Corruption is fighting back, says State House official after court ruling

State House Chief of Staff Nzioka Waita has faulted the Judiciary following the ruling barring the government plan to vet all heads of procurement and accounting in public offices.

High Court judge Onesmus Makau on Wednesday temporarily suspended a circular issued by Head of Public Service Joseph Kinyua directing the said officials to step aside as the government seeks to have them undergo fresh vetting.

Judge Makau issued the ruling pending the hearing and determination of a petition filed by Activist Okiya Omtatah challenging the circular.

Through his official Twitter account, Mr. Waita accused the Judiciary of providing refuge to agents of corruption, adding that the ruling is a clear sign that “corruption is fighting back.”

“Whereas the Judiciary shouldn’t be condemned wholesale, from today’s ruling by the Labour Relations Court stopping vetting of public officers two things are now clear for all to see 1). Corruption is fighting back 2) Agents of impunity have found refuge in the court corridors,” said Waita.

“No matter how many obstacles are thrown in the way of this fight against corruption, there will be no relenting. It is my prayer that the leadership of the Judiciary upon whom the country has placed a lot of faith of will put its house in order.”

The Chief of Staff said the ongoing graft purge will be “messy and uncomfortable” for some, but the government will not soften its stand.

“The fight against corruption will be messy and uncomfortable but it must be done for the greater good of the Nation. Kenyans of goodwill must have the stomach for it,” he added.

In the petition, Omtatah claims the move to send home procurement and accounting heads has created extreme anxiety as it purports to terminate the services of the said officials by sending them on a 30-day compulsory leave.

“It is totally unreasonable and unprocedural unfair for the public officers who have personally not been accused of any wrong doing to be punished,” argues Omtatah.

According to Omtatah, the directive constitutes a gross attack on Article 25(c) of the Constitution which declares that the rights to a fair trial may not be limited.

The petitioner is aggrieved that the blanket disciplinary measure is being imposed on a class of people without holding each one accountable for specific claims as an individual, and without consideration for its impact on the general population and the public service.