Integrity CentreThe government is proposing mandatory minimum prison sentences for people convicted of high-value corruption.
The proposal is contained in the draft National Ethics and Anti-Corruption Policy, which seeks to introduce stronger deterrent measures against graft.
Under the proposed policy obtained by the Star, the government wants tougher penalties for people and entities found guilty of corruption.
“This includes introducing mandatory minimum sentences for high-value corruption, strengthening civil recovery mechanisms and ensuring that administrative sanctions.”
The policy also proposes administrative sanctions against corruption offenders, including barring them from public office and government contracts.
In recent years, the country's anti-corruption agencies have been very aggressive in pursuing suspected proceeds of crime through civil litigation.
The other step, albeit rarely implemented or frustrated by appeals, is the requirement for state officers to step aside when charged with corruption.
A number of cases are also settled through plea bargains.
The government says it will undertake a review of anti-corruption legislation within two years to identify overlaps, inconsistencies, gaps and barriers to enforcement.
Another major proposal targets political and campaign financing, with the government linking unregulated political money to corruption.
Parliament and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission would be expected to operationalise regulations covering political party financing and election campaign expenditure.
The proposed rules would state ‘real-time disclosure requirements, spending limits and sanctions for non-compliance’.
“Given the well-documented link between unregulated political finance and systemic corruption in Kenya, this is a priority legal reform that shall be completed within 24 months of the adoption of this Policy,” the policy reads.
This potentially stands to bring under scrutiny, money flowing into political parties and election campaigns, including the sources and amounts of campaign financing.
The proposed reforms come against a backdrop of persistent delays in the investigation, prosecution and conclusion of corruption and economic crime cases.
In recent years, some high-profile corruption cases moved away from the lengthy trials towards negotiated settlements, plea agreements and asset recovery.
Anti-graft crusaders have over time raised questions about whether the government should prioritise punishment, recovery of stolen money, or both.
The draft says delayed cases “undermine deterrence, public confidence, asset recovery efforts and the effective administration of justice.”
It proposes measures to speed up the handling of corruption cases, including case management systems, shorter timelines for investigations and prosecutions.
It also proposes the expansion of specialised anti-corruption courts, assigning the Judiciary and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions two years to implement reforms.
“The proposed reforms would also include increased judicial and prosecutorial capacity and enhanced coordination among investigative, prosecutorial and judicial institutions,” the policy reads.
The draft says stronger punishment must be accompanied by better recovery of public resources lost through corruption.
The policy further identifies asset recovery as a continuing challenge, citing “lengthy court processes, limited data on recoveries and poor international cooperation outcomes.”
However, the policy does not define the monetary threshold that would determine what constitutes high-value corruption, neither does it specify the length of the mandatory minimum prison sentences.
On coordination, it proposes that the government establish “a formal legal and operational framework for coordination among the respective institutions”.
The EACC, DCI and ODPP have been accused of not reading from the same script when it comes to handling graft cases, amid ensuing blame games.
The policy also seeks to address emerging forms of graft, warning that advances in technology have created new corruption risks that existing laws may not adequately address.
It says emerging risks include cybercrime, misuse of data, digital financial crimes, virtual assets and corruption involving automated public decision-making.
The proposed reforms would also establish legal standards for the use of digital evidence in corruption proceedings.
The draft also seeks to improve public access to information as part of the anti-corruption strategy, with amendments eyed to narrow grounds for refusing information requests.
Public entities would be required to publish corruption-related information, including procurement records, asset declarations, audit reports and investigation outcomes.
The policy says such information should be available rather than only upon request.
The government further wants Parliament to enact a standalone Whistleblower Protection Act to consolidate existing protections.
It seeks to establish “a single accessible reporting portal administered by the EACC”, with the law expected to extend protection to private-sector whistleblowers reporting corruption.
The government is also proposing a standalone offence of sextortion ‘with appropriate penalties’, with climate finance and carbon markets identified as emerging areas of concern.
The policy says increasing flows of resources linked to climate adaptation, carbon markets, carbon credit trading, and green investments are prone to “fraud, misappropriation, and other forms of corruption.”
For now, the proposal does not state how much money would qualify as high-value corruption or the minimum prison term that would apply.
INSTANT ANALYSIS
The proposed mandatory minimum sentences for high-value corruption signal a tougher government stance on graft, but their deterrent value will depend on clear definitions and consistent enforcement. The policy also rightly targets political financing, asset recovery, whistleblower protection and faster trials. However, leaving the monetary threshold and sentence length undefined creates uncertainty. Ultimately, stronger laws will matter little unless institutions pursue cases impartially, swiftly and successfully.
