Fresh bid to have DPP investigated initiated
An activist has petitioned a Nairobi court to compel Commission on Administrative Justice (Ombudsman) to investigate the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), headed by Noordin Haji, over claims of corruption, nepotism, tribalism and favouritism.
Charles Rubia claims the Ombudsman, who is mandated to investigate complaints of abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice or unlawful, oppressive or unresponsive official conduct within the public sector, has failed to do so despite a complaint being forwarded to the office.
Through lawyer Danstan Omari, the activist claims he wrote to the commission on November 21 calling for investigations into the compliance of integrity requirements in the conduct of administrative functions of the DPP.
“The recruitment, welfare and the working environment of the staff of DPP have greatly deteriorated and has been highly compromised becoming shambolic exercise full of undue procedures, and dependent upon the final decision to be made by DPP,” he argues in court documents.
He wants to be allowed to commence Judicial Review Proceedings to compel the commission to act in accordance with their legislative mandate and probe into the maladministration of DPP.
He also wants the court to prohibit Haji from interfering directly or indirectly with the discharge of the mandate of the commission while conducting the probe.
He says recent revelations and insights into the internal affairs at the DPP’s office have shed light on the welfare and work environment which has become hostile and devoid of compliance to law and procedure. “There have been numerous violations in the conduct of discharge of administrative functions and non-compliance of integrity requirements,” he says in court documents.
He contends the Director of Public Prosecution Act, 2013, the HR Manual and advertisement for vacancies provides for the procedure for appointment to a particular position with the DPP, however on or about 2018 to date the procedures are mere writings on paper and have not been implemented or enforced.
“There has been unprocedural hiring of persons citing the title of ‘Special Prosecutor’ who has been single-handedly and unfairly handling most litigation matters and not specific cases without any additional qualifications, expertise or experience,” he says in court documents.
According to Rubia, the signed contracts ought to be called into question for authentication and further, there is a need to establish whether the remuneration is made to align with the advocates’ remuneration order.
According to him, there has been unprocedural secondment of staff with no criteria and there have been disparities in promotion within DPP where there has been unfair treatment of employees who are subject to the process of due promotion.
“Promotions have ceased to be awarded to those who are merited but has become a reserve of the staff who have managed to gain personal favour with the DPP… while some employees are subjected to interviews by the Advisory Board of DPP, others are promoted without being interviewed by the Advisory board,” he says in court documents.
The activist argues that persons credited with the title of Special prosecution counsels were unlawfully selected to be employed at the DPP office.