Gen Z protests in Nairobi. PHOTO/AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
By MORRIS ODHIAMBO
The Gen-Z revolution in Kenya will continue to attract analyses for a long time in Kenya, Africa and even globally. How the Gen-Z’s managed to initiate and sustain a structure-less and leader-less formation, how they funded their activities by pooling resources, and how they appropriated and used technology, will certainly inform struggles for human dignity elsewhere.
In Uganda, there are ongoing public conversations on the effect of the Gen-Z revolution in that country’s political culture. In Ghana and Nigeria, prominent leaders, including a former presidential candidate, are warning the elite to learn from Kenya and change their ways or face similar revolt! The fear is not farfetched.
How, for the first time, young men and women from the middle class, and probably rich families as well, got out of their comfort zones to join thousands of disadvantaged lads from Nairobi’s informal settlements and the rural poor in protests, will continue to excite political analysts for many years to come.
How the protests breached the other divides – especially those of tribe and political party – that largely affect political outcomes, will continue to be a discussion point for researchers and policy makers alike.
But, equally so, will the contradictions inherent in the Kenyan state, particularly the sturdy resilience of bad governance. Barely a week after the Gen-Z protesters breached parliament’s tight security and made Members of the National Assembly flee in fear, the country’s Senate passed a law that further diluted Kenya’s “phantom” fight against corruption, in a country in which the unparalleled ability of the elite to extract corruptly from the state is a leading cause of political tension and conflict.
Kenya’s so-called anti-corruption fight was officially inaugurated in the late 1990s via conditionalities imposed on the country by International Financial Institutions. Since then, the facade of fighting corruption has been maintained through a series of laws, a myriad of legal amendments, half-hearted investigations, fake arraignment of suspects in court, constitutional provisions and institutions whose performance and longevity are often determined by the goodwill of the political elite.
In short, the whole anti-corruption edifice only survives because it does not interfere with the interests of the dominant politicians, bureaucrats, businesspersons and other members of the ruling elite, who, together with foreign interests, control the state. It is a symbiotic relationship that of late has been consummated through a strategy of using retired clergy to chair the institution.
The conflict of interest debate in Kenya is not new. It started in earnest in the 1970s in the context of Africanisation of the civil service. The question was whether civil servants should engage in business, in particular with the state, which employed them to formulate policy and deliver critical services. From my own readings on Africa’s internal political economy, the situation was not very different in other countries.
Habel Nyamu, a former civil servant who also worked with the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in the early 1990s, dedicated a chapter in his book, “Recollections: An Eye Witness Account of Kenya’s Journey from Colony to Multiparty Democracy” to a discussion of the Ndegwa Commission Report and its aftermath.
It is the recoomedations of the Ndegwa Commission Report that were used by the elite to entrench the practice of civil servants doubling up in business and, essentially, using their positions to give advantages to themselves, thus entrenching corruption. Nyamu wrote as follows:
“Up to 1970, it was a necessary requirement that civil servants did not engage in trade or any other business. This requirement, which was inherited from the colonial government, seems to have been based on solid assumptions such as that it was not possible for a civil servant to give of his very best if he was serving two masters, namely the public and his own material interests.”
He further wrote that, “It is not possible for policy makers or any other persons who contribute to the formulation of policy to remain fair and just if they are placed in positions where they are able to benefit from the execution of those policies.”
Though Ndegwa committed the “original sin” in accordance to the wishes of the Kenyatta elite, all safeguards against abuse that he tried to embed in his report were ignored.
This could possibly be a demonstration of the fact that the recommendations were preordained to simply clear the path for wanton, “primitive” accumulation of wealth by state elite. Nyamu further wrote as follows:
“The sad thing is that the Ndegwa Commission Report has never been debated in Parliament. Apart from the salaries, which had special presidential clearance for immediate implementation, no other section of the report or the Government Sessional Paper No. 5 of 1974 was implemented in accordance with the conditions of the Ndegwa Report under paragraphs 31-35.”
Those sections, according to Nyamu, were essential in safeguarding the role of the civil servants as providers of public service even as they engaged in private business.
