Descriptions
have been developed to define corruption. In 2003 OECD promoted a
stricter definition of corruption as bribes, kickbacks and embezzlement
as supplemented by practices such as illicit gifts, favours, nepotism,
and informal promises. It’s a moral depravity and influencing through
bribery, its misuse of trust in the interest of private gain; it’s also
stealing and cheating by force through compulsion of the victim.
Corruption breeds at the top and gradually filters to the lower levels.
Introduction Of The Corruption Menace In Kenya
Kenya
has positive aspects such as hospitable friendly people and good
climate but is ranked amongst the most corrupt countries in the world
due to the negative culture of corruption. It is real rather than
perceived that corruption in Kenya is eminent and perpetrated by human
beings from all sectors of the society.
Corruption
is a legacy passed on to generations since Kenya attained its
independence in 1963, it is so visible that it is impossible for any
citizen to deny its presence. Corruption at the top distorts fundamental
decisions about development priorities, policies and projects. It’s a
serious obstacle to social and economic development because it wears
down the rule of law and weakens public institutions and state organs.
Corruption is persistent in Kenya primarily because institutions such as
parliament, judiciary, and executive organs have been previously
weakened and/or become major perpetrators of corruption themselves as
well as conduits through which corrupt activities flowed especially
during the period immediately after independence upto 2010 when Kenya
progressive Constitution of Kenya (COK) (2010) was promulgated.
In
pre-independent period communities had not been exposed much to the
evil of corruption because there was not much competitions in trade, not
much business, trade and development was taking place and also due to
the fact that communities were not very much exposed to the greed
attached to wealth associated with accumulation of wealth in form of
money.
Frequent
demands for bribes by public officials’ lead to increased business
costs for local businesses and foreign investors. The various active
and passive forms of corruption in Kenya includes bribery in return to
be afforded services, corruption by influencing in availing government
procurement opportunities such as tenders, conflict of interests. Other
forms of corruption include looting, plunder, nepotism, tribalism, undue
influence, fraud, abuse of office and widespread tax evasion.
Panacea And Political Will Of The Third Regime Of Mwai Kibaki
By
implementing the Constitution of Kenya (COK) (2010) as part of
upholding the rule of Law and in alienating way of life to the new order
created by the new constitution there have been very progressive
attempts/efforts and mitigation measures to strengthen existing
governance institutions and legal frameworks to address the problem of
corruption.
Meaningful
fight against corruption started When Mwai Kibaki came into power in
2002 since his electoral platform was to fight corruption, jump-starting
the economy and creating jobs, improving public services, and making
constitutional reforms that would redistribute power from the
all-powerful presidency. Kibaki started out well and with the help of
Parliament laws like the Prevention of corruption Act (CAP 65) Laws of
Kenya which was amended severally and when Parliament noted that the
fight against corruption needed to be modernized,they repealed the act,
passed a more modern Anti-corruption and Economic crimes Act and made
fresh amendments to Public officers Ethics Act (CAP 4). Kibaki also made
changes in the judiciary and created Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission
(KACC). Through KACC more than 3000 cases were investigated which led to
dismissal of various public servants including Judges.
Since
2010 the Kenyan public has been well informed on the happening on the
level of corruption involving state officers and government due to the
freedom of the media and reports from strong institutions which were
created by the 2010 constitution.
Legal Framework Of The New Constitution 2010
The
Constitution created strong institutions and state organs. It bestowed
responsibilities to some 14 commissions and two independent offices
which help to protect the sovereignty of the people. The institutions
and organs cover human rights; land; elections; salaries in the public
sphere; appointments and disciplinary action for the police, public
service, judiciary, parliament, and teachers; and allocation of revenue
(for counties). The independent offices are the Auditor-General and
Controller of the Budget. Then there is the Ethics and anti-corruption
commission and the Public Procurement Oversight Authority (PPOA), gender
and equality commission, the office of ombudsman and the commission on
national cohesion and integration which are designed to be independent:
the constitution did not create them, but required Parliament to pass
ordinary acts to set them up.
