Something I bumped into while spending my damn Sunday in the middle of nowhere, it seems now techies have gone a step further..please read below and if u want more then the link is attached of where i pulled this from. Bravo wikileaks!!! although i dont know the present status of this case any help media guys
Dated 7th Sept 2007
EGERTON CORRUPTION SAGA:
Background I am a Kenyan Citizen aged 36 years and have been employed at Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya since 1997 as a computer programmer attached to finance department. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the same University. As a programmer I bumped into a suspicious piece of program code that was used to wire out money through the payroll but had no safe ways to confide this to anyone until the new government came in 2002. I had to wait though, until 2004, when I was convinced that the Government was serious enough in the fight against corruption and it was indeed safe for me and my family.
My lawyer tells me there is no subjudice issues when the aim is only to lay the facts bare. The case is questioning wether KACC took the right steps or not and if not they be compelled to take action. Prejudice issues can only arise when we argue in a way that may influence the decision of the court. I can provide a summary of the application. We need bold steps here that will overcome the fears of prejudice and meet the higher goal of public interest. We filed the case in the high court on the 27th june 2006 and since then we have only had two mentions, the next one will be on 25th Oct 2007.
The following are events that took place since 2004.
• Sept 13th 2004, I confide to my closest friend, Mr. Kenneth Ntongondu (Accountant, Finance Department) and write to report suspected corruption to The Director of The Kenya Anticorruption Authority in confidence. Highlight of the details included;
– the payroll fraud
– student’s fees payment,
– Ghost workers and payments of illegal claims
– Misappropriation of public funds.
One Dr Gitile Naituli (A senior Lecturer at the University) joins us in the process.
• Nov 18th 2004, I got confidential information that my letter of complaint
to KACC has been leaked to the University.
• Dec 1st 2004, we sought attention from the office of the then PS, Ethics and Governance, Mr. John Githongo on the matter and provide irrefutable evidence on a spot incident of the alleged fraud in the month of October. The PS marks our complaint as urgent, calls and then sends us to KACC officers. We then delivered a copy of the protest note to one Mr. Yasin
Ismahil (Principal Analysts) and Col (Rtd) Kariuki (In charge Protection Services) of KACC. The officers regretted the delay in investigations and the leakage and not only apologized to us but promised action. They however confided that they were still new in office and were therefore to refer the matter to other arms of government for preliminary investigation. They later called to inform us that the cause of the leak was a former Egerton University Employee then attached to KACC! and that disciplinary action was being taken.
• Dec 2nd 2004, Notified the local MP Nakuru, The late Hon Mirugi Kariuki, and The Hon Koigi Wa Wamere, MP Subukia constituency.
• Dec 6th -12th 2004, 3 junior clerks and In charge of Computer Payroll Section were arrested and charged with ‘stealing ‘ Ksh 50 Million. A clear getaway plan as they are not directly responsible in committing the sums that was being wired out. No corruption charges preferred!
• December 14th 2007 or thereabout, The then University Vice Chancellor Prof Maritim, ‘praises’ leakage and ‘promises’ a ‘thorough investigation and rewards’ to ‘those who volunteered information’. Later on in a public memo he denies presence of ‘ghost’ workers and fees scandals.
• Jan 2005, The DVC A&F, Prof James Tuitoek, writes confidentially to encourage me to feel free to forward any other information on corruption( which I did and ) to himself the, the Vice Chancellor , The Criminal Investigation Department(CID,) KACC or any arm of government.
• Jan 2005, information I confided to the DVC Administration and Finance Prof James Tuitoek on misappropriation of fees monies leaks out to University community and fuels rumors of my possible sacking and/or elimination. Strange people would call my friends and family to inform me
that I was treading on dangerous grounds.
• February 2005 a team composed of officers from the government Efficiency Monitoring Unit (EMU) and KACC visits the university and compiles a report recommending thorough investigation.
• April 2005, the university management, summons me to explain why I am leaking ‘false information’ to the press and KACC. No minutes of this meeting was taken and neither was any letter written to enforce the warnings given in the meeting.
