Strengthen institutions’ capacities to fight graft
A performance contract is a freely negotiated performance agreement between government, acting as the owner of the agency and its management.
It is a management accountability framework that defines responsibilities and expectations between the two parties to enable them achieve mutually agreed results. It establishes the basis for ensuring prudent use of resources for efficient and effective service delivery to citizens.
A quick look at the just signed performance contracts by Cabinet Secretaries with His Excellency the President Dr William Ruto, reveals a unique departure from previous contracts as the indicator on corruption prevention was expressly included in the contract.
This indicator is normally under the cross cutting section of the performance contract and is reinforced in institutions by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) .
The enforcement is normally through various approaches such as capacity building, corruption risk assessment, issuance of advisories and offering technical support to institutions on development of anti-bribery and corruption policies and procedures. Exclusion of the indicator on corruption prevention from this year’s performance contract, should not be construed to mean that institutions have now been given a blank check to perpetrate corrupt and unethical practices. This should be an opportunity for government Ministries, Departments and Agencies to proactively strengthen their structural capabilities in putting corruption at check.
They can achieve this through adopting and entrenching institutional corruption prevention mechanisms such as establishment and operationalisation of Corruption Prevention Committees (CPCs), continuous capacity building for staff on ethics and integrity and regular mapping of bribery and corruption risks as safeguards against bribery and corruption vices.
This obligation is a legal requirement under Section 9 of the Bribery Act of 2016. Pursuant to the above legal and other policy requirements on combating and preventing corruption, it is worth noting that EACC has developed various policy guidelines among them guidelines on establishment and operationalisation of CPC.
Corruption Prevention Committee is a very important tool which empowers an institution to have a structured way of dealing with corruption. The CPC is chaired by accounting officer and members are heads of department. These guidelines, if fully adopted and implemented, will go a long way in supporting and empowering institutions to mitigate against bribery and corruption challenges at institutional level.
Enforcement of institutional codes of conduct is another key area institutions need to strengthen. According to the United Nations Office and Drugs and Crime, corruption prevention mechanisms often start with rules that prohibit certain types of conduct. Further Article 8 of United Nations Convention Against Corruption, 2003 provides that such codes are to be used for promotion of personal standards (integrity, honesty and responsibility) and professional responsibilities for correct, impartial, honourable and proper performance of public functions.
Therefore, Codes provide guidance on how public officials should conduct themselves in relation to these standards and how they may be held accountable for their actions and decisions. Management of conflict of interest is another area which cannot be ignored when it comes to effective ways of dealing with systemic corruption at institutional level. In conclusion, as government strives to ensure effective implementation of the signed performance contracts in MDAs, it is imperative that measures to check corruption are prioritised and implemented.
To this end, institutions should deliberately mobilise resources towards creation of a corruption intolerant work environment where a culture of integrity thrives.
— The writer is a HR professional and a PhD candidate — [email protected]