The
functions of those bodies are of different kinds, but each is
independent of the executive and discharges its functions—whether
oversight, protection of rights, strengthening national unity,
appointments, reporting and dismissal of state officers (who need to be
protected against the whims and favoritism of politicians), ensuring
independence of the electoral process, the integrity of the national and
county financial systems, or eradication of corruption.
Independence
of commissions is protected under the constitution. Commissioners are
responsible for policy and decisions of the bodies, they must satisfy
the values criteria of Article 10 Chapter Six of the 2010 Constitution
in order to be appointed. They must possess integrity, competence and
suitability, and behavior marked by impartiality, selflessness and
discipline. Commissioners are supported by staff whom they appoint and
are accountable to them. Their salaries are — like those of judges — a
“charge on consolidated fund”, which means they are not supposed to be
voted on annually or discussed in Parliament. And pressure cannot be put
on them by reducing their salaries or benefits. They are hard to
dismiss — so not at political whim. They have power to investigate
complaints made by a member of the public in regard to corruption,
including summoning witnesses, just like courts.
Corruption,
bribery, abuse of office and bribing public official are criminalized
under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act 2003, and under the
Bribery Act of 2016 which strengthens the fight against the supply-side
of corruption. Facilitation payments are criminalized and there are
rules for what types of gifts public officials are allowed to accept.
Mitigation By Constitutionally Created Institutions
Adequate enforcement of Kenya’s anti-corruption framework is being handled by various organs as follows:-
The
judiciary is established as an independent body by the constitution,
and largely demonstrates independence and impartiality in practice
following major reforms in 2011, many corrupt judges were removed from
their posts, by way of being vetted out by a committee which was created
by the president after widespread outcries on the official judicial
corruption. Afterwards the reputation of the judiciary subsequently
improved. Individuals and Companies perceive the judiciary being fairy
and sufficiently independent and do consider the legal framework
effective for dispute settlement and fair judicial arbitration. The
Judiciary has tried to uphold the interest of the greater public good
and has been trying eliminating inordinate delays in justice chain. The
Bangalore Principles of judicial conduct as intended to complement the
UN’s Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary and the role
of Lawyers states that judicial independent is a prerequisite to the
rule of Law and a fundamental both its individual and institutional
aspects. This has been of late replicated here in Kenya.
In
its editorial of November 3, 2018 entitled “Country wants results in
anti-corruption war”, the Daily Nation stated as follows: “The Judiciary
is an independent institution yet it operates within an ecosystem …”
The simplest concern had been that corruption cases took long. Since
then the Judiciary has innovated ways which have made cases to be
resolved faster by using modern Information and Communication
Technologies such as use of case management systems, establishment of
special courts such as Small claims courts and anti-corruption courts in
order to fast track cases that affect business and investments. The
Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act allows the Judiciary to treat
corruption cases as special and to prioritize them. Some members of
parliament, top public servants and businessmen have been fined by
various courts after successful completion of their corruption cases.
For example, Sirisia MP John Waluke was fined Kenya shillings 1Billion
or face 52 years in Jail, the MP opted to pay the fine and appealed
against the conviction.
The
Ethics and anti-corruption commission (EACC) work takes a governance
and development perspective to analytically examine the causes and
consequences of corruption in Kenya. It identifies the key factors such
as absence of strong and effective democratic institutions, centralized
power, lack of public accountability, and impunity and analyses
available data, indicators, and other information in that regard. It
investigates, has powers to arrest and compiles annual reports for
public use. This helps in strategizing and legislating on weak aspects
of the established legal frameworks. There are high powered initiatives
to ensure that parliament passes legislation that will give
prosecutorial powers to EACC in order to stamp its authority in fighting
corruption, deter corruption tendencies and to limit exposing EACC to
competing political pressures.
Police
corruption has emerged as a serious security challenge in Kenya as it
represents a systemic failure of governance in which the principal
institutions responsible for ensuring police governance, the observance
of ethics and integrity standards, and enforcing the rule of law are
compromised and may themselves are infested with corrupt individuals and
syndicates. Corrupt police officers in Kenya are nowadays arrested and
prosecuted by the Independent Police oversight authority (IPOA) and
police service commission. In December 2016, Kenya’s National Police
Service Commission fired 127 traffic police officers after they found
evidence of large suspicious money transfers between officers that could
not be explained.
