House Teams' Leadership Comes Under Scrutiny

As MPs lobbied to head key parliamentary teams early this week, questions over the credibility of some contestants have brought the performance of the committees into sharp focus.

The teams have suffered loss of public confidence in the past, the most notable being when Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman, the late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, admitted to having received Sh2 million from controversial businessman Kamlesh Pattni.

Mr Pattni - who now calls himself Paul after converting to Christianity - was also at the centre of another incident when then PAC chair, the late Kijana Wamalwa, recommended to Parliament that the government actually owed Pattni money, causing a furore.

It is with this in mind that the public has increased calls that MPs mentioned adversely in previous PAC and Public Investments Committee (PIC) reports be barred from chairing them.

Analysts said that as watchdogs working on behalf of taxpayers, PAC and PIC are expected to be above reproach and the members should be people of high moral standing in society.

But neither the Standing Orders nor the country's Constitution state clearly who should occupy the offices, leaving committee members to choose their chair. The House Business Committee picks MPs from different political parties as members of the committees.

Lobbying for positions on the committees is informed by the fact that they offer MPs the opportunity to influence the shape of proposed legislation before they are tabled before the House. MPs earn huge allowances for attending committee meetings in addition to their regular pay of Sh850,000 per month.

On Tuesday, MPs picked Ikolomani MP Bonny Khalwale as chairman of PAC, while Igembe South MP Mithika Linturi was elected to head PIC. Political analysts said changes should be made on Standing Orders to ensure that only people of integrity are picked as members of the committees, especially the chairmen.

"These are people expected to vet public procurement and processes and tackle corruption cases, thus their integrity is most crucial," said Tiberius Barasa, a political analyst at the Institute of Public Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR), a policy think-tank.

"Otherwise, the committees would gradually lose public confidence despite their much needed role in a democracy to check on the excesses of the Executive," said Mr Barasa.

While the new political dispensation arising from the formation of the coalition government left the House with no official Leader of the Opposition and confused the membership of committees, in the Ninth Parliament - as tradition in Commonwealth countries dictates - the teams were chaired by opposition MPs.

The rationale behind this arrangement was that being in the opposition, the chairmen of the committees would check the excesses of Government and reveal these to the public.

During the Ninth Parliament, several high profile scandals were exposed, including the multi-billion shilling Anglo Leasing scandal, the Postal Corporation VSAT deal, the irregular importation of sugar and intrigues over the ownership of Safaricom.

However, MPs have in the past complained that recommendations made by the committees were never acted upon and that it took years to audit Government books, rendering the committees' work merely academic.

In 2004, PAC prepared a special audit report on the Anglo Leasing type of scandals that included the tamper-proof passports deal, the forensic laboratory for the CID, various security and communication projects. The report implicated some Cabinet ministers in the scandals, but the Government marshalled support in the House to reject it.

In 2006, Uhuru Kenyatta led committee members to the UK to interview former Ethics and Governance permanent secretary John Githongo following new revelations on Anglo Leasing. As a result of the investigations, Cabinet minister Kiraitu Murungi was relieved of his duties while his colleague, David Mwiraria, stepped aside to pave way for investigations.

The two were later re-appointed to the Cabinet.The committee's report, which was debated in the House, recommended that the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission should take action against ministers involved in the scandal.

But in terms of checking the use of tax payers' funds, PIC was more active, questioning a number of transactions.The committee inquired into the controversial ownership of Safaricom, the flooding of the local market with imported sugar from the Common Market for Eastern and South Africa (Comesa) and cases of illegal land allocation.

PIC also questioned an audit report on the financial statement of Kenya Reinsurance Corporation, among other cases.Among the issues raised by PIC involved the directors of Mobitelea, the transactions that led to the 60-40 per cent share ownership of Safaricom and the alleged transfer of five per cent of Telkom shares in Safaricom to Mobitelea Ventures.

In its report, PIC urged the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission to investigate the circumstances under which the shares were transferred to Mobitelea under the Kanu administration.

The other focus of investigation was Kenya Re's audit report for the year 2005, which had been given a clean bill of health by a private audit firm, KPMG.The committee's report revealed that Kenya Re would have lost Sh88 million in the sale of houses in Meru, Kisumu (Migosi), Eldoret (Kapsoya estate) and Mombasa (Nyali).

Towards the end of the Ninth Parliament, politics affected the work of these committees after Mr Kenyatta decided to support President Kibaki's re-election.