Principal Secretary Harry Kimtai.
The government was yesterday forced to withdraw a response it filed in Parliament over the criteria used to select the 50 Kenyan doctors sent to Cuba for training after MPs found it “glaringly” inconclusive.
The State spent Sh494 million to send the medics for a two-year course in the Caribbean country in 2019.
Medical Services Principal Secretary Harry Kimtai, who had appeared before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report of Auditor-General Nancy Gathungu on the accounts of the State Department for Medical Services for the 2022/23 financial year, had an extremely difficult time justifying the training.
But in the end, he had no choice as the MPs’ inquiries forced him to stand down his response after it was deemed inconclusive.
The audit report that is under consideration before PAC, has flagged how the training of the Kenyan doctors undertaking family medicine in Cuba was undertaken even as MPs claimed that it was laced with favouritism.
Initially, Mr Kimtai had told the watchdog committee that the decision to send the doctors in Cuba was based on an agreement signed by the Kenyan government and that of Cuba in a two-paragraph response to the committee that did not address the “salient” issues raised by the MPs.
“The training of the Kenyan doctors was approved by the State Department for Public Service vide a course approval letter,” said Mr Kimtai in response to the audit query.
The auditors have questioned the lack of approval to train the doctors in foreign-based institutions and the fact that the trained doctors are employees of the 47 county governments.
On March 29, 2019, the two governments through their respective Ministries of Health, signed the agreement on the provision of health services following the approval of the public service on August 27, 2018.
However, MPs Dr Otiende Amollo (Rarieda), Dr Wilberforce Oundo (Funyula) demanded that the PS explain the criteria used to select the 50 doctors as their Butere colleague Tindi Mwale demanded an explanation as to why it was necessary to send the doctors to Cuba.
“The query is on the criteria used to select the 50 doctors, which you have not responded to,” said Dr Amollo adding; “the doctors were very senior serving officers and there is no demonstration that the course is not offered in the country.”
“During the time they were away, who was discharging their mandate?” posed Dr Amollo as Dr Oundo weighed in.
“You have not demonstrated that there was an interview of any nature to find their suitability for the training. How were they identified?” Dr Oundo demanded with Mr Mwale saying; “Do you have any proof that the course the doctors went to study is not offered locally.”
Local institutions
Swamped by questions, PS Kimtai told the committee that the doctors were sent to Cuba for the training because there were not enough training institutions offering the course locally.
“By then, the course was not well established in the country. Only one institution was offering the course locally,” said Mr Kimtai without naming the institution that offered the course locally.
But Dr Amollo was not satisfied with PS Kimtai’s clarification.
“In which university was the course available locally and were the 50 doctors bonded?” posed the Rarieda MP.
At this moment, PS Kimtai threw in the towel, noting the “fundamental issues” that the committee members were raising.
“I want to withdraw this response and provide a detailed explanation of how the 50 doctors were picked for the training,” said the PS.
According to the auditors, training records indicate that the Ministry entered into a contract to train the 50 doctors without evidence that the course was not available in Kenya before granting approval to train in a foreign institution.
“This is contrary to the guidelines on managing training in Public Service,” the auditors say.
The 2017 guidelines on managing training in public service provide that approval to train in foreign-based institutions will only be granted in instances where the courses applied for are not available in local institutions.
According to the audit, a review of human resource records revealed that the trained doctors are not employees of the Ministry but are employed by the county governments which manage their human resource matters including training.
“The management has not provided the criteria used in identification, selection and award of scholarship and why the training could not be done by the respective county governments,” the audit says.
The auditors noted that since the Ministry of Health does not manage the payroll for these employees, the recovery of 20 percent training levy for the sponsored doctors was not made.
The audit adds that although the Ministry of Health had requested various counties to recover the training levy, “this was contrary to the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual for the Public Service 2016.
Section H.5 (2) of the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual for the Public Service 2016 states that officers attending courses lasting more than four weeks in institutions outside the country will contribute at the rate of 20 percent of their basic salary per month for the duration of the course.
“In the circumstances, the management was in breach of the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual for the public service,” the auditors say.
