Political Interests Override Constitutional Requirements and Public Interest in Vetting Processes for Elective and Appointive Positions 

Nairobi, Kenya: 9^th March, 2026 

Key Report Findings 

• The executive continues to shape high-level appointments directly and indirectly 

• Very little attention is given to assessing ethical conduct, leadership values and accountability history of public officials. 

• Public participation is performed only to tick boxes. 

• For elective positions, ethical and moral standards that define integrity are subordinated to criminal conviction thresholds 

• Oversight institutions work in silos and are resource constrained. They often compete and do not share information 

• Integrity frameworks disproportionately affect women, youth and Persons with Disabilities (PWDs). 

The gap between constitutional principles and practice results from the nature of Kenya’s politics, and specifically the prioritisation of the interests of political elites, and how this shapes the practice of politics, a new report launched today by TI-Kenya has found. The Report, Political Economy Analysis of the Leadership and Integrity Vetting Framework in Kenya has found that, political interests, elite pacts, bargains, and the interaction between formal power and informal power – with the latter superseding the former – all play a role in constraining effective implementation.  

The analysis also finds that the executive continues to shape high-level appointments directly and indirectly. Although the Constitution introduced devolution and independent commissions to constrain centralised authority, the presidency retains significant formal and informal influence over appointments. Nominations are frequently shaped by the need to reward political allies, respond to pressures from members of the political alliances, specifically by balancing ethno-regional interests, and the need to create conditions for re-election. Data from the PEA study reinforced the perception that nominees appear before parliamentary committees, county assemblies, or even vetting panels when outcomes have already been politically negotiated. In this environment, rejecting a nominee is perceived as a political act challenging executive authority – something few have the courage to do. 

Very little attention is given to assessing ethical conduct, leadership values and accountability history of leaders/public officials. Vetting processes, both at national and county level, including in Parliament and vetting panels, is more about compliance documentation. Individuals are required to present documents such as tax clearance certificates, wealth declaration forms, and Certificates of Good Conduct, among other documents that constitute the first hurdle in the application process. Subsequently, there is no substantive interrogation of the efficacy of some of the submitted documents or the ethical conduct, leadership and accountability history of individuals undergoing the vetting.  

Public participation is performed only to tick boxes. Public participation mechanisms exist, but they are widely perceived as events conducted to ‘tick boxes’ just to show that the public was invited – especially because courts have affirmed the principle in several decisions. These are not for meaningful decision-shaping; public petitions are given short shrift and hardly prevent anyone from being appointed. Overall, deeper ethical questions remain unexamined in the vetting process. 

For elective positions, ethical and moral standards that define integrity are subordinated to criminal conviction thresholds thereby allowing individuals with integrity deficits to occupy office – on the presumption of innocence principle. Chapter Six articulates ethical suitability requirements and moral conduct for those in public office. In practice, however, anyone facing an investigation cannot be disqualified if the matter is not concluded or the person has not exhausted all possible appeals. The presumption of innocence, properly applied in criminal justice contexts, is routinely invoked in vetting spaces to justify the approval of nominees facing ongoing investigations. This interpretation effectively narrows the scope of Chapter Six enforcement. 

Oversight institutions work in silos and are resource constrained. They often compete and do not share information. Oversight institutions operate within a political environment with high institutional interest but uneven power. Bodies such as the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Public Service Commission (PSC), the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), and the Judiciary possess mandates that support integrity enforcement. However, they function in silos with limited data sharing and coordination. Budgetary challenges further constrain assertive action in politically sensitive cases. The result is a fragmented institutional and accountability ecosystem where enforcement is inconsistent. 

Gender equity and social inclusions face challenges: Integrity frameworks disproportionately affect women, youth and Persons with Disabilities (PWDs). Women nominees frequentlyface disproportionate scrutiny and reputational risks during vetting processes. Men are a majority in vetting bodies, and the type of questions women candidates are subjected to could potentially injure the reputation of women candidates. Informal gatekeeping practices, including sexual harassment, remain underreported but are influential in impacting women’s access to senior public posts.  

Persons with Disabilities encounter accessibility barriers and tokenistic representation without adequate accommodation. Youth face “experience thresholds” – often asked whether they have leadership experience – and all of them require a political gatekeeper to assist them. These dynamics undermine equity and make it difficult to address gender and inclusion challenges.  

As a result of this study, TI-Kenya has identified important opportunities through which change can take place and/or be supported:  

1. The Judiciary is required to continue making decisive and conclusive pronouncements such as the decisions made on the capacity of impeached individuals to run for public office, thatpromote the progressive interpretation of the Constitution to breathe life to the provisions under Chapter Six of the Constitution and other enabling laws and regulations touching on leadership and integrity.   

2. Independent Commissions and Oversight Agencies need to enhance their collaboration and information sharing to ensure effective scrutiny of individuals seeking public office within their established mandates.  

3.  Parliament including the National Assembly, the Senate and the County Assemblies should establish procedures for vetting processes that are insulated from political influence includingensuring that they adequately facilitate oversight agencies and consider their submissions as mandatory and final determinations on ethical and moral requirements. This should include serious consideration of public participation processes with meaningful outcomes based on analysis of the submissions made and adequate involvement of key actors including professional bodies, sector stakeholders and affected communities who are the main beneficiaries of services offered by the individuals seeking certain positions.  

4. Civil Society, Media, Professionals, Religious groups and other civic actors should invest more in creating awareness and public urgency to galvanise support and citizen demand for adherence to the Constitutional safeguards on Leadership and Integrity. These groups should be vigilant and provide alternative and strong leadership alternatives to counter political interests.  

NOTE TO EDITORS  

• Transparency International Kenya is a national civil society organisation that works towards a transparent and corruption-free society.  Registered in Kenya in 1999 with a mission to combat corruption, we are dedicated to promoting integrity, transparency and accountability in the public and private spheres through good governance and social justice initiatives. TI-Kenya is one of the autonomous chapters of the global Transparency International movement that are all bound by a common vision of a corruption-free world. 

• In December 2025, TI-Kenya commissioned a study on Political Economy Analysis on Leadership and Integrity Vetting Framework in Kenya whose central purpose was to explain why the leadership and integrity vetting framework in Kenya performs in the ways that it does, which do not meet the Constitution 2010 aspiration.  Ultimately, the study aimed at developing politically feasible recommendations, including targeted reforms that are realistic and aligned with Kenya’s political context. 

• The study employed a mixed-methods approach combining desk-based research, key informant interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), consultative meetings, integrated Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) analysis, and stakeholder mapping. The desk-based review focused on the institutional architecture governing vetting in Kenya (including vetting for various forms of positions, both appointive and elective), foundational issues, case studies, and documentation of best practices, including what has worked well in other jurisdictions. Being a problem-driven political economy analysis, the data analysis was thematic and informed by the key dimensions aligned to the objectives of the study. 

MEDIA CONTACTS: 

For queries around the report, findings or for interview requests, please contact; Njeri Wangari  
Tel: +254 722 353657/ +254 788 11 00 56 
Email:  jwangari@tikenya.org 

Download the Abridged version of the report