Transparency International Kenya

Transparency International Kenya Blog
You are here: Home > Blog

For immediate release TIS



Press Release:

Ebola crisis: How to improve the integrity of responses to public health emergencies?


Berlin / Conakry, 30 March 2017 Transparency International called today on the government of Guinea, donor agencies and humanitarian agencies to be more transparent in their responses to public health emergencies to ensure fair, rapid and corruption-free humanitarian aid.

In a new report focusing on the Ebola crisis in Guinea, the global anti-corruption organisation found that supporting local healthcare capacities and investing in communication with affected communities would strengthen the response of aid providers and its integrity.

The report Collective Resolution to Enhance Accountability and Transparency in Emergencies: Guinea report, developed in partnership with Groupe URD, is based on in-depth interviews with affected communities and stakeholders to identify the corruption risks that affected the humanitarian response to Ebola in Guinea. The report makes recommendations on how to mitigate those risks in the future.

The study shows that most of the goods used in the response were too specialised to be resold and were thus less prone to misappropriation. The stigma attached to the disease also significantly reduced the theft of aid. The main risks identified concerned logistics (misuse of vehicles, fuel and generators) and construction (poor design and process in calls for tenders, weak oversight of building sites), as well as risks in human resources due to the large number of staff needed as the response was quickly scaled up.

Nairobi, 25 January 2017 – Kenya has declined in rank as it continues to post a poor score in the global Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2016 released today by the Transparency International movement. Kenya scored 26 on a scale of zero to 100 (with zero perceived to be highly corrupt, and 100 very clean), compared to a score of 25 in 2015. Kenya is ranked at position 145 out of 176 countries and territories included in the latest edition of the CPI. Kenya’s score is below the global average of 43 and Sub Saharan Africa’s mean of 31. Kenya had a score of 25 in 2014 and 27 in 2013 and 2012. This indicates that despite the rhetoric of anti-corruption, the fundamental in the fight against corruption have not yielded significant dividend. The CPI measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in countries and territories worldwide and is based on expert opinion.

CPI2016 Map

TI Kenya Logo

By Mercy Gachengo

The agony brought about by the endless number of road accidents is sickening. Week after week
all we get to hear from our radios or television sets is news of accidents. Death is inevitable but I
believe it should not be caused by someone’s recklessness. Road safety is still not a priority to a
section of Kenyan drivers. According to statisticsi posted on the National Transport and Safety
Authority (NTSA) website the total number of victims in the first three months of 2016 increased
by 1233 from 2699 in 2015 to 3932 in 2016. A survey carried out showed that, road accidents
cost Kenya Sh.300 billion annually. Three thousand is the average number of deaths that occur
annually and I am certain that the number can be greatly reduced only if speed and safety
regulations are followed to the letter. Are the speed regulations adhered to?

