ttc taskforce report

7/21/2019 TTC TASKFORCE REPORT

1/79

The Taita-Taveta County Taskforce on Nepotism and Favoritism in The Recruitment of County Government Staff

Fair Play

Page 1of 79

THE TAITA-TAVETA COUNTY

TASKFORCE ON NEPOTISM AND FAVOURITISM IN

THE RECRUITMENT OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT

STAFF

Taskforce Motto: - Fair Play

June 2014


2/79


Fair Play

Page 2of 79

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ 4

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.0 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Background of Taita Taveta County .................................................................................................... 6

Population Size and Composition ......................................................................................................... 9

Sex-disaggregated Population Distribution by Constituency ............................................................... 9

Education ............................................................................................................................................ 10

1.2 Background of the Problem under Investigation .............................................................................. 11

1.3 Justification of the Investigation ....................................................................................................... 11

1.4 Purpose of Investigation ................................................................................................................... 12

1.5 Objectives of the investigation ......................................................................................................... 12

1.6 Guiding Questions ............................................................................................................................. 12

1.7 Significance ....................................................................................................................................... 13

1.8 Scope of the investigation................................................................................................................. 13

1.9 Limitation .......................................................................................................................................... 13

1.10 Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 13

2.0 CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 14

2.1 NEPOTISM AND FAVORITISM ............................................................................................................ 14

2.1.1 In favor of Nepotism and Favoritism ......................................................................................... 17

2.1.2 The downside of Nepotism and Favoritism ............................................................................... 18

2.2 INTERPRETING THE BILL OF RIGHTS .................................................................................................. 19

2.2.1 Introduction to Bills of Rights..................................................................................................... 19

2.2.2 The origin of the concept of a bill of rights ................................................................................ 20

2.2.3 Actualization of the Bill of rights ................................................................................................ 21

2.3 AFRICAN MORAL THEORY ................................................................................................................. 22

2.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 25

3.0 CHAPTER (THREE): METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 28

3.1 Investigation design .......................................................................................................................... 28


3/79


Fair Play

Page 3of 79

3.2 Justification of the Investigation Design ........................................................................................... 28

3.3 Study Area: ........................................................................................................................................ 29

3.4 Target population ............................................................................................................................. 29

3.5 Sampling Techniques ........................................................................................................................ 29

3.6 Sample size: ....................................................................................................................................... 29

3.7 Investigative Instruments ................................................................................................................. 30

3.8 Validity and Reliability:...................................................................................................................... 30

3.9 Data Collection techniques: .............................................................................................................. 30

3.10 Logistical and Ethical Considerations: ............................................................................................. 30

4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................................................... 31

4.1 THE ALLEGATIONS ON NEPOTISM, FAVORITISM and OTHER MALPRACTICES ................................. 31

4.2 ALLEGATIONS ON FORMER LOCAL AUTHORITIES STAFF .................................................................. 62

5.0 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................... 68

5.1 Failure by the Complainants to Substantiate some Allegations ...................................................... 68

5.2 Personal Assistants to the CECs ...................................................................................................... 68

5.3 Appointment of Advisors and personal Assistants to the H.E the Governor.................................... 69

5.4 Allegations on Nepotism and Favoritism in job appointments ........................................................ 69

5.5 The Allegations on Flawed Recruitment process .............................................................................. 70

5.6 Employment of Casuals ..................................................................................................................... 73

5.7 Staff from former Local Authorities .................................................................................................. 73

5.8 Regret letters were not sent ............................................................................................................. 73

5.9 Empowering the CPSB ....................................................................................................................... 73

5.10 Limitations to this investigation ...................................................................................................... 75

6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 76

7.0 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... 78

7.1 TASKFORCE MEMBERS ...................................................................................................................... 78


4/79


Fair Play

Page 4of 79

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CEC - County Executive Committee MemberCGA - County Government ActCOK - Constitution of Kenya

CPSB - County Public Service BoardJKUAT - Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & TechnologyKNBS - Kenya National Bureau of StatisticsPA - Personal AssistantPWD - Person With DisabilitySID - Society for International Development


5/79


Fair Play

Page 5of 79

ABSTRACT

Following allegations of malpractices in the recruitment process of the Taita Taveta County

Government staff, H.E Eng. John M. Mruttu, the Governor of Taita Taveta County, deemed it fit

to constitute a task force to carry out investigations on the matter. Allegations of nepotism,

favoritism and other malpractices had been made over the social sites such as facebook and FM

stations.

This taskforce was appointed by H.E the Governor to investigate allegations of nepotism and

favoritism in the recruitment process of staff in the County Government of Taita-Taveta. While

the latters leadership wasperceived deficient by a cross section of its own electorates, with

allegations of ineffectiveness to respond positively to problems facing its residents; the Governor

found it appropriate to gather and record the grievances from the public and an investigation

done on the same before responding to these issue.

The purpose of this taskforce was to investigate allegations on the recruitment process and after

which give recommendations. Using the cluster and purposive sampling techniques as well as

collecting data using interviews and questionnaires, the investigation recommends necessary

actions deemed appropriate based on the investigation findings, guided by case studies whose

recommendations have proved successful in previous investigations.

The recommendations of this investigation process guided by supremacy of the constitution,reason, reality, tradition, and experience are to enable the county government respond to its

residents on allegations of nepotism and favoritism.


