Laikipia revenue board scandal exposes deep-rooted sexual exploitation
What you need to know:
- Sexual predators at Laikipia County Revenue Board demanded sexual favors from candidates seeking 250 revenue collector positions.
- The scandal has prompted a motion to disband the board and highlights how widespread sexual exploitation is in Kenya's job market.
Chapter Six of the Constitution of Kenya requires holders of public office to behave in a manner that “demonstrates respect for the people, brings honour to the nation and dignity to the office and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the office”. It also requires that “decisions are not influenced by nepotism, favouritism, other improper motives or corrupt practices”.
It appears that some members of the Laikipia County Revenue Board are illiterate, and have not read or understood the cited provisions, or consider themselves above the law going by media reports that they demanded sexual favours from candidates seeking 250 vacancies as revenue collectors. In response, a motion has been filed in the County Assembly to disband the whole board.
This matter brings into focus the question of sexual exploitation and harassment. The first refers to use of one’s position of power to extort sex from a vulnerable person. The second is any overt or covert act of a sexual nature that is unwelcome, uninvited and unrequited, and which makes its target uncomfortable, offended, demeaned, humiliated, coerced and undignified.
The Laikipia case constitutes quid pro quo (“this for that”) sexual harassment, which is demand for sexual favours in return for benefits such as employment, promotion, better wages and training opportunities. It extends to threatening targets with dismissal or other dire consequences if they defy the demands.
Candidates facing such requests are vulnerable for a number of reasons. First, jobs are scarce and competition for them is fierce. An ordinary job seeker would thus find compliance a small price to pay if this gives her an edge over equally desperate candidates. Second, perpetrators may make the demand more compelling by promising more than just the immediate opportunity.
Third, many candidates are young and easy to intimidate by the age and seniority of the perpetrators. Fourth, the practice might be so widespread that it is futile to reject an advance from one perpetrator only to be subjected to the same by the next decision maker. Fifth, evidence of beneficiaries of such extortion may easily convince candidates that it works.
Apart from being coercive and fraudulent, sexual exploitation enslaves the victim because a precedent is set for future demands, which will be difficult to decline, hence creating a vicious cycle of violation. The victims undergo emotional stress and anxiety over the safety of their jobs, may incur heavy litigation costs, are exposed to risks of diseases and suffer low self-esteem.
Fellow employees
Favouring compliant candidates not only constitutes discrimination, it also compromises standards as it trumps merit while relying on extraneous factors. Once employed, the individuals assume powers of the benefactor and oppress fellow employees. This breeds negative group dynamics that compromise organisational performance and productivity. Institutionalisation of such behaviour means that no one is protected. Eventually, the reputation of the institution takes a nose dive.
Sexual harassment and exploitation are outlawed in Kenya’s Employment Act. That very few cases end up in court gives the false impression that the vice is rare, affected individuals consider it inconsequential or the practice is accepted as part of the job. However, the few that have made it to court tend to be those filed by employees who have been dismissed for declining sexual advances. Luckily, litigants who took the step proved their cases and received commensurate awards. This is a sign that victims can get redress should they seek it.
But as revealed in the 2018 study “Sexual harassment in the workplace in Kenya” by Patricia Mbote, Sarah Kinyanjui and Yohanna Gadaffi, many victims remain silent to protect their jobs. The study relates this to the fact that organisations treat their employees as dispensable commodities and stigmatise as trouble-makers those who stand up for their rights. This breeds timidity when everyone knows what is happening but none dares to challenge it. This culture must be uprooted for us to have a more ethical and safer society in which people’s rights and dignity are protected regardless of their desperation for work.
As the country waits for the culmination of the Laikipia case, what is more important is to look at how this kind of behaviour can be prevented. One, clearly state zero tolerance of sexual harassment in the vacancy notices. Two, establish confidential mechanisms for reporting such requests. Three, sensitise recruitment panels.
Four, verbally assure the candidates of protection at the commencement of interviews. Five, have an independent party conduct random interviews to establish if any candidate has been requested for such favours. Six, deal decisively with those found culpable and sustain vigilance. But the panacea is simply to live by the values. Not doing so only accelerates our journey down the moral drain.
The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya University ([email protected]).