The
competitiveness of Kenya’s business environment is impeded by rampant
public-service corruption. Complying with administrative requirements
has been taking a lot of time and plagued by red tape. Registration and
licensing services are severely had been affected by bribery, making
starting and sustaining a business very costly. Getting operating
license and services from government bodies such as National environment
management authority (NEMA), national construction authority (NCA),
utility services e.g. Kenya Power Company Limited (KPLC) and water
companies had been previously made to be costly and a companies were
expected to pay huge bribes to obtain services. Digitization of services
has reduced human contacts. EACC is doing a good job and complaints are
nowadays being taken seriously and EACC investigates reported cases and
carry out enticement to the public officials requesting bribes by
giving out “treated money” in order to arrest the culprits.
In
2016 Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission conducted a survey that have
helped to map out areas where efforts are needed to concentrate
corruption fighting mechanisms. EACC also said its preliminary
assessment of all 47 counties uncovered massive irregularities in
nepotism in hiring county staff and violation of public tenders’ rules
which are common to all the counties. EACC told the Senate’s committee
on finance that they had several live files which are undergoing serious
investigations at that moment and some top county officials were to be
hauled to courts.
Reports
of irregular payments and bribes in the process of tax payments and
customs administration are very common. Tax rates are identified among
the most problematic factors for business and the process of filing
taxes is burdensome. The Finance Act 2006 provides for measures against
tax fraud and guidelines on tax administration; it also provides
sanctions on corrupt practices, thereby reducing opportunities for tax
evasion. Bribing of officials in Kenya Revenue Authority and county
governments has been eminent so as to get services faster and
conveniently. Of late EACC has concentrated much in this important
departments which has led to citizens reporting cases of demands of
bribes by officials which has led to sackings, arrest and alignment to
court of law of the offending and corrupt officials.
High
levels of corruption threaten Kenya’s natural resources. Six senior
officials from the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) were suspended due to
alleged corruption and neglect of duty that contributed to pervasive
poaching. There are government’s efforts to curb corruption in the KWS.
Former
finance minister Henry Rotich, permanent secretary Kamau Thugge , and
some other senior government officials are facing corruption charges in
courts through efforts of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission
since they were linked to extensive bribery schemes involving number of
inflated state contracts e.g. a project involving an Italian company CMC
Di Ravenna which was to cost a total of $450M, but treasury officials
had increased this amount by $164M without regard to performance or
works, as a result two necessary infrastructure water projects kimwarer
and arror were not delivered.
The
Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP) was formed in 2010
under Article 157 of the Constitution; the Director of Public
Prosecution (DPP) has power to direct the Inspector General of police to
investigate any information or allegation of criminal conduct. It is
not in doubt that corrupt acts are criminal in nature, and therefore,
the Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI), which is under the
direction of ODPP, command and control of the Inspector General, can
rightly investigate corruption matters. The new Director of Public
Prosecution(DPP) was sworn in to office. Kenyan have shown so much faith
in the Office of DPP after the recent arrest and arraignment of
powerful office holders in the executive, counties and other state
organs.
The Public Procurement Oversight Authority (Ppoa) As A Tool
Public
procurement is subject to rampant corruption and bribery. Companies
report that bribes and irregular payments are highly common in the
process of awarding public contracts. Tendering and purchasing fraud is
the fastest growing economic crime in Kenya. Businesses report that the
vendor selection stage is most likely to be subject to fraud. The Public
Procurement and Disposal Act prohibits corruption in public
procurement. Allegations exist that high-level corruption takes place in
energy, airport construction, and infrastructure procurement processes;
a number of contracts were awarded to foreign firms that allegedly did
not comply with public procurement laws in Kenya. Furthermore, the Legal
system of devolution as per the Kenya constitution has led to an
increase of patronage in county-level procurement processes.