6/79


Fair Play

Page 6of 79

1.0 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Taita Taveta County

Taita Taveta County is one of the six Counties in the Coastal region of Kenya. It is located

approximately 200 Km northwest of the coastal city of Mombasa and 360 Km southeast of

Nairobi, the capital city of Kenya. It borders Tana River, Kitui and Makueni Counties to the

North, Kwale and Kilifi Counties to the East, Kajiado County to the North-West, and the

Republic of Tanzania to the South and South-west. The County covers an area of 17,084.1 Km2

and lies between latitude 2 46South and 4 10South and longitude 37 36East and 30 14

East.

Taita Taveta County is divided into various administrative and political units crucial for

management of the County and also service delivery to the public.

In terms of political units, the County has four constituencies namely, Wundanyi, Mwatate, Voi

and Taveta. These are further divided into 20 electoral wards, otherwise referred to as County

assembly areas.

With regard to administrative subdivisions, the County is composed of four sub-County units

which follow the same boundaries as the constituencies and hence go by the same name as those

of the constituencies. The County is further divided into 32 and 90 locations and sub-locations

respectively.

The size of each of the four sub-County units, the number of electoral wards in each of these

units, the respective number of sub-locations is shown in Table 1 below (Independent Electoral

and Boundaries Commission, 2012 - 2013).


7/79


Fair Play

Page 7of 79

Constituency No. of Wards Approx. Area in

Km2

Name of Electoral

Ward

Approx. Area

in Km2

No. of Sub-

locations

Taveta 5 626.2 Challa 207.4 5

Mahoo 51.4 6

Bomani 9.5 2

Mboghoni 169.2 5

Mata 188.7 5

Tsavo West

National Park1

6,543.8 - 6,543.8 -

Wundanyi 4 701.3 Wundanyi/ Mbale 44.1 8

Werugha 27.2 4

Wumingu/ Kishushe 525.1 6

Mwanda/ Mgange 104.8 6

Mwatate 5 1837.6 Rong'e 132.4 7

Mwatate 343.0 3

Bura 870.5 8

Chawia 396.5 4

Wusi/Kishamba 39.5 5

Voi 6 3,269.1 Mbololo 205.5 3

Ngolia 84.6 3

Sagalla 424.8 4

Kaloleni 77.9 1

Marungu 822.6 2

Kasighau 1653.7 3

Tsavo East

National Park2

4,106.1 - 4,106.1 -

TOTAL 20 17,084.1 20 17,084.1 90

1: The Tsavo West

1 and East

2 National Parks are not administrative units but their inclusion in this table is to

indicate where they are located. The total national park area is 10,649.9 Km2, translating to about 62 % of total

County area.


8/79


Fair Play

Page 8of 79

Map 2 below shows administrative as well as political units of Taita Taveta County (Statistics, 2013).

Map 1: Map of Taita Taveta County Administrative and Political Units


9/79


Fair Play

Page 9of 79

Population Size and Composition

As of 2009, the population of the County was 284,657 (KNBS, 2009) where females and males

were 139,323 and 145,334 respectively. The County population was projected to be 306,205 in

2012 comprising of 149, 869 females and 156,336 males. Further projections indicate that the

total County population will increase to 329,383 and 345,800 in 2015 and 2017 respectively.

Table 4 below gives the County population projections based on age cohorts (KNBS, 2009).

Sex-disaggregated Population Distribution by Constituency

Table 4 below gives sex-disaggregated population distribution by constituency, including

projected figures (KNBS, 2009).

Constitu

2009 (Census) 2012 (Projections) 2015 (Projections) 2017 (Projections)Male Fem

Total Male Fem

Total Male Fem

Total Male Fem

Total

Wundan

28,0

27,9

56,0

30,1

30,0

60,2

32,4

32,3

64,8

34,0

33,9

68,0

Mwatat

35,8

35,7

71,5

38,5

3,84

76,9

41,4

41,3

82,7

43,4

43,3

86,8

Voi 46,4

43,0

89,4

49,9

46,2

9,62

53,7

49,7

103,

56,4

52,2

108,

Taveta 35,0

32,6

67,6

37,6

35,1

72,7

40,5

37,7

78,2

42,5

39,6

82,1

County

Total

145,

334

139,

323

284,

657

156,

335

149,

869

306,

204

168,

168

161,

213

329,

381

176,

551

169,

249

345,

800

Table 1: Population Projections by Constituency and by Sex

Of the four constituencies, Voi has the highest number of people, 96,229, comprising of 49,967

males and 46,262 females, representing 51.9% and 48.1% respectively. Total population for Voi

is projected to grow to 103,513 and 108,673 in 2015 and 2017 respectively.

Mwatate follows second with a population of 76,926, closely followed by Taveta, which has

72,787. Wundanyi constituency has the least population, which is 60,261, where males and

females are 30,187 and 30,074 respectively. In terms of proportion, that of males is 0.499 while

that of females is 0.501. The sex ratio is however 1:1.