• April/May 2005, The DVC A&F single sources a private company Ernest and Young to ‘investigate’ the payroll fraud.
• July 22, 2005, the three of us were transferred to an outpost campus 200 Km away (Kisii Campus) and placed directly under Dr. Cynthia Kipchilat, the person we had cited in our report in the scandal. This was meant to intimidate and harass us.
• Dec 2005, Prof J.K Tuitoek is elevated to the CEO position as Vice Chancellor despite not meeting the minimum qualification advertised. (See his CV and advertisement for Vice Chancellor position)! It is rumored that the former president intervened in the placement.
• June 27th 2006, Mr. Kiptoo and Mr. Keneth Ntongondu move to the High Court to seek a judicial review on the matter.
• October 2006, Dr Gitile Naituli is suspended and faces disciplinary actionfor failing to teach and participating on an illegal strike despite him not being a member of UASU.
• November 2006, the university interdicts 25employees for participating in payroll fraud. The amount involved is not made public.
• Nov 27th 2006, the University council clears Dr. Naituli of any wrong doing. The VC however writes a ‘final’ warning letter to him and ‘finds him guilty of all charges leveled against him’. The minutes of the council indicates otherwise. Dr Naituli protests, issues a comprehensive press
statement and seeks legal redress. He has since been sacked
• November 2006, CID officers raid Kenneth’s and Dr. Naituli’s houses simultaneously and take away documents and computers.
• January 2007, March 2007, CID officers raid my house and confiscate computers and documents. I was later released but wrote a statement on whether I was’ threatening’ to ‘kill’ the vice chancellor Prof. James Tuitoek!
• April 2007 The Deputy Vice Chancellor in charge Administration and Finance issues a memo alerting University employees to beware of ongoing payroll fraud and ghost workers.
• May 2007 a suspicious payment is made to me through the payroll for the month ending Aprill 2007.
List of Government officers who have communication on this matter to date;
1) The Permanent Secretary Civil Service and Secretary to the Cabinet
   Mr. Francis Muthaura.
2) The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, Prof Karega Mutahi
3) The Director, KACC, Mr. Aoron. Ringera (Attention Mr. Yasin Ismail, Principal Analyst, Col (Rtd) Kariuki, Protection Services.
4) The Director, Efficiency Monitoring Unit, Mr. Rweiria and Mr. Katuku (PA).
5) The Hon Koigi Wamwere, MP Subukia, Nakuru
6) The Director, Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Maina Kiai (Attention Mr. Anthony, Personal Assistant)
7) The Director Transparency International
8) Provincial Intelligence officer, Nakuru
9) The Provincial Criminal Investigation Officer, Rift Valley Province, Nakuru.
10) The Parliamentary Investment Committee
11) The Director Presidential Anti-Corruption Steering Committee, Dr. Ochilo Ayako
12) Former VC, Egerton University Prof Maritim
13) Current Vice Chancellor, Egerton University
14) The press. Daily Nation- Mr. Mutuma Imathiu,Editor(+254724357492),
15) Former Permanent Secretary, Ethics and Governance, Mr. John Githongo
16) Lawyer Kaiga Wahitindi, Mirugi Kariuki and Co Advocates, Nakuru
17) The Hon Koigi Wa Wamwere, MP Subukia.
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Egerton_University_payroll_scandal.pdf
Sent by Phanuel and received via the Kazi Afrika Group listserve.Â
READERS: Please note that this report is unedited and UNCONFIRMED by Jaluo Press.
CORRUPTION AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN KENYA
Kiboyye Okoth-Yogo
Corruption has been defined as the abuse of power by a public official for private gain. As much as there are myriad impediments to Kenya achieving the “developed” tag, corruption may as well be the overriding over-riding factor. Its effect on development is felt more because it is the single most extensive public malaise in Kenya as it even feeds on other issues like ethnocentrism, national lassitude, among other things. As much as it is a big drain on the gross domestic product, a lot of resources are spent on fighting what would otherwise be useful for other endevours. That the causes and effects of combating corruption are profoundly linked to myriad injustices that are tugged to Kenya’s economic underdevelopment can not be gainsaid.
