1.0 CHAPTER ONE.

1.0 CHAPTER ONE.

1.1 INTRODUCTION.

Corruption generally means dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power. It is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It can be classified as grand, petty, and political depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector that occurs[1].

“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law. This leads to violation of human rights, distorts the market, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crimes, terrorism and other threats to social security to flourish[2].”

Corruption is represented in many forms, including bribery, money laundering, fraud, conspiracy, etc. Corruption is

47. An offense under any the provision of sec 39 to sec 44, 46, and 47.
50. Embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds.
51. Abuse of office.
52. Breach of trust.
53. An offense involving dishonesty in connection with any tax, rate, or impost levied under any act, under any written law relating to the election of persons to public[3].

It’s a significant impediment to Kenya’s prosperity and performance, which has resulted in lost public funds. It often leads to adverse effects in economic growth, increases public expenditure, and affects tax collection, which hampers the country’s economy. It also deprives the citizens of getting their basic needs like health care and quality education. It causes inequity as it allows the elite to take advantage of their power and positions in the government by extracting wealth and resources from the citizen. It hinders the government from performing its duty and delivering the election promises to the people.

This chapter provides a comprehensive platform to understand the topic. It mostly includes how the study is going to be conducted. It also provides a background of the study, statement of the problem, justification of the study, the theoretical framework that forms the crux of the research, literature review, objection of the study, chapter breakdown, and analyses them in a systematic manner.

The study seeks to analyze how poor leadership has led to an increase in the cases of Corruption and also shows the challenges that set institutions to face while trying to combat the malice.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY.

Corruption in Kenya can be traced back to the colonial era in the late 19^th century. It was characterized by capitalist production in need of cheap raw material, labor, and the market for its products. Capitalism saw the need to acquire, monopolize, and protect the specific territories which could answer to those needs[4]. Upon independence, some of the colonial tendencies were extended as a highly centralized power characterized the political organization with an all-powerful executive with state power revolving virtually centrifugally around the presidency. The executive power of the state resided in the president and could be exercised by him or through subordinate officers who included civil servants and those appointed to head public enterprises[5].

Corruption could not be openly discussed before 1995, and any attempts to do so were meted with victimization and punitive measures. Though widely known as endemic and rising at a rate that threatened the nation’s socio-economic well-being, it was not openly debatable, particularly in official circles[6].

In 1997, the government came up with a legislative and policy framework to address Corruption due to public outcry and demand to stop Corruption. This saw the government undertaking legal and policy initiatives to address the phenomena by establishing Anti-corruption squad and Kenya Anti-Corruption Authority (KACA) as well as the publication of several proposals on corruption[7].  This gave Kenyans hope that, at last, Corruption would be dealt with more decisively. However, the apparent nobility of these initiatives and the optimism they generated was short-lived, as the political environment remained paradoxical, ambiguous and indifferent casting doubt on Government sincerity in its commitment to fight corruption[8].For instance, the disbandment of Kenya Anti-Corruption Authority was seen as purely politically instigated rather than on strict judicial considerations. Since 1963, the Prevention of Corruption Act had been the principal statute dealing with Corruption until the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) establishing the Kenya Anti- Corruption Commission (KACC) was enacted in 2003.

In 2002 the 3^rd president of the Republic of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki vowed to fight Corruption in a statement made during his inauguration ‘ Corruption will now cease to be a way of life. I call upon all those members of my government and public officers accustomed to corrupt practice to know and clearly understand that there will be no sacred cows under my government”. These initiatives were soon faced by a draw-back when the Anglo-Leasing scandal was revealed in 2004. The Anglo-Leasing scandal destroyed any anti-corruption credentials that President Kibaki ever possessed as the government committed to pay 56 billion to non-existent companies or companies that overpriced the services that they purported to have delivered to the government[9].

The systematic looting of state assets and economic mismanagement has then continued and has become very rampant. After the Anglo leasing and the well-known Goldenberg[10]scandal comes the Uhuru’s regime, which has allowed the continuation of Corruption. It is seen in current cases like the National Youth Service scandal (NYS Scandal)[11]

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Although Kenya has had a relatively good legal and institutional framework to fight Corruption, the corruption index is still on the higher side. In East Africa, Kenya is ranked 4^th position, with Rwanda being the least[12].

