Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

Politicians and civil society groups have petitioned President William Ruto and Opposition leader Raila Odinga to ask two Members of the National Assembly to withdraw amendments to Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) 2003, saying the changes would frustrate efforts in fighting corruption.

The MPs, under African Parliamentarians Network Against Corruption (APNAC)-Kenya Chapter, and Civil society groups, including Mzalendo Trust and Transparency International (TI), have also written to Speaker Moses Wetang’ula and the National Assembly’s Justice and Legal Affairs Committee to reject the amendments.

The two bills, Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes (Amendment) Act number 3 of 2023 and Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes (Amendment) number 40 of 2023 are sponsored by MPs Peter Kaluma (Homa Bay Town) and Geoffrey Ruku (Mbeere North) respectively.

Led by APNAC chair and Kisumu East MP Shakeel Shabbir and Vihiga Woman Rep Beatrice Adagala, the group which met at a Nairobi hotel yesterday, said the proposed amendments in the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes (Amendment) Bill of 2023 are inconsistent with the Constitution and offend several constitutional provisions, including the National Values and Principles of Governance and leadership and integrity.

Shabbir said Kenya risks being blacklisted internationally because of the way it handles corruption matters if the bills are enacted into law. “We are very concerned about these amendments. There are red herrings in both bills. It is peculiar that both amendments come from both sides of the House. These amendments are an attack on ACECA. They must be withdrawn.”

Ruku’s bill seeks to amend Section 45(2) of the Act by deleting the two offences prescribed in parts 2 (b) and (c), namely the failure to follow procurement guidelines and engaging public funds in an unplanned project. “Amend section 45(2) of the EACC Act to remove the culpability prescribed on persons in charge of administration, custody, management, receipt or use of any part of public revenue or public property as administrative flaws as they are capable of being adequately and administratively addressed,” the bill reads in part.

If it passes, Kaluma’s bill will allow convicts of corruption cases to run for office and to be appointed as public officers.

Kaluma is seeking to amend the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act of 2003 by deleting the provision for the disqualification of persons convicted of corruption or economic crimes from being elected as public officers for ten years after conviction.

The MP argues that a convicted person will have already served the punishment and the 10-year ban was unfair.

“A person who is convicted of corruption or economic crime shall be disqualified from being elected or appointed as a public officer for ten years after the conviction,” Section 64 (1) of the ACECA Act says.
Yesterday, seven MPs allied to APNAC and civil society groups said the amendments could hinder progress in the fight against corruption.

Adagala said the amendments could undermine the effectiveness of the laws in deterring corruption and prosecuting offenders.

“We who are members of APNAC-Kenya strongly oppose this proposed amendment which is inconsistent with the Constitution of Kenya and offends several constitutional provisions including our National Values and Principles of Governance under Article 10 and Principles of Leadership and Integrity under Chapter Six of the Constitution among many other provisions in law that would be inconsistent with the proposed amendment,” said Adagala.

Busia Woman Rep Catherine Omanyo said those who engage in corruption should be held responsible for their actions. “When it comes to corruption, it is an individual who chooses to steal or commit the offence, it’s not the party,” she said.

TI’s Titus Gitonga also called for the withdrawal of the amendments on grounds that they go against the spirit of the Constitution. “The reason why we are opposing, especially the deletion of section 64, is because the Constitution speaks to it that one must adhere to the provisions of Chapter Six.”

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has also rejected the amendments. EACC says a repeal will take away the deterrence value inherent in law.