The
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) has helped in the fight
against corruption in that it aids businesses to access information in
their offices and website, companies can find information on Kenya’s
public procurement regulations, barred companies from participating and
procurement manuals, and can also submit bids. All major transactions
require competitive bidding by law. Companies found guilty of violating
procurement regulations may be barred at the discretion of the director
general of the PPOA. The Public Procurement and Disposal Act also
established the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB): a
quasi-judicial tribunal. IPPARB nullified a contract where Kenya Power,
the national electricity company, stood accused of procurement fraud
over handing a contract to a Chinese firm that had been in existence for
only 11 months and thus not meeting the requirement of having audited
reports, raising suspicion about the transaction. Furthermore, the price
of the contract was KES 1.2 billion higher than the bid of the lowest
bidder. In another instance, a major pipeline construction project in
Kenya reportedly cost taxpayers over USD 35 million following
allegations that officials colluded to construct a pipeline with a much
higher capacity than necessary for the purpose of operating a kickback
scheme.
Other Anti-Corruption Mechanisms And Institutions
The
Public Officers Ethics Act 2003(POEA) sets rules for transparency and
accountability, as well as gifts and hospitality. Public servants and
politicians are required to declare their income and assets after every
two years. Further, while act provides for wealth declarations by
public officers, there are attempts to legislate and ensure that the
information is made available to the general public.
Accordingly,
this will give citizens fundamental rights provided in the constitution
where every citizen has the right to access information. On the same
note, the establishment of assets recovery authority which falls under
the office of the Attorney General has enabled inspection of asset
declarations and officers who have enriched themselves through dubious
corrupt ways are nowadays being subjected to their assets been seized,
sold and money recovered and forwarded to the exchequer.
The
Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act and the Witness Protection Act
provides for protection of corruption whistleblowers, forbids any
disciplinary action to be taken against any private or public employee
who assists an investigation and/or discloses information for such an
investigation. The witness protection act is a progressive Law which has
created an autonomous witness protection agency which accords the
whistle blowers requisite protection that they deserve which includes
security, reallocation etc.
Bribery,
bribing foreign officials, money laundering, abuse of office,
extortion, conflict of interest, bid rigging and bribery involving
agents is criminalized by the bribery act and the Penal code. The
Bribery Act of 2016 criminalizes primarily private sector bribery,
broadly defined as “offering, promising, or giving a financial or any
other advantages to another person, this may include facilitation
payments. The Act imposes a duty on public and private entities to have
appropriate anti-bribery procedures in place. Companies convicted under
the Act will be barred from doing business with the government for 10
years.
Other Institutions are salaries and remuneration commission, Kenya National
Human Rights Commission (KNHRC), Parliamentary committees, controller of
budget and Auditor-General set standards in salaries, carry
investigations and surveys and points out potential corruption prone
areas in public service and write reports and recommendations on
incidences, deterrence and mitigations. Moreover, Kenya has ratified in
parliament the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating
Corruption and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).
Most of Kenya’s anti-corruption achievements have been felt in big cost
projects which have attracted a lot of renowned world class companies.
In bidding for projects and by refusing the allure of corruption they
have given a lot of hope that in deed corruption war can be won by
companies adopting positive anti-corruption strategies.
Deterrence As Anti-Corruption Stategy
In conclusion the anti-corruption programmes in Kenya are being aimed at
Deterrence. It is a single but important element of anti-corruption
strategies. Deterrence includes not only conventional prosecution and
punishment but also administrative, regulatory, financial and economic
deterrence. The ODPP, the EACC and the Witness Protection Agency (WPA)
have plans to act in concert to win the confidence of Kenyans as whistle
blowers by ensuring the integrity of anonymous reporting systems. But
despite all the gains in the anti-corruption initiatives there is a lot
of resistance in the struggle towards a corruption free environment in
Kenya mainly from corrupt elite political class who have amassed a lot
of illegal wealth and or benefited from corruption and they are of the
opinion that they have monarchic corruption turfs to protect.