10/79


Fair Play

Page 10of 79

Table 2: Population Projection by Age Cohorts

Age

group

2009 (Census) 2012 (Projections) 2015 (Projections) 2017 (Projections)

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

0-4 19,134 18,646 37,780 20,582 20,057 40,640 22,140 21,576 43,716 23,244 22,651 45,895

5-9 18,046 17,721 35,767 19,412 19,062 38,474 20,881 20,505 41,387 21,922 21,527 43,450

10-14 16,895 16,767 33,662 18,174 18,036 36,210 19,549 19,401 38,951 20,524 20,368 40,892

15-19 15,490 14,330 29,820 16,662 15,415 32,077 17,924 16,581 34,505 18,817 17,408 36,225

20-24 12,850 12,519 25,369 13,823 13,467 27,289 14,869 14,486 29,355 15,610 15,208 30,818

25-29 12,140 10,886 23,026 13,059 11,710 24,769 14,047 12,596 26,644 14,748 13,224 27,972

30-34 10,723 9,018 19,741 11,535 9,701 21,235 12,408 10,435 22,843 13,026 10,955 23,981

35-39 9,051 8,010 17,061 9,736 8,616 18,352 1,0473 9,268 19,742 10,995 9,730 20,726

40-44 6,853 6,104 12,957 7,372 6,566 13,938 7,930 7,063 14,993 8,325 7,415 15,740

45-49 5,997 5,766 11,763 6,451 6,202 12,653 6,939 6,672 13,611 7,285 7,005 14,290

50-54 4,588 4,658 9,246 4,935 5,011 9,946 5,309 5,390 10,699 5,573 5,659 11,232

55-59 3,947 3,715 7,662 4,246 3,996 8,242 4,567 4,299 8,866 4,795 4,513 9,308

60-64 2,995 3,288 6,283 3,222 3,537 6,759 3,466 3,805 7,270 3,638 3,994 7,633

65-69 2,180 2,360 4,540 2,345 2,539 4,884 2,523 2,731 5,253 2,648 2,867 5,515

70-74 1,754 1,962 3,716 1,887 2,111 3,997 2,030 2,270 4,300 2,131 2,383 4,514

75-79 1,093 1,387 2,480 1,176 1,492 2,668 1,265 1,605 2,870 1,328 1,685 3,013

80+ 1,514 2,129 3,643 1,629 2,290 3,919 1,752 2,463 4,215 1,839 2,586 4,425

Age NS3

84 57 141 90 61 151 97 66 163 102 69 171

Total 145,334 139,323 284,657 156,336 149,869 306,205 168,169 161,212 329,383 176,550 169,247 345,800

Education

According to KNBS and SID 2013,

.A total of 21% of Taita-Taveta County residents have secondary level of education or

above. Wundanyi constituency has the highest share of residents with a secondary level

of education or above at 27%. This is almost twice Taveta constituency, which has the

lowest share of residents with secondary level of education or above.

Wundanyi is 6 percentage points above the county average. Mbololo ward has the highest

share of residents with a secondary level of education or above at 33%. This is almost


11/79


Fair Play

Page 11of 79

four times Kasighau ward, which has the lowest share of residents with secondary level

of education or above. Mbololo is 12 percentage points above the county average.

Taita-Taveta County has 60% of its residents having only a primary level of education.

Taveta constituency has the highest share of residents with a primary level of education

only at 64%. This is 8 percentage points above Voi constituency, which has the lowest

share of residents with a primary level of education only. This places Taveta 4 percentage

points above the county average. Mboghoni ward has the highest share of residents with a

primary level of education only at 68%. This is 15 percentage points above Mbololo

ward, which has the lowest share of residents with a primary level of education only.

Mboghoni is therefore 8 percentage points above the county average.

A total of 18% of Taita-Taveta County residents have no formal education. Taveta

constituency has the highest share of residents with no formal education at 21%.This is 6percentage points above Wundanyi constituency, which has the lowest share of residents

with no formal education. Taveta constituency is 3 percentage points above the county

average. Kasighau ward has the highest percentage of residents with no formal education

at 32%. This is almost three times the ward with the lowest percentage of residents in

Wundanyi/Mbale ward with no formal education. Kasighau is 14 percentage points above

the county average

1.2 Background of the Problem under Investigation

There was a public outcry between December 2013 and February 2014 in the manner in which

the recruitment process was being conducted by the Taita Taveta County Government.

Allegations of nepotism and favoritism were made over the social sites such as facebook (e.g. in

Taita Taveta County Citizenry Forum page, Taita Taveta County Government page, Taita Taveta

County Shadow Government Page), FM stations, etc.

1.3 Justification of the Investigation

Based on the raised allegations by the public, H.E Eng. John M. Mruttu, the Governor of Taita

Taveta County deemed it fit to constitute a task force to carry out investigations on the matter to

unveil the truth; and hence respond to grievances from the various quarters of the public on the

alleged unfair recruitment process.


12/79


Fair Play

Page 12of 79

1.4 Purpose of Investigation

To investigate on the allegations of nepotism, favoritism and other malpractices in the

recruitment process and draw recommendations.

1.5 Objectives of the investigation

1. To record from the public allegations of nepotism, favoritism and malpractices in the

recruitment process of Taita Taveta County Government

2.

To gather specific evidence on specific allegations of nepotism, favoritism and other

malpractices in the recruitment process.3.

To make recommendations to the Taita Taveta County Government on the best ways to

carry out the recruitment exercise with regard to achieving gender parity, inclusivity of

minorities and those living with disabilities and fair geographical distribution of positions

4. To recommend ways of improving service delivery by the county government of Taita

Taveta based on the issues and allegations raised by the public during the investigation

exercise of the taskforce.

1.6 Guiding Questions

i. What evident malpractices are there in the recruitment process of Taita Taveta County

Government?

ii.

What evidence is there on the specific allegations of nepotism, favoritism and other

malpractices in the recruitment process?

iii.

What recommendations can you make to the Taita Taveta County Government on the best

ways to carry out the recruitment exercise with regard to achieving gender parity, inclusivity

of minorities and those living with disabilities and fair geographical distribution of positionsiv. What recommendations can you make to improve on service delivery by the county

government of Taita Taveta?