He went on to describe the five conditions that the Ndegwa Commission thought could cushion the public servants from engagement in corruption as they pursue private businesses. Three of the conditions are important for this conversation. They are as follows:
- Public servants “should not subordinate their duties to their private interests nor put themselves in a position where there is conflict of between their duty to the state and their private interests.”
- Public servants should not “outside their official duties be associated with any financial or other activities in circumstances where there could be suspicion that their official position or official information available to them was being turned to private gain or that of their associates.”
- Public servants should not “engage in any occupation or business which might prejudice their status as members of a public service or bring any such service into dispute.”
Whether Ndegwa and his fellow commissioners honestly believed that these conditions would safeguard the integrity of an already corrupt bureaucracy and political culture can only be a matter of conjecture. Suffice it to reiterate that the conditions were completely ignored by the Kenyatta elite.
There have been many attempts over the years to legislate on conflict of interest. Section 42 of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act, 2003, already defines conflict of interest as a corruption offense. The two important principles of disclosure or recusal from taking part in decision-making where there is conflict of interest are already entrenched in this section of the law.
In designing Chapter Six of the Constitution on leadership and integrity, Kenyans further recognised how serious the problem of conflict of interest is in the management of public affairs. The Chapter therefore entrenched several principles and requirements for purposes of boosting integrity in the public service.
The five key principles are (i) selection on the basis of personal integrity, competence and suitability, (ii) objectivity and impartiality in decision-making, in particular ensuring that decisions are not influenced by nepotism, favouritism, etc., (iii) selfless service based solely on the public interest, including “the declaration of any personal interest that may conflict with public duties, (iv) accountability, and (v) discipline and commitment in serving the public.
Nancy Baraza, Kenya’s first deputy chief justice under the 2010 Constitution, will go down in history as the only person to have resigned from her job as a result of a strict implementation of Chapter Six of the Constitution.
The Gen Z demonstrations to oppose the 2024 Taxation Bill were countrywide. PHOTO/AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL.
Her offence was to pinch the nose of a security guard at the Village Market Shopping Center. She is also purported to have pulled a gun on the security guard, a fact she has consistently denied.
But the general effect of this incident was to make the ruling elite wary of the strict requirements of Chapter Six and its ability to not only close the taps of corruption, but also stop the arrogance of the elite against the poor, weak and vulnerable in society. In a way, therefore, the Baraza incident sealed the nail on the coffin of Chapter Six of the Constitution.
I do not know whether the senators who debated and passed amendments to the Conflict of Interest Bill 2024 had the benefit of all this literature and whether they understood what they were doing. But doing what they did within the context of the ongoing Gen-Z protests exposes their malfeasance.
From all accounts, law-making in Kenya, or any other parliamentary business is itself fraught with corruption. During debate on the Finance Bill 2024, there were claims from Members of Parliament themselves of massive bribery to pass the bill as it was. However, this is a story that has been repeated many times in the past, including descriptions of how toilets in the house are used as bribe dispensation centres.
It is also quite interesting that the same Senate was, in the wake of the 26th June 2024 Massacre in Parliament, very critical of the passage of the Finance Bill 2024. Senators lambasted Parliament and the Executive for not listening to the people and therefore creating the conditions for the massacre of youth on 26th June.
When I made a video praising the Gen-Z’s for the protests, it was based on the clear understanding that the Kenyan elite are not about to change. For the same reason, I joined them on that fateful day, 26th of June, as a mark of solidarity. I wanted to gauge for myself what the Gen-Z was/is capable of achieving in terms of transforming the country held hostage by the corruption, profligacy, foolishness, carelessness, and arrogance of the elite.
The fact of the matter is that Kenya will eventually fail as a state if the conditions created by the elite and the massive looting of the economy, continue to prevail.
For the moment, the Gen-Z disruption is Kenya’s only hope. We have simply gone beyond the point where laws and institutions alone can be relied on to stop the madness and criminality of Kenya’s elite.
Africa, are you listening?