Editor | Tang Xiyuan
Design | Demi
文｜西蒙·卡西嘉（Simon Kahiga） 肯尼亚法律工作者
导读
编者按：本文由来自肯尼亚法律工作一线的作者撰写，较为全面地阐述了肯尼亚近年来建立的反腐败法律框架、机制和取得的相关成果，对于我国投资者初步了解肯尼亚反腐败法律方面的情况十分有帮助。值得注意的是，作者对于法治建设、政治制度的一些看法是基于肯尼亚国情而形成的个人观点，仅能用于解释肯尼亚本国的问题。各国在探索反腐败、建设法治社会的过程中，必须根据本国的特殊国情因地制宜地选择路径
●肯尼亚所面临的腐败威胁介绍
●第三任总统姆瓦伊·齐贝吉政府的反腐政治意愿和策略
●2010年新宪法构建的法律框架
●依照宪法创立的机构对腐败问题的缓解
●作为反腐工具的公共采购监督机构（PPOA）
●其它反腐败机制与机构
●以威慑作为反腐败策略
关于腐败的定义，各类描述性的话语已经得到了充分发展。2003年，经合组织（OECD）将“腐败”更严格地定义为贿赂、回扣和贪污，并辅以非法礼品、人情、裙带关系和非正式承诺等行为。腐败是一种道德的堕落，它通过贿赂、滥用信任来谋取私利，它还通过强迫受害者来进行强行盗窃和欺骗。腐败在上层滋生，并逐渐渗透到下层。
肯尼亚所面临的腐败威胁介绍
肯尼亚有许多积极的方面，诸如好客、友好的人民以及适宜的气候。但在腐化的消极文化影响下，肯尼亚被列为世界上最为腐败的国家之一。肯尼亚的腐败不仅仅一种感观体验，它是真实存在的。这种臭名昭著的腐败是由全社会各个阶层的人共同实施的。腐败是自肯尼亚1963年获得独立以来代代相传的遗产，它是如此明显，以至于任何公民都无法否认它的存在。高层的腐败扭曲了有关发展优先事项、政策和项目的基本决策。它是社会和经济发展的严重障碍，因为它削弱了法治，使公共机构和国家机关变得虚弱。肯尼亚的腐败现象持续存在，主要是因为议会、司法和行政机关以前已经被腐败削弱，或成为了腐败的主要肇事者和腐败活动的渠道，这种现象十分突出，特别是从肯尼亚独立后到2010年具有进步意义的肯尼亚宪法（COK）颁布之前的这段时间中。
在独立前的时期里，社区并没有过多地暴露在腐败的邪恶之中。这是因为当时的贸易竞争并不多，没有太多的商业、贸易与发展发生。同时也是因为社区没有过多地暴露在对财富的贪婪中，这种贪婪依附于对货币形式的财富的积累。
公职人员频繁地索贿导致当地企业和外国投资者的商业成本增加。肯尼亚的各种主动和被动腐败形式包括以贿赂换取提供的服务，通过施加影响从政府采购机会中获利，这些机会包括招标、利益冲突等。其它的腐败形式还有巧取豪夺、裙带关系、部落主义、不当影响、欺诈、滥用办公室权力以及广泛的逃税。
第三任总统姆瓦伊·齐贝吉政府的反腐政治意愿和策略
通过实施2010年肯尼亚宪法，将其作为维护法治的重要部分，并将生活方式向由新宪法创造的新秩序转移，肯尼亚在加强现有治理机构和法律框架方面，已经采取了非常具有进步性的尝试和努力，以此来解决腐败问题。
肯尼亚具有实质意义的反腐败斗争始于姆瓦伊·齐贝吉2002年上台之后。他当时的竞选纲领是打击腐败、启动经济、创造就业机会、提升公共服务，以及通过宪法改革将全能型总统府手中的权力重新分配。齐贝吉的开局良好，获得了来自议会的法律支持。肯尼亚的《预防腐败法》（CAP 65）是其中一例，该法被多次修订。当议会意识到反腐败斗争需要更现代化的法律武器时，他们废止了《预防腐败法》（CAP 65）,通过了更为现代的《反腐败与经济犯罪法》并对《公职人员道德法》（CAP 4）进行了最新修改。齐贝吉还改革了司法系统，创立了肯尼亚反腐败委员会（KACC）.通过反腐败委员会的努力，有3000多起案件被调查，导致包括法官在内的众多公务人员被解雇。
