What next for leadership with integrity?

In the past six months—since the political party primaries, the August 9 elections and ongoing formation of the new government—a question posed to me time without number has been, “Does Chapter 6 of the Constitution on leadership and integrity really count?”

This concern is elicited by the quality of leaders churned out from the election and public appointments processes.

Many pronounced our leadership and integrity provisions dead and buried and the few who hoped they can be resuscitated aver that Parliament drove the final nail into the coffin during the vetting of Cabinet and principal secretaries.

The Committee on Appointments and the National Assembly at large made a mockery of the constitutional provisions on leadership and integrity by disregarding key concerns raised on the suitability of some of the candidates.

Some are under investigation or have been charged with criminal cases touching on murder, attempted rape, economic crimes and corruption.

Others were adversely named in parliamentary reports, commissions of inquiry and other competent public fact-finding institutions. Some even volunteered information on the cases that was hitherto not public.

The cases cast aspersions on their integrity—regardless of the principle of presumption of innocence. And while everyone is entitled to fair hearing, it is only logical that one who is accused of corruption or other criminal offences step aside from public office when they have a case(s) to answer.

Why are the standards of ethics and integrity for public office continuously lowered while in our private spaces, including homes, the bar stands high? Most of us would never hire a guard or nanny who is being investigated or charged with an offence!

Several judicial and quasi-judicial pronouncements have either barred or proposed the barring of criminal suspects from public office, even without being convicted.

In the previous administrations, some Executive appointees had to step aside after being implicated in corruption cases.

MPs abrogated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, including provisions of Chapter 6, on integrity and moral and ethical requirements as key to election or selection to public office.

So, what next for Chapter 6? Many Kenyans still aspire to live in the full promise of the Constitution and embody what Chapter Six stands for. As President William Ruto makes more appointments, let him only consider individuals who mirror the aspirations of Kenyans on leadership and integrity.

With the National Assembly having grossly missed the opportunity to reconstruct the moral fibre of Kenya, our focus should largely shift to the Judiciary—to interpret constitutional provisions on leadership and integrity, including addressing the question of whether individuals who have been charged in court for abuse of office, corruption, breach of public trust or any other serious offence should be declared unfit to vie for or hold public office until such a matter is completely exhausted.

Ms Masinde is the executive director, Transparency International Kenya. [email protected].