In Kenya the Percentage of the GDP of petty corruption to scandals like the Goldenberg, Anglo Leasing and petty corruption has sometimes been envisaged to be more than 50%. The Kenya Anticorruption Commission once suggested that about 80 percent of corruption in Kenya is linked to public procurement and the enactment of the Public Procurement Act of 2005 has not done much to change the situation. Be that as it may, available conceptual work on corruption consists in little more than the presentation of brief definitions of corruption as a preliminary to extended accounts of the causes and effects of corruption and the ways to combat it.2
The major legal statement on corruption by administrative agencies is provided by the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act of 2003 which repealed the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 65 of the Laws of Kenya. The Act provides for the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission and Advisory Board. The Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission is constituted as a body corporate with powers necessary or expedient for the performance of its functions. The Commission has perpetual succession and a common seal and shall be capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name. Further it can hold and alienate moveable and immovable property.
The Commission performs myriad functions. Primarily, it does investigate matters that, in the Commission’s opinion, raises suspicion that the conduct constituting corruption or economic crime. At the request of any person, it can advise on ways in which the person may eliminate corrupt practices. Further, it is mandated with the powers to examine the practices and procedures of public bodies in order to facilitate the discovery of corrupt practices and to secure the revision of methods of work or procedures that, in the their opinion may be conducive to corrupt practices. It may also advise heads of public bodies of changes in practices or procedures compatible with the effective discharge of the duties of such bodies that they think are necessary to prevent corruption. These mandates include provision of civic education, investigations and institution of civil proceedings for recovery and compensation. Investigations can be instituted at the request of the National Assembly, a minister or the Attorney-General, or on receipt of a complaint, or on its own initiative. The Commission may refer any offence that comes to its notice in the course of investigation governmental agencies like the office of the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Police, among others.
Corruption is exemplified by a very wide and diverse array of phenomena of which bribery is only one kind, and nepotism another.
Paradigm cases of corruption include the following. The commissioner of taxation channels public monies into his personal bank account, thereby corrupting the public financial system. A political party secures a majority vote by arranging for ballot boxes to be stuffed with false voting papers, thereby corrupting the electoral process. A police officer fabricates evidence in order to secure convictions, thereby corrupting the judicial process. A number of doctors close ranks and refuse to testify against a colleague who they know has been negligent in relation to an unsuccessful surgical operation leading to loss of life; institutional accountability procedures are thereby undermined. A sports trainer provides the athletes he trains with banned substances in order to enhance their performance, thereby subverting the institutional rules laid down to ensure fair competition. It is self-evident that none of these corrupt actions are instances of bribery.
Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act is heavier on economic corruption which is definitely not the only form of corruption. Various types of corruption, involving the judiciary, politician, and academic corruption, among others are not always economic in orientation, and economic advantage is not necessarily the only motivation. Status, power, addiction to drugs or gambling, and sexual gratification, as well as economic gain could be the inducement. An academic who plagiarises the work of others might be motivated by a desire to augment her academic standing or worse still out of grandeur of illusion. A police officer who fabricates evidence against a person he believes to be guilty of paedophilia might do so because he believes the accused to be guilty, and does not want him to go unpunished or out of misplaced sense of justice. Many of those who occupy positions of authority are motivated by a desire to exercise power for its own sake.
Further to the foregoing, not all acts of corruption are necessarily illegal. This turns many cases of corruption into moral and ethical questions. That paradigm of corruption, bribery, is a case in point. Today in myriad developed countries, paying of kickbacks to win foreign contracts is just recently beginning to be considered a crime. Before 1977 it was not illegal for US companies to offer bribes to secure foreign contracts; indeed, elsewhere such bribery was not unlawful until much later. Secondly, public corruption in Kenya has been encouraged by the traditional respect that goes with holding an important public office. Once one is in such an office, he must share with the networks within his social networks otherwise he becomes a pariah because of his perceived meanness.