自2010年以来，得益于新闻自由和2010年宪法所设立的强大机关的报告，肯尼亚公众已经充分了解了在国家官员和政府腐败问题层面所发生的事件。
2010年新宪法构建的法律框架
宪法设立了强大的机构和国家机关。它向大约14个委员会和2个独立办公室赋予了保护人民主权的职责。这些机构和机关涉及人权、土地、选举、公共领域工资等事务，以及警察、公共服务、司法、议会人员和教师的任命及纪律处分，还有收入的分配（针对县）。两个独立的办公室分别是审计长和预算主计长。然后是道德与反腐败委员会、公共采购监督局（PPOA）、性别与平等委员会、监察员办公室以及国家凝聚力与融合委员会，这些委员会是独立机构，宪法并未直接要求成立它们，但议会通过普通法案建立了它们。
这些机构的职能并不相同，但每个都独立于行政部门并履行其职能——监督、维权、维护民族团结、任命、报告和罢免国家官员（这项工作需要确保它们不受政治家突发奇想和偏袒的影响）、确保选举过程的独立性、保障国家和县域财政系统的完整性或者根除腐败。
委员会的独立性受到宪法的保护。委员负责机构的政策和决定，他们必须满足2010年宪法第6章第10条的价值观标准才能被任命。他们必须正直、有能力和具有适应性，以及具有公正、无私和有纪律性的行为。委员受到由他们任命的工作人员的支持，这些工作人员对委员负责。他们的薪水——就像法官的薪水一样——是“综合基金费用”，这意味着这些薪水开支不必每年投票表决或是在议会中讨论，并且不能通过降低他们的工资或福利来给他们施加压力。他们很难被解雇——所以不被政治上的心血来潮影响。他们有权调查公众就腐败提出的投诉，包括传唤证人，就像法庭一样。
根据2003年的《反腐败和经济犯罪法》以及2016年的《反贿赂法》，腐败、贿赂、滥用职权和行贿公共人员被定为刑事犯罪。《反贿赂法》加强了对腐败行为供给侧的打击。疏通费被定为犯罪，并且有规定明确了官员可接受的礼物类型。
依照宪法创立的机构对腐败问题的缓解
肯尼亚反腐败框架的充分执行由以下各机构实现：
司法机构是宪法规定的独立机构，在2011年进行重大改革后，该机构在实践中很大程度上体现了独立性与公正性。在舆论对司法腐败进行广泛谴责后，许多法官被由总统设立的委员会审查并免职。此后，司法机构的声誉也随之提高。个人和企业认为司法机关是公平的，且具有充足的独立性，并相信法律框架能够有效解决争端，确保公平的仲裁。司法机构一直努力维护更大的公共利益，并一直努力消除司法链条中的过度拖延。根据旨在补充联合国关于司法机构独立性和律师作用的基本原则的《班加罗尔司法行为原则》，司法独立是法制的先决条件，也是法治个人和机构方面的基础。该原则的要求最近已经在肯尼亚被落实。
《国家日报》在其2018年11月3日题为“国家希望在反腐败之战中取得成果”的社论中指出：“司法机构是一个独立机构，但它在一个生态体系中运作……”。最简单直接的担忧在于，腐败案件的处理时间过长。此后，司法机构不断创新，运用现代信息与通讯科技，如使用案件管理系统，设立小额索偿法庭、反贪污法庭等一系列特别法庭，加快对那些影响商业与投资的案件的审理。《反腐败和经济犯罪法》允许司法机构将腐败案件视为特殊案件并优先处理。在成功完成腐败案件审理后，法院处罚了一些议员和高级公务人员和商人。例如议员锡里西亚（Sirisia）选区的议员·约翰·瓦卢克（John Waluke）被判处10亿肯尼亚先令罚金，否则将面临52年监禁。瓦卢克选择支付罚款，并对判决提出了上诉。
道德与反腐败委员会（EACC）的任务是从治理和发展的角度来分析检查肯尼亚腐败的原因和后果。它确定了造成腐败的关键因素，例如缺乏强大而有效的民主机构、权力集中化、缺乏公共问责制和有罪不罚现象等，并分析了这方面可用的数据、指标和其它信息。它负责调查，有权实施逮捕，并编制年度报告供公众使用。这些工作有助于针对既定法律框架的薄弱环节制定战略和立法。一些强有力的动议促使议会通过了相关立法，赋予道德与反腐败委员会起诉权，以便其在打击腐败、遏制腐败趋势以及限制竞争性政治压力对该机构的影响等方面发挥作用。
