Bribery Bill to make corruption expensive to receivers and givers

The Proposed Bribery Bill 2015 that was presented to President Uhuru Kenyatta by the Kenya Private Sector Alliance (KEPSA) on Monday aims at making corruption expensive for both givers and receivers of bribes.

According to Senior Counsel Mohammed Nyaoga, the man who drafted the Bill, it aims at curbing corruption in the private sector, which is the government’s main supplier of items and services.

Mr Nyaoga says that the Bill is in line with the international best practices that require a stand-alone Bill to deal with graft in the private sector.

According to the Bill, an individual found guilty of offering, promising or giving financial or other advantage to another person; or intends to induce another person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity; or intends to reward another person for the improper performance of such a function, is liable to imprisonment for a term of between one year to ten years or a fine not exceeding their statutory maximum, or both.

The Bill further stipulates seizure of property of individuals or companies that is acquired through a corrupt manner as well as debarring of companies that give or receive bribes from participating in any government tendering or procurement.

As if this is not enough, the Bill extends the penalties to individuals who give or receive bribes in foreign territories.

According to section 11 of the Bill, any Kenyan citizen or a commercial organization that offers or receives a bribe in places outside Kenya will also be liable to prosecution locally.

The Bill also requires companies to put in place measures for prevention of bribery. Section 7(1) of the Bill states; “A commercial organization is required to have in place procedures, appropriate to its size and scale and to the nature of its operations, for prevention of bribery.”

The Bill has also made it easy to prosecute a case as the complainant needs to prove that there was an intention to offer or recive a bribe.

Section 2(4) of the bill states; “It does not matter whether the person to whom the advantage is offered, promised or given is the same person who is to perform, or has performed, the function or activity concerned.”

It further states, in Section 2(5), that; “It does not matter whether the advantage offered, promised or given by a person directly or through a third party.”

The consent to prosecute will, however, be given by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The DPP , according to the Bill, must exercise personally any prosecution function in any such graft case as per the Bill.