13/79


Fair Play

Page 13of 79

1.7 Significance

This investigation was meant to verify the alleged cases of nepotism, favoritism andmalpractices

in the recruitment process of Taita Taveta County Government and make recommendations to

H.E the Governor on the best way forward. The findings of the investigation were aimed at

ensuring that the Taita Taveta County residents are subjected to a fair recruitment process in the

County Government.

1.8 Scope of the investigation

The investigation was carried out within the scope of the recruitment process and service

delivery in the Taita Taveta County. This investigation was carried between March 2014 to

June 2014.

1.9 Limitation

The exercise was anticipated to take the shortest time possible; however, this was determined by

the availability of secondary data from the various channels of recruitment in the Government as

well as the normal work schedule of the committee members.

1.10 Assumptionsi.

Allegations made by the members of the public were grave enough to warrant

clarifications from the government officials

ii. The information and supporting documents given by the adversely mentioned persons

and agencies was true.

iii. The task force assumed that they would gain access to all existing staff data and that

pertaining to the recruitment process

iv. The taskforce assumed to get full co-operation from all the complainants, government

officials and agencies mentioned


14/79


Fair Play

Page 14of 79

2.0 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 NEPOTISM AND FAVORITISM

The word nepotism is derived from the Latin wordNepos, which means nephew or grandchild.

Nepotism is favoritism showed to relatives, to people of same ethnic orientation and to people

of the same sex, gender, belief, political party and associations. (Faan Malan and Ben Smit in

Ethics and Leadership in Business and Politics; 2001)

Nepotism at work place can also be referred to as a hiring decision based solely on familyties

versus a career choice that leads to hiring based on merit (Jones, 2008)

zler et al., 2007, defines nepotism as an instance where a person is appointed or promoted onthe basis of family regardless of ability, education, skills etc.

Aduomi, 2014 also explains nepotism as a kind of discrimination, tribalism and refined

xenophobia.

On the other hand, favoritism refers to the act of offering jobs, contracts and resources to

members of ones own social group in preference to others who are outside thegroup (Yann

Bramoull and Sanjeev Goyal, 2010)

Cronyism is a more specific form of favoritism, referring to partiality towards friends and

associates. According to Arasl and Tmer (2008), cronyism is where friends (excluding

relatives) are given undue favor in promotion or appointments.

According to Osei, 2004, favoritism is as bad as nepotism as in both cases fair play is thrown to

the winds; especially where appointments are not based on merit but on selfish considerations.

They are all based on partiality. The slight difference between the two is that, nepotism strictlyfavors relatives (either close or distant) whereas favoritism benefits non-relatives as long as the

self-interest of the perpetrators is satisfied.

Nepotism is not a local predicament but universal. According to F. Malan and B. Smit, Nepotism

is evident in most public administrations.


15/79


Fair Play

Page 15of 79

John Stossel in http://www.hume.ufm.edu/images/b/be/Types_of_Nepotism.pdf paints out how

nepotism is evident among many nations; American political dynasties have been in power for

much of the past century - John F. Kennedy became president, and then appointed his brother

Robert F. Kennedy to be U.S. attorney general. Both Vice President Al Gore and his father were

senators from Tennessee. And not only was George W. Bush's father president, but his great -

grandfather was a U.S. senator. And it isn't limited to presidential and vice presidential politics.

Family connections are all over the capital. Colin Powell's son was appointed chairman of the

Federal Communications Commission. The wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R- Ky., Elaine Chao,

was appointed secretary of Labor. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist's daughter,

Janet, was appointed inspector- general of the Department of Health and Human Services. In

United Kingdom, in February 2010, Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on

Standards in Public Life, said that more than 200 MPs used Parliamentary allowances to employtheir own relatives in a variety of office roles. Trinidad and Tobago Former Prime Minister

Patrick Manning appointed his unelected wife Hazel Manning to the Cabinet for two consecutive

terms, first as Minister of Education and then as Minister of Local Government. In Sri- Lanka,

Mahinda Rajapaksa has been accused of nepotism, by appointing three brothers to run important

ministries and other political positions for relatives, regardless of their merit.

According to Jelani; 2011, in South Africa, there was public outcry on nepotism and favoritism

in the recruitment of senior officials of government.

In the Kenyan government, the Kenya National Assembly Official Record (Hansard) 26 Oct

2004 records a concern raised in the Kenyan parliament when Mr. Gichohi was appointed to

head Grand Regency Hotel when it was under receivership. He was said to be the brother-in-law

to Dr. Kuria, one of the Assisting Counsel to the Commission of enquiry to the Goldenberg

affair.

The Kenya National Assembly Official Record (Hansard) of 15th

June 2005 also depicts aconcern by a member of assembly on the fear of nepotism and tribalism in the recruitment of

heads of parastatals by the Narc Party led Government. On 24 thof March 2010, the Hansard also

records the then Minister of state for Public Service (Mr. Otieno) responding to a question on the

steps the government was taking to curb nepotism and favoritism in the Public Service.


16/79


Fair Play

Page 16of 79

According to Dr. C. Odhiambo - Mbai, 2013, at the start of the Africanisation of key positions in

the public service of Kenya, the ruling elite used ethnicity and nepotism as the main criteria to

appoint people into these positions. Similarly, other regimes are accused of using ethnicity and

nepotism as the criteria for appointing their close confidants to the key positions in the public

service. When one is appointed into position of authority in the public service on the basis of

ethnicity and nepotism, it becomes almost impossible for such a person to see anything wrong in

also using the same criteria to distribute public resources or dispense public services.