Integrity Uadilifu

Nomination Deadline: 12.00PM Saturday 14th November 2016!
1.0 Background
The United Nations’ International Anti-Corruption Day (IAC) commemorated annually on 9th
December provides government, leaders, anti-corruption agencies, civil society organizations,
private sector and citizens with an opportunity to reflect and engage in the fight against
corruption and advocate for greater transparency, accountability, integrity and better service
delivery from leaders and public institutions.
So far in 2016, high-profile corruption scandals have implicated top leadership of the Independent
Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), the Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) as
well as the Supreme Court of Kenya. Kenyans continue to experience the negative effects of a
deepened lack of integrity in the management of public resources, increased impunity and
disregard for the rule of law.
The Integrity Champion Awards are intended to inspire hope and increase direct citizen action
and engagement in the anti-corruption struggle. The awards recognise the power of active
citizenship in disrupting corruption and demanding accountability. The Awards reinforce the need
to identify and celebrate publicly institutions, whistle blowers and ordinary citizens who have taken
action, however small, to shine the light of integrity and fight corruption in their own spaces.
2.0 Award Categories
The Integrity Champion Award 2016 will receive and evaluate entries in two categories namely
Institutions/Organisations and Individual categories. The institutional/organization category
encompasses both government and non-governmental entities in Kenya.
3.0 Entry Rules
i. One shall not self-nominate, or nominate a member of one’s family
ii. Information provided on the nominee must be independently verifiable
iii. An award shall be revoked if the information received regarding the nominee is later found to
have been fraudulent, incorrect or include a misrepresentation
iv. A decision may be made to award NO prize in any category
v. The Award Panel’s decision shall be final.
4.0 Awards Committee
The Nominations Review & Awards Committee shall comprise Mzalendo Trust, TI-Kenya, SID,
ACAC, and Inuka Kenya Ni Sisi! and their partners.
5.0 Nomination Form
5.1 Category of the nomination: Individual Institution/Organization
5.2 Full legal name of Individual or Organization/Institution being nominated:
5.3 Contacts of Nominee
Telephone: ___________________________ E-mail: _________________________________________
County: ___________________ Constituency: ______________________ Ward: _________________
Twitter handle ____________________ Facebook Page: ____________________________________
5.4 Why does the nominee qualify for this award? Spell out what distinguishes this particular
nominee from others (500 words maximum).
5.5 Explain the actions taken directly and personally by the nominee and how these
actions benefited the community and protected the Constitution of Kenya e.g. stopped
misuse/wastage of public resources, led to arrest/conviction, resulted in community action
etc. (500 words max).
5.6 Nominated by: _____________________________________________________________________
Mobile phone: _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________
County: ___________________ Constituency: ______________________ Ward: _________________
Twitter handle ____________________ Facebook: __________________________________________
5.7 Important additional information
a.) Would publicity put the nominee at any risk? Yes No
b.) Please provide any additional information to assist in assessment of the nominee.
6.0 Submission of Nominations:
6.1 Online: This is the preferred mode of submissions. Complete a Google Form HERE to
complete and submit your nomination.
6.2 You can also download, complete and send this form as a PDF email attachment to
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
6.3 You can also print, complete and drop off this form at:
 Transparency International-Kenya (TI-Kenya). Kindaruma Road, Off Ring
Road, Kilimani. Next to Commodore Office Suites Gate No. 713; Suite No. 4.
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 Society for International Development (SID) 6th Floor Timau Plaza, Argwings
Kodhek Road

Integrity Uadilifu


We, the undersigned nine organizations and associations, being representatives of
institutions drawn from the health, human rights, governance and development partners
have taken note of the recent revelations of theft, misuse and/or loss of public funds at the
Ministry of Health and the subsequent response to the report by the Cabinet Secretary, Dr.
Cleopa Mailu, EBS.


A Statement Issued by the Kenyan CSOs on November 1, 2016
Since independence, Kenyan public has been treated to a cocktail of abominable theft, plunder,
squander and waste of public resources, while the institutions tasked with the mandate to probe
and deal with the said scandals have repeatedly sanctified the same. Bailed as the most corrupt
and unaccountable administration in Kenya’s political history so far, the Jubilee regime’s 4 years
in power has been characterized by rampant, reckless and mindless looting and
misappropriation of state coffers.
The situation in the country remains so grave and dire that the official Auditor General’s report
for 2015 found that just 1% of Kenya government spending and a quarter of the entire 1.6
trillion shillings budget was properly accounted for. Current reports indicate that Kenya loses
approximately 600Billion shillings out of its annual budget of 2 trillion (close to 30%) through
wanton theft and waste. Imagine what this amount could do in supporting health care for the
poor, provision of quality basic education, clean water or employment for our youth?
Specifically, the Kenyan CSOs note with concern the following systemic and vicious failures of
the political establishments, both at the national and county levels: That as noted by John
Githongo, a prominent anti-corruption crusader, “corruption in Kenya has deepened and widened
since President Uhuru Kenyatta came to power in 2013”.