警察腐败已经成为肯尼亚严重的安全挑战，因为它代表了治理的系统性失败。这意味着那些负责警察治理、督促遵守道德和廉正标准以及执行法治的主要机构受到了损害，其机构本身可能就充斥着腐败的个人和集团。如今，肯尼亚的腐败警察被独立警察监督机构（IPOA）和警察服务委员会逮捕和起诉。2016年12月，肯尼亚国家警察服务委员会在发现警察之间存在大量无法解释的可疑资金转移的证据后，解雇了127名交警。
猖獗的公共服务腐败损害了肯尼亚商业环境的竞争力。遵守管理要求需要花费大量时间并受到繁文缛节的困扰。注册和许可服务受到贿赂的严重影响，使得开办和维持企业的成本非常高。以前，要想从政府机构如国家环境管理局（NEMA）、国家建设局（NCA），或是公共事业服务主体如肯尼亚电力有限公司（KPLC）、水务公司获得经营许可和服务，需要花费高昂的成本。一家公司在获取这些服务时需要支付巨额贿赂。服务的数字化减少了人际交往。道德与反腐败委员会的工作卓有成效。如今，相关投诉得到了认真对待，道德与反腐败委员会将调查被举报的案件，并通过提供“处理过的钱”来引诱索贿的公职人员，以将其逮捕。
2016年，道德与反腐败委员会进行了一项调查，帮助确定了需要加强集中打击腐败机制建设的领域。该委员会还表示，其对全国所有47个县的初步评估发现，县级公职人员雇佣过程中存在大量裙带关系，对公开招标规则的违反也在所有的县都普遍存在。道德与反腐败委员会向参议院财政委员会上报了他们当时正在调查的几个案件的实时文件，一些县的高级官员被带到了法庭。
关于纳税和海关管理过程中的不规范支付与贿赂的报告也十分普遍。税率被企业认为是最有问题的因素之一，且报税过程很繁琐。2006年的《财政法》规定了打击税务欺诈的措施和税务管理指南。该法还对腐败行为进行制裁，从而减少了逃税机会。贿赂肯尼亚税务局和县政府官员以更快、更方便地获得服务的行为一直很突出。最近道德与反腐败委员会正在对这个部门进行集中整治，鼓励公民检举索贿官员，这些检举将使违法和腐败的官员被绳之以法，最终将被开除、逮捕和起诉。
高度腐败也威胁着肯尼亚的自然资源。肯尼亚野生动物管理局（KWS）的6名高级官员因涉嫌腐败和玩忽职守导致普遍存在的偷猎行为而被停职。政府正在努力遏制野生动物管理局的腐败行为。
在道德与反腐败委员会的努力下，前财政部长亨利·罗蒂奇（Henry Rotich），财政部常任秘书卡莫·图格（Kamau Thugge）和其它一些高级政府官员正在法庭上面临腐败指控。这些官员涉及一个广泛的贿赂网，涉嫌虚报众多国家级合同金额。例如，一个涉及意大利公司CMC Di Ravenna的项目，该项目总金额4.5亿美元，但财政部官员在不考虑性能和工程状况的情况下将这一项目金额增加了1.64亿美元，结果导致了两个名为Kimwarer与Arror的必要的水工基础设施项目没有交付。
检察长办公室（ODPP）于2010年根据宪法第157条成立。检察长（DPP）有权指示警察监察长调查任何有关犯罪行为的信息或指控。毫无疑问，腐败具有犯罪性质，因此，受检察长办公室指导，警察监察长指挥和控制的刑事调查局（DCI）可以正当地调查腐败问题。目前新任检察长刚刚就职。在最近一批有权势的行政机构、县级机构和其它国家机关官员被逮捕和提审后，肯尼亚人对总检察长办公室表现出了极大的信心。
作为反腐工具的公共采购监督机构（PPOA）