However, laws and regulations set to fight Corruption have had some limitations that overlap from the executive, interference from some of the arms of government, long trial process, lack of sufficient evidence, lack of implementation and enforcement of laws, and insufficient funds to fight the vice. This has resulted to the ineffectiveness and impediments of anti-corruption regulations.

The malice has further spread to private institutions where private companies tend to use corrupt means to get tenders from government institutions. Individuals also have developed mechanisms of stealing from the government, for example, former cabinet secretary Echesa. Politicians have also decided to misuse their powers and misappropriated public funds and embezzling monies from their places of authority. In a recent case, Former Kiambu governor was impeached following the accusation of Corruption.

The problem that arises from the study is whether the institutional framework is sufficient to eradicate Corruption and are the legislations well-structured and empowered to fight Corruption.

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The general objective of the study is to seek to examine how the institutional framework will align with anti-corruption strategies to eradicate Corruption and propose best practices that can be adopted to strengthen the fight against Corruption. However, the objective can be broken into two i.e.

1. To critically analyze if the institutional framework for combating Corruption in Kenya is practical.
2. To recommend possible remedies to fight Corruption.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION

The research question in this study include;

1. Is the legislative and institutional framework that has been created effectively in fighting Corruption in Kenya?
2. What strategies can be implemented to make the legislative and institutional frameworks in Kenya more effective in fighting Corruption?

1.6 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

the current rampant growth in Corruption, there is an urgent need to have a study to know the cause of Corruption, how it affects the economy, how to stop Corruption, and develop strategies to strengthen the legal frameworks dealing with Corruption.

The study will review the laws, legislative framework, and institutions dealing with Corruption. It will look at the mandates and responsibilities that they have. The study will seek to give remedies that will weaken the people in the state offices and curb the act. It will provide recommendations on how to deal with Corruption and provide some new suggestions on the penalties for the offenders.

1.7 SIGNIFICANT OF THE STUDY

For a country like Kenya to be able to stop Corruption, it means that all its legislative institutions must be competent and capable of enforcement of the laws available. This means that the institutions must be able to put into effect the anti-corruption rules and ensure that everyone complies with them accordingly. This can be achieved by good governance and cooperation by all arms of government and institutions set to fight Corruption.

The research seeks to make suggestions the fight against Corruption with proper measures linked to good governance.it will help fill the gap by proposing strategies to lower the level of Corruption.

1.8 NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The researcher acknowledges that Corruption’s topic is vast and can be studied in different concepts. Consequently, it has narrowed it to discuss Corruption about the cause of Corruption and the challenges facing the legal, institutional framework for combating Corruption in Kenya. This research is targeting Corruption in state institutions as a sector. The legal framework has not been successful in stemming it out, and the factors contributing to weak and ineffective enforcement frameworks shall be studied. The research, therefore, examines how strengthening and aligning good governance practices with anti-corruption strategy impacts on lowering the level of Corruption in the state institutions. The research findings will be discussed in the last chapter. Through benchmarking, the research hopes to suggest best practices that can be adopted to strengthen the anti-corruption legal enforcement mechanisms through compliance with excellent governance standards to assure accordance with the law and reduce Corruption in Kenya.

1.9 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

This research study was based on the assumption that; empowering institutional frameworks set to fight Corruption would significantly reduce Corruption in Kenya. The institutional structures are to be coupled with good governance and practice core values like fairness, transparency, responsibility, and accountability in the institutions’ management to shun away from unethical practices. Additionally, Corruption can easily be detected, prevented, and the culprits prosecuted by the law, hence significantly reducing the levels of Corruption in the state institutions.

1.10 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

[1] https://www.transparency,org.what is Corruption.

[2] Koffi. Annan, in his speech as the secretary-general of the united nation in the U.N convention against Corruption in 2004.

[3] Sec2, anti-corruption, and economic crimes, cap 65 revised edition 2014(2012)

[4]  CLARION. The Anatomy of Corruption in Kenya: Legal, Political, and Socio-Economic Perspectives. Edited by Kivutha Kibwana, Smokin Wanjala, and Okech-Owiti (Claripress (1996) second reprint 2006,) p. 13I.

[5] bid

[6] Jeremy Pope, Confronting Corruption: The elements of National integrity systems (transparency international 2002)pg. 12

[7] Transparency international (n5)

[8] Ibid

[9] www.marsgroupkenya.org /pages/stories/Anglo leasing

[10]

[11] https:/www.google.com/search?qthenysscandal

[12] E.A corruption index. gateway.transparency.org