An act of institutional corruption brings about, or contributes to bringing about, a corrupt condition of some institution. But this condition of corruption exists only relative to an uncorrupted condition, which is the condition of being a morally legitimate institution or sub-element thereof. Aside from specific institutional processes and purposes, such sub-elements also include institutional roles and the morally worthy character traits that are associated with the proper acting out of these institutional roles.
Consider the uncorrupted judicial process. It consists of the presentation of objective evidence that has been gathered lawfully, of testimony in court being presented truthfully, of the rights of the accused being respected, and so on. This otherwise morally legitimate judicial process may be corrupted, if one or more of its constitutive actions are not performed in accordance with the process as it ought to be. Thus to present fabricated evidence, to lie under oath, and so on, are all corrupt actions. In relation to moral character, consider an honest accountant who begins to ‘doctor the books’ under the twin pressures of a corrupt senior management and a desire to maintain a lifestyle that is only possible if he is funded by the very high salary he receives for doctoring the books. By engaging in such a practice he risks the erosion of his moral character; he is undermining his disposition to act honestly.
On this view, the corrupt condition of the institution exists only relative to some moral standards, which are definitional of the uncorrupted condition of that institution, including the moral characters of the persons in institutional roles. The moral standards in question might be minimum moral standards, or they might be moral ideals. Corruption in relation to a tendering process is a matter of a failure in relation to minimum moral standards enshrined in laws or regulations. On the other hand, gradual loss of innocence might be regarded as a process of corruption in relation to an ideal moral state.
At one point in time corruption had virtually defaced the public institutions, rendering them devoid of any respectability. From the Goldenberg related scams which was about payment of export compensation for gold that was never exported to the Anglo Leasing involving procurements that were not paid for before receipt of the same, corruption conspired with politics public administration process to render the government very in effective. In fact if the process of corruption had gone to an extent that it negated the very existence some public offices. It makes it difficult to have a person who can properly be described as, say, a judge, or a process that can properly be described as, say, a judicial process — as opposed to proceedings in a kangaroo court. ‘Like a coin that has been bent and defaced beyond recognition, it is no longer a coin; rather it is a piece of scrap metal that can no longer be exchanged for goods.’
The corruption of an institution does not assume that the institution in fact existed at some past time in a pristine or uncorrupted condition. Rather an action, or set of actions, is corruptive of an institution in so far as the action, or actions, has a negative moral effect on the institution. This notion of a negative moral effect is determined by recourse to the moral standards constitutive of the processes, roles and purposes of the institution as that institution morally ought to be in the socio-historical context in question. Consider a police officer who fabricates evidence, but who is a member of a police service whose members have always fabricated evidence. It remains true that the officer is performing a corrupt action. His action is corrupt by virtue of the negative moral effect it has on the institutional process of evidence gathering and evidence presentation. To be sure in general in this institution this process is not what it ought to be, given the corrupt actions of the other police in that particular police force. But the point is his action contributes to the further undermining of the institutional process; it has a negative moral effect as judged by the yardstick of what that process ought to be in that institution at that time.
The laws on corruption should ideally be premised on the understanding that the wide diversity of corrupt actions has at least two other implications. Firstly, it implies that acts of institutional corruption as a class display a correspondingly large set of moral deficiencies. Certainly, most corrupt actions will be morally wrong and morally wrong at least in part because they undermine morally legitimate institutions. However, since there are many and diverse offences at the core of corrupt actions, there will also be many and diverse moral deficiencies associated with different forms of corruption. Some acts of corruption will be morally deficient by virtue of involving deception, others by virtue of infringing a moral right to property, still others by virtue of infringing a principle of impartiality, and so on. Secondly, the wide diversity of corrupt actions implies that there may well need to be a correspondingly wide and diverse range of anti-corruption measures to combat corruption in its different forms, and indeed in its possibly very different contexts.
End.