliament whose unmistakable intention was to lambast the PM. Furthermore, reports that President Kibaki is keen to have suspended Higher Education Minister William Ruto back in the Cabinet despite the fact that he was acquitted on frivolous grounds is indicative of the fact that President Kibaki is least interested in converting his rhetoric on graft into action.
President Kibaki must know that his inaction on corruption is a huge blot in his nine year legacy. It is high time he took notice of the public discontent with the state of affairs and took the necessary action against corrupt public officers.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
LET US NOT USE THE OLD CONSTITUTION AS A CONDUIT FOR CONVEYING OUR EVIL INTENTS INTO THE NEW CONSTITUION.
Barring the court case, the budget is going to be read to parliament this week. This is besides the fact that there has been no appropriation bill under consideration, no debate on the floor of the house. Yet buried deep in the Finance Minister`s response to the brisk criticism of his unwillingness or purported inability to live up to the provisions of the new constitution is his characteristic haughtiness. Never mind that this haughtiness is coming from a presidential hopeful!
Besides his failure to present an appropriation bill to the August House he has previously never met any deadline in the presentation of annual or supplementary budgetary estimates. Even worse is the fact that there has always been a glaring “mistake” in the same estimates. Yet he has the gall to tell us that the implementation of budgetary accounting and public management reform takes time. He also mumbled something to the effect that there is need of training and the necessity of a cultural change before meeting the constitutional requirement on public finances as entailed in the new constitution.
This is hubris. First, I have examined the chapter on public finances with a fine- toothed comb and suffice to say that there is nowhere where it envisages that one can anchor his indolence in the old constitution while implementing the new constitution. Secondly, it is inexcusable for the finance minister to quote time constraints when we know too well that the Ministry of Finance is inundated with the best economists and software that can shorten the budget making exercise to just a fraction of the analogue years.
It therefore goes without saying that by choosing to present the annual appropriations at his convenience, the minister is in fact rubbishing article 221 of the new constitution which makes it explicitly clear that for the envisaged scrutiny to take place, the Cabinet Secretary (Now the Minister for Finance) has to submit to the August House estimates of the revenue and expenditure of the national government for the prospective financial year at least two months before the end of the financial year. By extension, he has flouted the entire chapter on public finances which substantially extends the legislatures` right regarding scrutiny of annual appropriations. It seems to me that the minister is unhappy that Parliament has a right to fuller and more relevant information; the kind of information that bestows upon it real strategic steering power.
His failure is thus not informed by the constraints of time but rather by the fear of the legislature exercising power over the purse. He knows as much that this power over the purse is a complete and effectual weapon with which legislators can obtain a redress of every grievance, and carry into effect every just and salutary measure. The minister fears the fact that there is an elephant in the budget detail revolving around projected government expenditure in the national as well as county governments.
In fact when parliament indicated that it will give him the leeway to flout the provisions of the chapter on public finances, he breathed a sigh of relief. He took it as the triumph of his desires over the national and county interests. He had simply managed to trick the legislature into believing that any roadblock to the presentation of the budget to the August House or the unnecessary delay in the adoption of the budget will lead to delays in their salaries, hence the urgency to have the budget adopted in the blink of an eye. Unbeknown to many such a scenario is aptly provided for in article 222(1, 2a, b and c) of the new constitution.
By abdicating a role so sacrosanct legislators have indicated their willingness to opening wide the sluice-gates of corruption in the budgeting process. This is because even though the planning and programming stage of the budgetary process does not entail handling of the actual money flow, it constitutes part of the budgetary corruption process that manifests itself in the actual payments or transfers of money at the budget execution stage. It therefore goes without saying that if the preliminary stages are poorly executed, the danger of cascading corruption opportunities become real.
But then in a sense, our inebriate parliament has been in a pro-forma session all year. Beyond a few ho-hum pieces of legislation—legislators could have taken a nine month holiday at the sun and sin resort and the country would be none the worse. Although we know that the most pressing issue facing our country is the runaway inflation and the staggering high cost of living occasioned by corruption and poor governance parliament is simply not embarrassed to set a new standard for dereliction of duty.
Besides his failure to present an appropriation bill to the August House he has previously never met any deadline in the presentation of annual or supplementary budgetary estimates. Even worse is the fact that there has always been a glaring “mistake” in the same estimates. Yet he has the gall to tell us that the implementation of budgetary accounting and public management reform takes time. He also mumbled something to the effect that there is need of training and the necessity of a cultural change before meeting the constitutional requirement on public finances as entailed in the new constitution.
This is hubris. First, I have examined the chapter on public finances with a fine- toothed comb and suffice to say that there is nowhere where it envisages that one can anchor his indolence in the old constitution while implementing the new constitution. Secondly, it is inexcusable for the finance minister to quote time constraints when we know too well that the Ministry of Finance is inundated with the best economists and software that can shorten the budget making exercise to just a fraction of the analogue years.
It therefore goes without saying that by choosing to present the annual appropriations at his convenience, the minister is in fact rubbishing article 221 of the new constitution which makes it explicitly clear that for the envisaged scrutiny to take place, the Cabinet Secretary (Now the Minister for Finance) has to submit to the August House estimates of the revenue and expenditure of the national government for the prospective financial year at least two months before the end of the financial year. By extension, he has flouted the entire chapter on public finances which substantially extends the legislatures` right regarding scrutiny of annual appropriations. It seems to me that the minister is unhappy that Parliament has a right to fuller and more relevant information; the kind of information that bestows upon it real strategic steering power.
His failure is thus not informed by the constraints of time but rather by the fear of the legislature exercising power over the purse. He knows as much that this power over the purse is a complete and effectual weapon with which legislators can obtain a redress of every grievance, and carry into effect every just and salutary measure. The minister fears the fact that there is an elephant in the budget detail revolving around projected government expenditure in the national as well as county governments.
In fact when parliament indicated that it will give him the leeway to flout the provisions of the chapter on public finances, he breathed a sigh of relief. He took it as the triumph of his desires over the national and county interests. He had simply managed to trick the legislature into believing that any roadblock to the presentation of the budget to the August House or the unnecessary delay in the adoption of the budget will lead to delays in their salaries, hence the urgency to have the budget adopted in the blink of an eye. Unbeknown to many such a scenario is aptly provided for in article 222(1, 2a, b and c) of the new constitution.
By abdicating a role so sacrosanct legislators have indicated their willingness to opening wide the sluice-gates of corruption in the budgeting process. This is because even though the planning and programming stage of the budgetary process does not entail handling of the actual money flow, it constitutes part of the budgetary corruption process that manifests itself in the actual payments or transfers of money at the budget execution stage. It therefore goes without saying that if the preliminary stages are poorly executed, the danger of cascading corruption opportunities become real.
But then in a sense, our inebriate parliament has been in a pro-forma session all year. Beyond a few ho-hum pieces of legislation—legislators could have taken a nine month holiday at the sun and sin resort and the country would be none the worse. Although we know that the most pressing issue facing our country is the runaway inflation and the staggering high cost of living occasioned by corruption and poor governance parliament is simply not embarrassed to set a new standard for dereliction of duty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)