TI Kenya Logo


On October 2015, news of Imperial Bank being placed under receivership made headlines in all
Kenya media houses. This was barely months before Kenyans had recovered from similar
measures taken against Dubai Bank. It was later revealed that the drastic decision was made after
learning of fraudulent, dubious and shady transactions perpetrated by the late MD, Janmohamed.
It was revealed to the board that the late MD had been disbursing loans amounting to billions of
shillings fraudulently, to his friends and business associates. All these disbursements had been
concealed from the board of directors. The two senior bank managers alleged that the late MD
had over a number of years dictated the head of credit to advance funds to certain clients without
going through formal credit processes in line with prudential guidelines and the bank's internal
lending procedures and policies. He unilaterally forced, intimidated and threatened the CFO
(Chief Finance Officer) to use 'creative accounting' to hide what was effectively embezzled from
the bank. It was then established that there were significant differences on loans, overdrafts,
investments and deposits from what had previously been reports to the bank's board1.
After the bank was placed under receivership, it was expected that all depositors would demand
for their cash. However out of the 50,000 Imperial Bank depositors, only 10,600 have lodged
claims for compensation through Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) and Diamond Trust Bank
(DTB) to demand their cash. This has raised concerns about the true identity of the
depositors.Who are these people? Why don’t they claim? Are there ‘ghost account holders' in the
banking system? This sparks more questions than answers.The CBK should exercise its
supervisory role and oversee operations of financial institutions as mandated in the Central Bank

TI Kenya Logo

Corruption in Kenya requires a change of culture
‘All actors should strive to bring about a quiet revolution in public attitude towards

It is easy to feel ambivalent about Kenya. In my experience, the people are outgoing, warm
and welcoming. They exude confidence and pride. For the scholars, racial chauvinists and
friends of Africa who sometimes feel compelled to combat misguided stereotypes that the
continent and its people are helpless and hopeless, nothing could serve as a stronger counter
than witnessing ambitious, vibrant, and entrepreneurial Kenyans going about their daily lives.
Against seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Kenyans exhibit fortitude and persevere with
great resilience.
Unfortunately the same characters who make Kenya appealing make it loathsome. Corruption
in Kenya has been embraced by most citizens and hated by all. Its effects cannot be
Anyone in Kenya has experienced the Kenyan traffic jam. Drivers aggressively attempt to
circumnavigate the traffic, manoeuvring between the lanes, cutting off competing vehicles,
driving on the ‘shoulders’ and frequently even racing between oncoming vehicles in the
opposite lane- all the while cursing and condemning other drivers who resort to the same
tactics. The passengers exhort their drivers to take drastic measures to get them where they
are going as fast as possible, even as they lament the whole spectacle. All involved appear to
know that bad driving only worsens the traffic, but once others are doing it everyone feels
compelled to participate or risk being overtaken, left behind and even squashed.
While corruption is much more complex than a traffic jam, Kenyans are participants wherein
they are simultaneously the main victims and the loudest critics.
Corruption is among the vices at the apex in any society worldwide including Kenya that
continues to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to innocent citizens. Its adversities caused
a clarion call at both national, regional and international level for an immediate solution.
Among them, Kenya has resorted to policy, legal and institutional framework to curb the vice.
However, this state approach has been largely unsuccessful in its quest as corruption shifts
from benign to malignant.
Adversities have also tripled with national values & principles being trampled upon like they
don’t exist in the Constitution. In the long run, the civil, political, economic, social & cultural
status of a state and quality of life continues in tatters. This calls for an alternative and/or
complementary approach to the fight against corruption. Therefore, rather than the state
approach, could the citizen/bottom up approach be the foundation of a long term
anticorruption strategy for Kenya?
The citizen strategy acknowledges that corruption is a two tier relationship involving a giver
and recipient. The former strategy focussed on eliminating one party (the recipient) through
the established institutions, laws and policies. Therefore, the other party (the giver) who forms
the root of the equation went scot free pollinating an attitude and culture of paying for
services that should otherwise be offered for free.
In the long run, the people have adopted the culture of giving bribes as a way of life hence
promoting and sustaining corruption. This being the root of the menace, an anticorruption
strategy that seeks to neutralise the ‘giver effect’ or culture needs to be adopted. So, are there
any initiatives that can be adopted in Kenya and work? YES.


