Sonko ban forces us to reflect on graft war

Under the United States law, the Secretary of State is empowered to make a decision that prohibits a foreign national from entering the country if there is reason to believe that the foreigner is engaged in actions that are illegal or otherwise against the public policy of the United States. This determination may be made and kept secret or otherwise disclosed to the public.

This was the law that gave force to the announcement yesterday by the United States embassy in Nairobi that former governor Mike Mbuvi Sonko had been publicly designated as a person who would not be authorised to travel to or enter the United States of America. The effect of this designation is basically to make the Mr Sonko the equivalent of a prohibited immigrant under the laws of Kenya. This is not limited only to himself but will include his family members.

The announcement by the US may have come as a shock to many in Kenya. This is because the reasons do not appear to have had any connections to any actions the governor may have committed against the US, its citizens or any directly discernible interest of that country. Rather, it was explained that the action has been taken as part of its commitment to reaffirm the need for accountability, transparency and respect for the rule of law and the actions of public officials.

‘Significant corruption’

The reason for this action, the State department explained, was that Mr Sonko had been involved in “significant corruption” while serving as a governor in the county of Nairobi.

This was an extremely loaded statement, bearing in mind that following his election to the office, Mr Sonko served barely three years. Besides, the words chosen would imply that the corrupt activities were widely known.

But as Kenyans, and residents of Nairobi who elected him to that office by more votes than even the presidential candidate garnered in the capital, the question of cardinal importance is: What is the extent of our commitment to these values that the American government has taken on our behalf?

For a country which committed a whole chapter on ethics and principles of public leadership in its constitution, the fact that the US took this action against a citizen before or despite any action by Kenyan institutions must lead to the question on the extent of our commitment to these same values we pretended to hallow in our constitution.

First beneficiaries

Some political pundits may argue that the action by the US was meant to protect American interests. But in truth, the first beneficiaries are intended to be Kenyans, and their taxes.

Whichever way we look at it, the US State Department has essentially thrown the gauntlet at Kenya and its anti-corruption enforcers in the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, Director of Public Prosecutions and Directorate of Criminal Investigations, and the Judiciary, which has a special division on crimes of corruption.

Add to these the Assets Recovery Authority established by an act of parliament to bring accountability to public officers by having them explain the sources of their wealth or risk such wealth being impounded.

One would think that the number of legislations and institutions meant to tackle corruption is evidence of a shared commitment among Kenyans that corruption in public office is intolerable and must be sent into extinction.

Significant evidence

But when the US State Department clearly states that its decision to take the action against the former governor was based on the existence of significant evidence of corruption, it would appear they have stolen a march on Kenya’s institutions. They pointedly made clear, whether by design or not, that the existing institutions have not taken any action and may be unwilling to do so.

It is therefore upon the Kenyans to check why a foreign country appears to be weeping louder than the bereaved in this matter of a Kenyan public officer’s wrongdoing.

Whether the State Department intended it or not, the action they have taken will force Kenyans to reflect on the efficacy of these bodies, if not the overall belief of the general populace on the need to fight corruption in the first place.

The fact is that the reason for the level of corruption in Kenya is not want of law, we have a constitution and no less than 10 acts of Parliament that seek to address that. Neither is it the lack of institutions, we have the DPP, EACC and other independent offices under the constitution. The answer is simply that Kenyans seem to be indifferent to corruption in their midst.

So, the action taken yesterday was not so much about the former governor as it is about the state of corruption in Kenya, and the absence of a joint commitment from all fronts to deal with it.

The writer is Head of Legal at Nation Media Group PLC