President William Ruto’s administration has for the past six months lined up a series of multibillion-shilling deals, with concerns raised over some that leave loopholes that questionable entities, countries and brokers could easily exploit to rip off the taxpayer.Since assuming office last September, Dr Ruto has inked more than 10 dealings with countries and well-known businesspeople across the globe, something which his allies have defended saying the current sorry state of the economy requires what they have described as ‘desperate measures’.
Some of the deals lined up include the Sh31 billion tractor imports plan with Belarus, oil importation by Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), Saudi Aramco and Emirates National Oil Company (ENOC) and fertiliser importation.
Other deals include plans by the government to grow maize in Zambia on a 20,000 hectares of land, Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC) borrowing of Sh15 billion from a local commercial bank to fund duty-free imports and 500,000 retail shops to sell maize.
The new administration has also contracted eight new loans worth Sh43.4 billion in the four months between September 1 to December 31. Treasury says the new loans signed between the Kenyan government, and commercial bilateral and multilateral creditors will be repaid between 2030 tSome of the deals are also shrouded in mystery amid a controversial decision by the Executive to remove Parliamentary oversight in the sale of State-owned corporations on top of a major shift in the country’s foreign policy by allowing other countries and their missions to engage directly with ministries and State agencies, without going through Kenya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Some of these radical departures are seen to have loopholes that are prone to abuse by those in office and could end up costing the taxpayer9ys.o 2047
The controversial Cabinet approval of the Privatisation Bill, 2023, which will strip MPs of their oversight role in the sale of State-owned corporations has since attracted heavy criticism and claims of a plan to sell some of the strategic corporations to individuals connected to top government officials.
Prof XN Iraki, Economics scholar, says taking away parliamentary oversight in disposal of State corporations is mischievous as it could be abused by the executive to dispose of public assets at throwaway prices without their involvement.
“Without parliamentary scrutiny, we cannot be guaranteed transparency and value for money. In fact, Parliament should decide on what should be privatised. The expediency of bypassing Parliament should not outweigh scrutiny,” says Prof Iraki.
Similar concerns have also been raised by Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Eric Theuri, who says that by taking away parliamentary oversight, sales of State corporations would turn into a cash cow for those in the Executive.
Read: Making of a scandal: Inside the Sh15 billion drought scam
“The fact that the board of the Privatisation Commission is designed in a way that the chair is appointed by the President and the other members are appointed by the Treasury Cabinet Secretary without any competitiveThe Executive has also described parliamentary approval as bureaucratic.
“This is to avoid unnecessary tedious processes that inhibit efficiency within government. These parastatals are a burden to Kenyans saddled with debts,” says Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei in defence of the Executive.
In the decision to bypass the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, if a foreign nation wants to engage more than one ministry at any one time, such communication should go through Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.
According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, all official business with the receiving State should be conducted through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In making the decision, the government cited the need for efficiency.
Macharia Munene, a professor of history and international relations, says some of the policy decisions by Dr Ruto’s administration are questThe fact that the board of the Privatisation Commission is designed in a way that the chair is appointed by the President and the other members are appointed by the Treasury Cabinet Secretary without any competitive process make it look mischievous,” says Mr Theuri.
He adds: “When we are talking of privatisation we are talking about dilution of government interest in strategic government entities. There has been no rationale in seeking to make these radical changes. If you look at the changes proposed, you are left with one thing that is mischievous and intended for deal making ionable. process m
