On Wednesday 21st October 2009, the Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports, Hon. Prof. Hellen Sambili reinstated the Youth Enterprise Development Fund’s former CEO Mr. Umuro Wario, after a - yet to be made public - Kenya Anti Corruption Commission investigation report that cleared Mr. Wario of any criminal culpability in his activities prior to his suspension and subsequent termination by the Youth Fund’s Board.
In June 2009, the Partnership for Change released a report (published here on this blog) questioning the true reasons for Mr. Wario’s dismissal from the fund, in addition to queries concerning:
As a result of the Fund's deafening silence, sadly we have become fully aware that the Youth Fund’s Board is only interested in retaining full and complete control over this most important national fund; so much so that the Board will go to any lengths (at whatever cost and detriment to its reaching the 3 million of unemployed youth that require it’s assistance) to ensure that Mr. Wario is not allowed back into the Fund’s secretariat.
To spend in the range of millions of precious Kenya shillings to reiterate what has been roundly publicized on our television screens and radios to endear Kenyans to their point of view, has exposed the high handed attitude by the Youth Fund’s Board. Why run to the media now, when in June 2009 the Board fronted by the Chairperson disparaged the same media as being in cahoots with political enemies?
Nevertheless, the Youth Fund’s public statement and extract of the auditors investigation published on Wednesday October 28th, brings onto the fore further questions.
On reading the two page - full colour advertisements* placed in yesterdays Daily Nation and Standard newspapers, it is indeed stupendous that the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission (KACC) exonerated Mr. Wario if the Commission’s investigators were aware of the damning evidence of the State Corporation Inspectorate’s office outlined in the published extract. Surely the KACC investigations would have involved interviewing the Fund’s staff and Board members in addition to the State Inspectorate?
The Youth Fund's Board has stated that it never referred Mr. Wario’s case to the KACC, though in their published statement released yesterday, Mr. Wario is guilty of a wide range of derelictions and/or omissions of duty that would have landed any other public officer in an interrogation room at Integrity House. Yet the Board was benevolent enough to not forward Mr. Wario’s case to the KACC even as they accused him of mismanagement of funds and assets.
Indeed the extract from the report by the Inspectorate of State Corporations confirms the Board’s allegations of gross violations that are in contravention of both the Anti-Corruption Economic Crimes Act 2003, as well as the Public Officers Ethics Act.
1. The Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003 (ACECA)
The Youth Fund by virtue of being a State Corporation is a public body as per the 2003 Act; and Mr. Wario by virtue of his employment at the Youth Enterprise Development Fund fell into the category of a public officer.
The Act defines corruption as including abuse of office or breach of trust. Mr. Wario’s disregard for financial and recruitment procedures (concern #4), attempted diversion of funds without adherence to due process (concern #6) and non-transparent use of financial resources (concern #8) would have surely made him culpable of being charged with corruption.
Furthermore, Mr. Wario’s acts regarding procurement outlined in the advertisement are in breach of the ACECA 2003 s. 45(2), which states that:
According to concern #5 of the extract from the report by the Inspectorate of State Corporations, Mr. Wario was guilty of flouting established procurement rules, and as such is liable under ACECA s. 45(2)(b).
2. The Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003. (POEA)
Under the POEA 2003, Mr. Wario flouted s. 8 which states that:
According to the published extract of the Inspectorate’s report, Mr. Wario was guilty of insubordination (concern #1), had a dismal performance in discharging his duties (concern #2) and lacked strategic direction and execution (concern #3).
This raises the following questions:
Justice can still be done. Under ACECA 2003, the YEDF can now forward their evidence to the KACC which stipulates penalties under section 48:
Mr. Wario can only be judged in a court of law and not in the public court. To spend money that COULD and SHOULD have been used to empower young business people, only makes the Youth Fund look just like what they accuse Youth Minister Hellen Sambili of – acting with impunity!
In June 2009, the Partnership for Change released a report (published here on this blog) questioning the true reasons for Mr. Wario’s dismissal from the fund, in addition to queries concerning:
- Single sourcing of contracts prior to and during Mr. Wario’s tenure as CEO.
- The contentious partnership with Enablis East Africa, that Mr. Wario himself claimed was the main reason behind his termination, and
- The corporate governance structure of the Youth Fund's Board with regards to conflicts of interests among named members.
As a result of the Fund's deafening silence, sadly we have become fully aware that the Youth Fund’s Board is only interested in retaining full and complete control over this most important national fund; so much so that the Board will go to any lengths (at whatever cost and detriment to its reaching the 3 million of unemployed youth that require it’s assistance) to ensure that Mr. Wario is not allowed back into the Fund’s secretariat.
To spend in the range of millions of precious Kenya shillings to reiterate what has been roundly publicized on our television screens and radios to endear Kenyans to their point of view, has exposed the high handed attitude by the Youth Fund’s Board. Why run to the media now, when in June 2009 the Board fronted by the Chairperson disparaged the same media as being in cahoots with political enemies?