Under the current county governments, there have been allegations of nepotism and favoritism in

the recruitment of government officials with a case in point of Kwale County (Kwale County

Assembly Labor Committee Report 2013)

It is detrimental to hire friends and family; while conducting interviews just as a formality. Whilesome employers think that nepotism is an efficient way to recruit new workers and making

themselves happy being surrounded by loved ones other employers also worry that morale will

suffer among some other employees. For example, what if coworkers perceive that relatives are

treated more favorably than the rest of the team? How is an employer to supervise the boss's

spouse? What if an employee wants to make a harassment complaint to HR, but the head of the

HR department is related to the alleged harasser? Not to mention the problems that can arise at

work if family affairs overflow to the work places (http://csufacultyvoice.blogspot.com,

accessed, 29.5.2014 and http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia, accessed, 29.5.2014)

On occasions where people are given intentional positions, for which they do not have the

relevant skills, training, or experience, they are unlikely to perform as well as someone recruited

on merit. They will be difficult, if not impossible, to fire; indeed, such hiring puts supervisors in

tough positions. Nepotism and favoritism undermines all sense of fairness in the human

resources process, dampens motivation

if they see that someone has obtained a position that was

never advertised, and in general breeds distrust. Those from outside may perceive it impossibleto get a position or was advertised as a formality.

Productivity drops for everyone when there is a feeling that rewards are not based on

performance, but on nepotism and favoritism.


17/79


Fair Play

Page 17of 79

Certainly, nepotism goes against the fundamentals of Weberian principle that technical

competence (merit), and not kinship, social status, or heredity, should be the criterion for role

assignment. So this raises an ethical question: is there such a thing as an entitlement to a job?

And is the provision of a job by the side of the premises of nepotism for ones relative or crony,

a favor but hidden in the dress of qualifications?

In Taita Taveta County, a scenario need not be created where some residents will be living in

hope that they will always benefit from the nepotism and cronyism that seems to be finding

habitation in our young county.

An institution needs to be built with the express intention of handing it over to future generation

and in accordance with the County Government Act 2012 Sec 59 1(e) and Article 10 and 232 of

the Constitution of Kenya 2010, and with this intention, adherence to procedures and regulations

is imperative.

It should be worth acknowledging that the prospective employee needs to have a vested interest

in seeing an institution do well. One is expected to be more committed in terms of going above

and beyond when necessary, and accepting the laid out terms.

2.1.1 In favor of Nepotism and Favoritism

Nepotism in the workplace can be a positive experience for everyone involved, but only if

governed by unbiased governance practices and consistent accountability for policies and

procedures (Patricia Lotich, 2013)

It practicing nepotism, in defense, it may also be argued that when there are deliberate objectives

to be achieved in an organization, one may not need to go through a costly and time-consuming

recruitment process where presumably something is known about the person to be hired; what

their main strengths and weaknesses are, whether theyre reliable and trustworthy, whether their

values will fit with the institution culture and so on.

Sometimes, an employed family member will have a vested interest in seeing specific issues

undertaken to the delight of the employer. Therefore they will be more committed in terms of

going above and beyond when necessary and possibly, thoughtlessly accept whatever is decided,


18/79


Fair Play

Page 18of 79

even if it is against laid down regulations (Nepotism and Personal Relationships in the

Workplace, http://www.princeton.edu: accessed, 29.5.2014).

According to P. Budhwar and Y. Debrah, 2006, while nepotism and ethnicity may be inefficient

and even unfair, they also have advantage. The cronies sometimes have a very strong

commitment to their sponsor and are often unreservedly loyal. They see the success of the

sponsor as their personal success, and indeed as the success of their group. Thus they put in

effort beyond the required by the formal system.

Hiring family members can also provide benefits to companies, for example by reducing their

health insurance costs

2.1.2 The downside of Nepotism and Favoritism

According to Yann Bramoull and Sanjeev Goyal, 2010, Favoritism is prevalent in both rich

and poor countries. At the same time, favoritism is widely associated with economic

inefficiency, violent political opposition and slow economic growth

If you live with someone and work all day with them as well, there is the potential for your

relationship to become strained. If you have a disagreement at work, that disagreement follows

you home to the dinner table. If you disagree at home, it follows you into the office. With no

clear separation between work and personal life, your relationship and your work performance

could suffer as a consequence; this will eventually affect service delivery and the citizens suffer

in turn. If its not an immediate family member, but a close friend that you always get on well

with, there are still no guarantees this will be the same in a working relationship.

Employing friends or relatives can also create difficulties for you personally. Because of your

relationship, performance management issues can be awkward and you may feel your hands are

tied in certain areas, which is not a great way to be running a government. According to P.

Budhwar and Y. Debrah, 2006, managers find it difficult to maintain principles of objectivity

and meritocracy in decisions regarding discipline, promotion and performance management.

The other main downside to hiring friends and family is the effect this can have on your other

employees. If the person you hire or promote is not qualified for the job, they are immediately


19/79


Fair Play

Page 19of 79

going to be seen by others as receiving preferential treatment. This will not only affect their

ability to perform the role, as they will be regarded with suspicion and even hostility, but it will

also affect your standing as an employer.

If an employer is seen to be rewarding on the basis of relationships rather than merit, then the

employees may lose trust and have less respect to the employer

This will result in loss of overall productivity, as hard work is no longer seen as the way to get

reward. Loss of loyalty may also translate into reduced staff focus and high staff-turnover, as

disgruntled employees look for better opportunities elsewhere.

