The Constitution Implementation Oversight Committee (CIOC), chaired by Bernard Kitur, today held a consultative meeting with officials from the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to review the implementation of Chapter Six of the Constitution on Leadership and Integrity and its relationship with electoral representation under Chapter Seven.
The meeting focused on the country’s electoral preparedness ahead of the 2027 Kenyan General Election, with lawmakers receiving a report from the Commission outlining constitutional and legal challenges that hinder the enforcement of integrity standards for candidates seeking elective office.
During his presentation, EACC Chief Executive Officer, Abdi A. Mohammud briefed the Committee on the Commission’s mandate and highlighted key constitutional provisions that complicate efforts to bar individuals with integrity violations from contesting elections.
He explained that Articles 99(2)(h) and 193(2)(g) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 provide grounds for disqualification of candidates seeking election as Members of Parliament and Members of County Assembly if they are found to have misused or abused public office or violated Chapter Six.
However, Articles 99(3) and 193(3) of the Constitution, alongside Section 24(3) of the Elections Act 2011, provide an exception to such disqualification where an individual has not exhausted all avenues of appeal or review against the decision.
According to Mohammud, these provisions have become the “biggest hindrance” in enforcing ethical and integrity requirements for candidates.
“They allow individuals who have been convicted or found to have violated the Constitution to remain eligible for clearance as long as they demonstrate that an appeal or review is pending,” he said.
The CEO noted that such provisions not only enable candidates with integrity concerns to contest elections, but also allow public officials who have been found culpable to remain in office while their appeals remain unresolved.
To address the challenge, the Commission recommended amendments to the constitutional provisions so that individuals remain disqualified from elective office until their conviction or decision has been successfully overturned on appeal or review.
He further warned that some individuals exploit the current provisions by filing appeals that remain pending indefinitely, effectively circumventing integrity enforcement mechanisms.
Members of the Committee questioned why many corruption-related cases take long to conclude and raised concerns about enforcement tactics used by investigators.
Lawmakers however took the Commission to task to explain why some operations, including raids, are often conducted late at night and widely publicized, sometimes only for suspects to later be cleared without public apologies.
In response, Mr. Mohammud told the Committee that delays in prosecution are largely due to institutional limitations, including the Commission’s lack of direct prosecutorial powers.
He called on Parliament to consider legislative reforms that would grant the EACC authority to prosecute corruption cases directly.
“Most investigations conducted by the commission are forwarded to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), where they sometimes stall, he stated.
“The DPP has extensive discretion to open or close cases, which can sometimes limit the Commission’s ability to see investigations through to prosecution,” Mr. Mohammud explained.
The Committee also raised concerns about the timelines for integrity vetting of electoral candidates.
Mr. Mohammud further informed lawmakers that the law does not set clear statutory timelines for the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to submit candidate details to the EACC for integrity verification, nor does it prescribe deadlines for the commission to return its vetting report.
He said that during general elections, the Commission often receives a large number of candidates for vetting within a period of less than three weeks, making thorough investigations difficult.
However, Committee Member Hon. Wamaua asked why the Commission was not keen to seek the Committee’s support to establishing clear timelines for candidate vetting ahead of the next elections.
Lawmakers also questioned why public servants are increasingly seen engaging in early political campaigns. Hon. Mukunji sought clarification on whether such activities violate constitutional requirements on political neutrality, and if there are any on going investigations on public officers breaching the law.
In response, Hon. Mohammud explained that the Constitution allows certain senior officials, including Cabinet Secretaries and County Executive Committee Members, to engage in politics.
“However, the exemption does not extend to Principal Secretaries, Chief Officers, and other public sector employees, who are required to maintain political neutrality”, he observed.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Mohammud reaffirmed the Commission’s commitment to working with Parliament and other institutions to strengthen ethical leadership and accountability.
“The Commission remains committed to working closely with Parliament and other stakeholders to promote ethical leadership, strengthen accountability frameworks, and safeguard the integrity of Kenya’s electoral processes,” he said.
Despite these progressive deliberations, several concerns remained unresolved. Chairman Hon. Kitur noted that the Committee would hold follow-up engagements with the Commission to address outstanding issues.
He also thanked the EACC for its continued collaboration with Parliament in advancing the fight against corruption and promoting ethics and integrity in public service.
By Anthony Solly