By Mwongela Mbiti
An advocate of the High Court of Kenya and
Programme Officer,
Transparency International Kenya



TI Kenya Logo
Lessons for EACC from Botswana
By Mwongela Mbiti
Botswana has been Africa’s least corrupt country and holds a very good position internationally.
This is according to the 2014 and 2015 Transparency International’s Global Corruption
Perception Index. This result has been enabled by sound anti-corruption structures and judicial
practices coupled with political will from the executive arm of the government. The Directorate
on Corruption and Economic Crime’s (DCEC) prosecution rate is considered very high by
international standards.
The fight against corruption in Botswana has been institutionalized, with the DCEC providing
strategic initiatives and coordinating the governments departments to create an anticorruption
culture. Whereas Kenya was ranked position 139 out of 167 countries in the 2015
Transparency International Global Perception Index, Botswana was position 28. Botswana was
the best performing African country followed by Rwanda in position 44. So why the disparities
and what lessons can Kenya and the rest of Africa learn from Botswana?
The most conspicuous aspect about the Botswana anti-corruption framework is the approach
taken by DCEC; bottom up approach and corruption prevention as opposed to the top-down
and punitive approach. The bottom up approach entails mass grassroots campaign, public
education, involvement of special interest groups and partnerships with government
departments. It also includes the determination to create an anti-corruption culture through
attitude change from the youth and children.
DCEC has employed numerous anti-corruption initiatives that EACC can learn from;
Reducing public sector corruption risks
DCEC seeks to reduce public sector corruption risks through conducting a corruption risk
assessment. A Corruption Risk Assessment (Corruption Audit) is simply a careful examination of
what, could lead to corruption. It is a tool that is used to detect and assess corruption risk
exposures within functional areas and develop mechanisms to mitigate such risks. DCEC
conducts departmental corruption risk assessment for all government institutions and makes
recommendations on ways and means of preventing corruption and improving service delivery.
Promoting anti-corruption education
The unit conducts massive public education about corruption and solicits public support. The
public has been segmented into three categories and various programmes are designed for
each of these clienteles. Public Education is available on request to give presentations at
government ministries, departments and public forums.
Further, the directorate conducts trainings for government workers through workshops focused
on ministries subject to numerous corruption complaints. Beginning in 2010, in cooperation
with the education ministry, the DCEC integrated corruption issues into school curricula and
offered guidance and counseling. Other school activities included fairs and exhibitions, as well
as competitions in public speaking, writing, and art. The directorate supported teachers and
students in establishing anti-corruption clubs in secondary schools for “peer-to-peer education”
and together with the University of Botswana, the DCEC developed a college-level anticorruption
Similarly, DCEC cultivated a more cooperative media relationship and employed four public
relations officers by 2012. DCEC also maintain a weekly column of corruption prevention tips in
the state newspaper, raising awareness and soliciting tips. DCEC conducts outreach through
various media, especially radio, which was popular among rural villagers and urban commuters
These and many more anti-corruption strategies have seen Botswana gain admiration all over
the world and become a model in the African continent. EACC must therefore take a holistic
approach to the problem and employ the three-pronged strategy of investigation, prevention
and community education in order to achieve the desired results.
By Mwongela Mbiti
An advocate of the High Court of Kenya and
Programme Officer,
Transparency International Kenya

Kenya’s “Integrated Programme to Build Resilience to Climate Change & Adaptive Capacity of Vulnerable Communities”, as the name suggests, seeks to enhance resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change for selected communities in various Counties in Kenya in order to improve food security and environmental management.

The programme has 5 components: food security; water management; coastal management; disaster risk reduction and knowledge management. With a total financing of USD 9,998,302 (KES 1 Billion), the total execution cost is capped at USD 804,948 (KES 81 Million), the total programme cost at USD 8,473,137 (KES 856 Million) and USD 720,217 (KES 72 Million) is set aside as the implementing fee.

Two years after its approval by the Adaptation Fund Board, the programme’s timelines have not been met. According to the programme document, the project was meant to start in July 2014 and close in July 2017 with a mid-term review in December 2015 and a terminal evaluation scheduled for September 2017. Significant delays in disbursement of the funds led to a change of timelines as a result, the start date was moved to January 2016 when the programme was launched. Up to date, some sub-executing entities are yet to sign contract agreements with their supervising Executing Entities raising questions on effective implementation of the programme and achieving the desired outcome.

Page 1 of 26