The public has been aggravated to an extent of raising an alarm and this is a dilemma. This is

what has made a huge contribution to the existing conflict relating to distribution of the scarce

available resources, and employment opportunities not only to the Kenyan society but Africa at

large, and now haunting the Taita-Taveta County Government.

2.2 INTERPRETING THE BILL OF RIGHTS

2.2.1 Introduction to Bills of Rights

A Bill of Rights is important as a symbol of the values that a country stands for. Principles of

human rights are a key countervailing force to the exercise of totalitarian, bureaucratic and

institutional powerwidely identified as the greatest threats to the liberty of the individual and

democratic freedoms.

These principles are entrenched in constitutions around the world to provide citizens with

protection from unwarranted interference from the state and to offer a legal basis upon which to

challenge government action that violate them.

A Bill of Rights is particularly important to protect the rights of religious, ethnic, linguistic and

other minorities, whose interests can be easily ignored by the numerical majority and overruled

by democratically elected governments.


20/79


Fair Play

Page 20of 79

2.2.2 The origin of the concept of a bill of rights

The idea of a Bill of Rights descends from a long tradition of philosophy, espoused by theorists

such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, which focused on the idea of individual rights that

are safeguarded by and against the government. This conception of human rights was

enshrined in the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and the American

Bill of Rights.

The contemporary framework for human rights discourse was initiated following World War II

with the inception of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This

perspective on human rights is more democratic, less individualistic and has an international

focus.

It places additional emphasis on protection from discrimination, focuses on the right of

every individual to equality before the law, and introduces socio-economic rights, which attempt

to reduce inequality and remedy unequal access to services. It is less individualistic because

it looks beyond the individual, who is the primary repository of rights under classical theories of

human rights, to provide for some group rights.

By having a Bill of Rights, Kenya has accepted the idea of international human rights as

universally applicable and relevant to Kenyan society. However, the ability of the Executive,

Legislature and Judiciary to effect change depends somewhat on the perceived relevance of the

Bill of Rights to Kenyan society. State organs will only be willing to provide a robust

interpretation and application of the Bill of Rights, and stakeholders will only be willing to

observe the Bill of Rights and its associated jurisprudence, if they perceive the Bill of Rights as

legitimate and a reflection of values widely held in society.

It is therefore important for stakeholders to continue to provide public education on the

Constitution to ensure that the general population has a basic understanding of what the Bill of

Rights is and why it is beneficial to them.


21/79


Fair Play

Page 21of 79

2.2.3 Actualization of the Bill of rights

Therefore, the process of implementation of the Constitution of Kenya needs to enhance

perceptions of inclusion if it is to facilitate real transition to democracy, peace and respect for

human rights. Through fulfilling its duty to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfill the

rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights, the State has the opportunity to

ensure that every Kenyan feels equally protected by the Constitution, which is necessary to

facilitate meaningful movement towards a just and equal society.

There is need for the executive to conduct civic education on basic international treaties which

our country has ratified such that the same can be applied domestically. This will also enable

people not to interpret and apply the Bill of rights in isolation of other treaties, conventions, and

other relevant legislations which can help in actualizing human rights.

Specifically, article 24 of the Constitution provides that:

(1) A right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and

then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic

society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors,

including-

(a) The nature of the right or fundamental freedom;

(b) The importance of the purpose of the limitation;

(c) The nature and extent of the limitation;

(d) The need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual

does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; and

(e) The relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less

restrictive means to achieve the purpose.


22/79


Fair Play

Page 22of 79

The above criteria is in essence a codification of what has commonly been referred to as the

Oakes Test developed by the Canadian Supreme Court in R. Vs. Oakes when it sought to

interpret the limitations clause in Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that

allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if it can be

demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Court observed that the values that underpin a free and democratic society and

which should be used as the ultimate standard for interpretation of the limitation clause are

values such as respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice

and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity,

and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals

and groups in society.

2.3 AFRICAN MORAL THEORY

The main motivation for fighting discrimination is clearly moral, based on the wish to live in a

society in which people are not treated differentially according to their group (status) or ethnic

affiliation (Fershtman, Gneezy and Verboven: 2002)

A moral theory is a fundamental principle that accounts for what right actions, as distinct from

wrong, have in common. It is a single principle that purports to entail and explain all permissible

decisions, as contrasted with those that are not permitted. Key examples from western

philosophy include: the principle of utility, that an act is wrong in so far as it fails to improve the

average quality of life; and the principle of respect, that an act is wrong in so far as it degrades

peoples autonomy.

A moral theory counts as African if informed by manyof the firm ethical beliefs of a variety of

sub-Saharan peoples. To deem a moral theory African does not therefore imply that all sub-

Saharan societies have believed it or, indeed, that any has been aware of it. An African ethical

principle is a philosophical construction unifying a wide array of the moral judgments and

practices found among many of the black and Bantu-speaking peoples of the sub-Saharan region.

Furthermore, it is possible for a moral theory to be defined as African yet resemble one found in

the West.


23/79


Fair Play

Page 23of 79

The African moral theory employs to appraise the debate between impartialism and partialism:

An act is right just insofar it is a way of prizing harmony with others, i.e., relationships

in which people share a way of life and are in solidarity with one another. An action is

wrong if and only if it fails to honor relationships in which we identify with others and

exhibit good-will toward them (Metz 2007a).

To unpack this terse statement, consider that in most traditional or indigenous sub-Saharan

societies, morality is often summed up by the phrases,

A person is a person through other persons, and I am because we are (Mbiti 1969:

10809; Menkiti 1979).

