Documents released by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission have exposed governors, MPs and MCAs who use county government and CDF funds to enrich themselves.
The documents state that the politicians commonly receive 10 per cent kickbacks on CDF and county government projects meant to improve transport, education and health — devolved functions.
They further show that the leaders mandated to protect taxpayers’ funds work closely with county and CDF employees to award 27.9 per cent of the projects to friends and cronies.
The most affected counties are Nairobi, Kakamega, Kisii, Isiolo, Kisumu, Kilifi, Kitui, Murang’a, Kakamega and Mombasa.
“The integrity issues revolve around bribes to public officials and the companies owned by public officials directly or through a proxy, supplying substandard goods and giving public tenders to one supplier over and over again,” one document reads.
Between 2013 and 2017, the EACC received 984 CDF reports of suspected corruption and another 4,281 from counties. They also claimed to detail how money was being siphoned off.
The Nairobi county government accounted for 10 per cent (408 cases) of the reports — all pointing to misappropriation of funds.
“We were not successful in securing interviews with county employees of Nairobi and Murang’a counties,” the EACC says.
The main corruption offences are outright CDF embezzlement, public procurement irregularities, abuse of office, bribery, unethical conduct, fraudulent acquisition and disposal of public property and tax evasion. Others are fraud, conflict of interest, unexplained wealth and bid-rigging.
According to EACC documents, embezzlement of public funds constituted the largest proportion of these reports, the CDF having 57 per cent and 32 per cent for the case of counties.
The EACC further revealed that the integrity of 40 per cent of the contractors was questionable in the face of rampant bribery by public officers.
The EACC established that specific companies control 42.1 per cent of government projects, while 31.6 per cent is controlled by external actors.
Others are unqualified bidders (11.5 per cent), contractors from a specific area (8.2 per cent) and a powerful team (6.6 per cent) that never followed procurement rules.