公共采购受制于猖獗的腐败和贿赂。来自企业的举报称，在授予公共合同的过程中，贿赂和不定期付款非常普遍。商业报告指出，供应商选择阶段最有可能受到欺诈。《公共采购与处置法》禁止公共采购中的腐败行为。有指控称，在能源、机场建设和基础设施采购过程中存在高层腐败。一些合同被授予据称不遵守肯尼亚公共采购法的外国公司。此外，根据肯尼亚宪法而建立的权力下放的法律制度导致县级采购过程中的以权谋私行为增加。
公共采购监管局（PPRA）在打击腐败方面发挥了作用。企业可以通过访问他们的办公室和网站获取信息。他们帮助企业获得肯尼亚公共采购法规的信息、禁止参与投标的公司名单、采购手册，企业还可以向他们提交投标书。所有的重大交易都需要依法进行竞标。公共采购监管局总干事可以酌情决定禁止那些违反采购规定的公司投标。《公共采购和处置法》还设立了公共采购行政审查委员会（PPARB），这是一个准司法法庭。例如，公共采购行政审查委员会曾取消了一份合同。在此事件中，肯尼亚国家电力公司（Kenya Power）被指控涉嫌采购欺诈。电力公司将合同移交给一家仅存在11个月的中国公司，因此不符合审计报告的要求，引发了外界对交易的怀疑。此外，该合同的价格比最低出价者的报价高出12亿肯尼亚先令。在另一个案例中，肯尼亚的一个主要管道建设项目据称花费了纳税人超过3500万美元。有指控称官员串通建设了一条容量远高于需求的管道以获取回扣。
其它反腐败机制与机构
2003年的《公职人员道德法》（POEA）制定了透明度和问责制以及礼品和招待方面的规则。公务员和政治人物必须每两年申报一次收入和资产。此外，虽然法案已经规定了公职人员的财富申报，但还有力量在推动立法，使财富申报的信息向公众开放。这方面的立法将使公民获得由宪法赋予的获取信息的基本权利。同样，隶属于总检察长办公室的资产追回机构的设立使得能够对资产申报进行检查，而通过可疑腐败方式致富的官员如今正面临资产被扣押、变卖和追回并上缴国库的风险。
《反腐败和经济犯罪法》和《证人保护法》规定保护腐败举报人，禁止对协助调查和/或披露此类调查信息的任何私人或公共雇员采取任何纪律处分。《证人保护法》是一项具有进步性的法律，它为举报人提供他们应得的保护，包括安全和重新分配等。
《反贿赂法》和《刑法》将在本国行贿、贿赂外国官员、洗钱、滥用职权、敲诈勒索、串通投标和贿赂代理人定为刑事犯罪。2016年的《反贿赂法》将私营部门的贿赂也定为刑事犯罪，其对贿赂的广义定义是：“向他人提供、承诺或给予财政上的其它好处”，这可能包括疏通费。该法案规定公共和私人实体有义务制定适当的反贿赂程序。根据该法案被定罪的公司将在10年内被禁止与政府开展业务。
其它机构还有工资和薪酬委员会、肯尼亚国家人权委员会（KNHRC）、议会委员会、预算主计长和审计长等。他们分别负责制定工资标准，进行调研调查、指出公共服务中潜在的腐败易发领域，撰写关于腐败发生率、威慑措施和环节措施的报告和建议。此外，肯尼亚已经在议会批准了《非洲联盟预防和打击腐败公约》和《联合国反腐败公约》（UNCAC）.
肯尼亚反腐的一个主要成就体现在吸引了许多世界一流公司的大成本项目。在招标过程中，通过拒绝腐败的诱惑，这些公司让人们看到了希望，表明采取积极反腐败战略的公司实际上可以赢得反腐败的斗争。
以威慑作为反腐败策略
总之，肯尼亚反腐败项目的目标在于形成威慑。这是反腐败战略的一个单一但重要的因素。威慑不仅包括常规的起诉和惩罚，还包括行政、监管、金融和经济威慑。检察长办公室、道德与反腐败委员会、证人保护局（WPA）计划采取一致行动，通过确保匿名报告系统的完整性来赢得肯尼亚人作为举报人的信任。然而，尽管反腐败斗争取得了很多成果，肯尼亚在争取无腐败环境的斗争中依然遇到了很多阻力，这些阻力主要来自腐败的政治精英阶层。他们从腐败中受益，积累了大量财富，他们认为需要保护自己具有君主制性质的腐败领地。
编辑 | 溪 源
校对 | 闫建军
设计 | 大 米