When Africans make these claims, they are indicating, in part, that the only way to develop

moral personhood, to become a virtuous agent or lead a genuinely human life, is to interact with

others in a certain way.

This assertion might sound trivial but notice how it differs from major western moral theories,

such as Kantianism and utilitarianism. Imagine someone alone on an island. The Kantian

believes that, in addition to duties to others, people have duties to themselves, specifically to

protect and develop a capacity for autonomy.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and renowned leader of South

AfricasTruth and Reconciliation Commission, sums up one major strand of African ethical

thinking this way:

Harmony, friendliness, community are great goods. Social harmony is for us the

greatest good. Anything that subverts or undermines this sought-after good is to be

avoided. Anger, resentment, lust for revenge, and even success through aggressivecompetitiveness, are corrosive of this good (Tutu 1999: 35).

For Tutu and many other Africans, harmony is valued highly for its own sake, not merely as a

means to some other ultimate good, such as happiness.


24/79


Fair Play

Page 24of 79

Harmonious, cohesive or communal relationships are not merely those of any stable, peaceful

group. The harmony to prize is that in which people both identify and exhibit solidarity with one

another. It is good to identify with other people, or share a life with them, instead of the self

being I, distinct from others, the self becomes we, including others and included by others

too. Harming others exhibits ill will.

Conversely, this African moral theory forbids people from being unfriendly. It prohibits people

not only from isolating themselves from others or, worse, defining themselves in opposition to or

subordinating them, which is divisive, but also from not caring about others interests or, worse,

expressing ill will.

The prescription to respect harmonious relationships entails living in valuing consensus in

decision making and seeking unanimous agreement. African moral theory therefore prescribes

promoting peoples happiness identify with one another, exhibit goodwill and hence act

correctly. African morality fundamentally values sharing a life with others this puts into place

basic moral value on relationships in which people identify with one another.

Part of identifying with others is not to subordinate them but to coordinate behavior so as to

avoid coercion and deception. Good ethics forbids degrading peoples capacity to make choices,

so that coercion and deception are generally not permitted.

What, now, about African ethics? What does it have to say about the unjust allocation of

resources? If closer relations have greater moral weight, why should an ethic of harmonious

relationships not permit nepotism? A possible answer to these questions could be putting into

practice the African moral theory.

This African moral theory must now be applied to how a civil servant should allocate resources

such as government jobs or contracts. This is meant to best improve the citizens well-being

while respecting peoples capacity for autonomous decision making.


25/79


Fair Play

Page 25of 79

2.4 Conclusion

There are some great benefits to having friends and family working in the same place it can be

vital to have them involved. But to avoid any problems, one needs to hark back to the first rule of

business, which is to hire the best person for the job.

Above all, let the selection process be as transparent as possible. If a relative actually is qualified

to do the job, make sure everyone knows it, otherwise it will be perceived as nepotism, whether

it is or not.

It may not be convenient to describe nepotism in relation to Chapter 4 of the Constitution on the

bill of rights, especially when used as a rider. This is because if the bill of rights stands by itself

to justify entitlements by qualification, fairness may not be existent. It would therefore beprudent to blend the bill of rights with the moral aspect, which we exclusively explore by

analyzing the African moral theory.

As we interpret this section of the constitution, it would be appropriate, that relevant and

applicable references are read, not in isolation of other references for individual convenience, but

read in its entirety for correct understanding; with the ultimate factor, being the realization of

harmony among members of the community. There is a public outcry concerning the recruitment

process of staff in the County Government of Taita-Taveta. Therefore, the context in this case

ought to be viewed along fair distribution based on availability, equality, and equity (Article

4(20a)), in the minimal available job opportunities.

Nepotism can be described as showing favoritism to friends and relatives, regardless of merit.

With the understanding that this description can mean differently to another person; will this

suggest, regardless of whether those involved are friends and relatives, as long as there is merit,

nepotism is inexistent? On the other hand, where family members and relatives have the

qualifications; hence, form majority staffing as in a public institution; and there is public outcry

is it morally acceptable? But on the other hand, shall someone be denied a right just because

majorities are crying foul? These are just some of the question which cannot go unnoticed as we

engage the vice of nepotism and favoritism which belong to the family of corruption.


26/79


Fair Play

Page 26of 79

Allegations of nepotism have a serious effect on the dignity and credibility, not

only of the person that has been appointed or promoted, but also on the person

that is allegedly responsible for such an appointment or promotion.

(Public Protector, Republic of South Africa Report on the investigation of

allegations of nepotism in government: 1994)

To minimize the effect of favoritism, nepotism and cronyism on public sector organizational

performance, rules and regulation may be imposed strictly to control injustices.

2.5 STAFF STATUS IN THE COUNTY

The following is the status of the staff in the County as at June 2014, according to the data

availed to the taskforce.

STAFF FROM DEFUNCT LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND DEVOLVED FUNCTIONS OF THE NATIONAL

GOVERNMENT

NO ITEM TOTAL STAFF

1 Ministry of local government 190

2 Ministry of youth and sports 3

3 Ministry of education 3

4 Ministry of gender 7

5 Ministry of industrialization and cooperative 8

6 Ministry of lands, housing and urban development 37

7 Ministry of labor, social security services 23

8 Ministry of water 83

9 Ministry of commerce and tourism 10

10 Ministry of agriculture, livestock and fisheries 206

11 Ministry of health 615

TOTAL 1185


27/79


Fair Play

Page 27of 79

STAFF APPOINTED SINCE INCEPTION OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT

NO POSITION TOTAL STAFF APPOINTED

1.