Nevertheless, the Youth Fund’s public statement and extract of the auditors investigation published on Wednesday October 28th, brings onto the fore further questions.
On reading the two page - full colour advertisements* placed in yesterdays Daily Nation and Standard newspapers, it is indeed stupendous that the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission (KACC) exonerated Mr. Wario if the Commission’s investigators were aware of the damning evidence of the State Corporation Inspectorate’s office outlined in the published extract. Surely the KACC investigations would have involved interviewing the Fund’s staff and Board members in addition to the State Inspectorate?
The Youth Fund's Board has stated that it never referred Mr. Wario’s case to the KACC, though in their published statement released yesterday, Mr. Wario is guilty of a wide range of derelictions and/or omissions of duty that would have landed any other public officer in an interrogation room at Integrity House. Yet the Board was benevolent enough to not forward Mr. Wario’s case to the KACC even as they accused him of mismanagement of funds and assets.
Indeed the extract from the report by the Inspectorate of State Corporations confirms the Board’s allegations of gross violations that are in contravention of both the Anti-Corruption Economic Crimes Act 2003, as well as the Public Officers Ethics Act.
1. The Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003 (ACECA)
The Youth Fund by virtue of being a State Corporation is a public body as per the 2003 Act; and Mr. Wario by virtue of his employment at the Youth Enterprise Development Fund fell into the category of a public officer.
The Act defines corruption as including abuse of office or breach of trust. Mr. Wario’s disregard for financial and recruitment procedures (concern #4), attempted diversion of funds without adherence to due process (concern #6) and non-transparent use of financial resources (concern #8) would have surely made him culpable of being charged with corruption.
Furthermore, Mr. Wario’s acts regarding procurement outlined in the advertisement are in breach of the ACECA 2003 s. 45(2), which states that:
(2) An officer or person whose functions concern the administration, custody, management, receipt or use of any part of the public revenue or public property is guilty of an offence if the person —
(b) wilfully or carelessly fails to comply with any law or applicable procedures and guidelines relating to the procurement, allocation, sale or disposal of property, tendering of contracts, management of funds or incurring of expenditures.
According to concern #5 of the extract from the report by the Inspectorate of State Corporations, Mr. Wario was guilty of flouting established procurement rules, and as such is liable under ACECA s. 45(2)(b).
2. The Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003. (POEA)
Under the POEA 2003, Mr. Wario flouted s. 8 which states that:
8. A public officer shall, to the best of his ability, carry out his duties and ensure that the services that he provides are provided efficiently and honestly.
According to the published extract of the Inspectorate’s report, Mr. Wario was guilty of insubordination (concern #1), had a dismal performance in discharging his duties (concern #2) and lacked strategic direction and execution (concern #3).
This raises the following questions:
- Why did the YEDF Board not forward Mr. Wario’s case to the KACC seeing that in their paid advertisement they claim that he is responsible for the loss or mismanagement of tax payer funds? This points to the Board’s failure in stewardship of public funds and accountability not only to the Exchequer, but to all Kenyan taxpayers and most importantly to the nation’s youth entrepreneurs.
- The KACC should also answer how it found Mr. Wario not culpable in the face of the damning report by the Inspectorate of State Corporations. If the Commission was diligent in its duties, surely it would have discovered the report; or have they investigated the report and subsequently dismissed it?
Justice can still be done. Under ACECA 2003, the YEDF can now forward their evidence to the KACC which stipulates penalties under section 48:
48. (1) A person convicted of an offence under this Part shall be liable to —Section 35(4) of the Act further allows the Board to pursue Mr. Wario even after they terminated his services, which is what any steward of public resources would have done.
(a) a fine not exceeding one million shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to both
Mr. Wario can only be judged in a court of law and not in the public court. To spend money that COULD and SHOULD have been used to empower young business people, only makes the Youth Fund look just like what they accuse Youth Minister Hellen Sambili of – acting with impunity!
Read the Youth Fund Board's statement
* A phone call to the Daily Nation this afternoon quoted Kshs. 437,000 per full colour full page. Advertisements were also placed in the Standard thus costing approximately 1.5 million shillings. Such a sum could have been invested at Kshs. 50,000 per venture in 30 youth owned enterprises
It may be important to note that the board of the Youth Fund tried to be profesional all along. It chose to communicate to the minister and Wario without involving the media. Wario on his part played the media card, using his friends in the media to propagate the theory that he was sacked for objecting the contract with Enablis. It appears the board felt cornered with public opinion moving to its disadvantage. It had no choice but to lay the facts bare at whatever cost. This probably explains the big spend on media space. Don't tax payers deserve to know the truth at whatever cost?
ReplyDelete