Chief officers 9

2.

Sub county administrators 4

3.

Deputy sub county administrators 4

4.

Principal administrators 4

5.

Ward Administrators 20

6.

ICT Manager 1

7.

Principal information officer 2

8.

Head of Human Resource 1

9.

Head of Treasury Accounting 1

10.

Head of Treasury Audit 1

11.

Head of county treasury (Budget & Management) 1

12.

Information officers 2

13.

County Payroll Manager 1

14.

Head of supply chain management 1

15.

Senior Drivers 11

16.

Senior Secretaries 10

17. Governors Economic advisor 1

18. Governors Political Advisor 1

19. Governors Governance Advisor 1

20.

Governors Chief of Staff 1

21.

Personal Assistants to CECs 9

22.

County Executive Committee 10

23.

County Public Service Board 7

24.

County Secretary 1

TOTAL 105

From the above tables on staff data, it is worth noting that a total of about 1290 civil servants are

working under the different departments of the County Government of Taita Taveta; out of these,

about 1185 staff are from the devolved functions of the national government and the defunct

local authorities, 105 were recruited after the inception of the county government.


28/79


Fair Play

Page 28of 79

3.0 CHAPTER (THREE): METHODOLOGY

3.1 Investigation design

In this investigation the following was applied to solicit views and evidence from the public and

affected individuals;

A. Public hearings; Mode of presentation that was offered during the public hearing were;

I. Speaking on the floor of the public hearings

II. Make a written submission to the taskforce

III. Presentation of complaints and views in-camera

B. Email submissionswere also received; the email address used for the purpose was

[email protected].

C. Comments from the social medialike Facebook were also used to gather views from the

public and affected individuals as a whole.

All presentations of the allegations were supposed to be factual; during the public hearings

members of the public who had complaints or views on the issues of nepotism and favoritism

were encouraged to portray or prove that;

a)

There were jobsb)

There were advertisements for the jobs

c)

There was favoritism and nepotism in the recruitment process

3.2 Justification of the Investigation Design

It was felt that the above described design suited the problem/issue at hand as it provided a

platform to all and sundry to air their grievances without the fear of being victimized while also

maintaining confidentiality. The above described methodology also ensured that the

information/views given were truthful/factual devoid of any misinformation thus minimizingclaims of witch-hunting from the adversely mentioned personalities.


29/79


Fair Play

Page 29of 79

3.3 Study Area:

The study area of the investigation was in four the sub counties of the county; Mwatate,

Wundanyi, Taveta and Voi. Public hearings were held in all the aforementioned sub-counties and

submissions from all persons with grievances were received via email.

3.4 Target population

The investigation targeted those who had complaints on the recruitment process as well as those

who had information on malpractices; who were urged to give documents in support of their

claims. It also targeted those who were involved in the recruitment process, i.e. the County

Public Service Board (which is the recruiting agency) plus others who were mentioned.

3.5 Sampling Techniques

Two sampling techniques were employed in this exercise .These are ClusterandPurposive

sampling.

In collecting the allegations from the public, cluster sampling was employed through holding

of sub county public hearings. This is because there was need for an urgent response

concerning the issue hence conducting public hearings at sub county level was considered

prudent. All those who had information or complaints on malpractices in the recruitment

process were encouraged to attend their respective sub county hearings.

Purposive; interviewing a person with the aim of getting specific information from him/heror institution. This method of sampling was applied on the County Public Service Board and

other county staff members who were mentioned while collecting data/information obtained

from the public.

3.6 Sample size:

Approximatelyone thousand people in the County participated in the investigative process. They

included men, women, youth and PLWDs.


30/79


Fair Play

Page 30of 79

3.7 Investigative Instruments

I. Staff Questionnaires: These gave an insight into the way the county government

staffs were recruited and any forms of relationships where possible.

II. Structured and Unstructured interview questions: These were used to conduct the

public hearings and interviewing the adversely mentioned persons.

III.

Email interview: For persons who preferred presenting their views through this

method, this platform gave them the avenue in airing their complaints/

views/evidence.

IV. Telephone interviews:Some aggrieved parties used the telephone to air their

complaints.

3.8 Validity and Reliability:

The tools used were intended to collect adequate and accurate information over a short period of

time from the participants. These tools guaranteed that even if the exercise was to be repeated,

the same findings would be obtained, though shifts in opinions, beliefs and perceptions could

produce slightly different results.

3.9 Data Collection techniques:

I. Public hearings:This was the most popular medium used by members of the public.

Apart from having a platform to air their complaints on nepotism/favoritism on staff

recruitment, the members of the public were also able to suggest their

recommendations on the subject matter and other issues affecting the county

residents.

II. Views in-camera: For members of the public who were also uncomfortable in

appearing in public before the TF, the in camera sessions came in handy.

Confidentiality was also best guaranteed in the usage of this method/instrument.

3.10 Logistical and Ethical Considerations:

i.

The Investigation team made it clear to all participants that the data collected would not

be used to discredit or lead to victimization.

ii. The confidentiality of information supplied and the anonymity of respondents was

respected; the Task Force email was only accessed by the Chairman.

iii.

Voluntary participation of the public was a key component of the investigation.


31/79


Fair Play

Page 31of 79

4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 THE ALLEGATIONS ON NEPOTISM, FAVORITISM and OTHER

MALPRACTICES IN THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS

In carrying out its mandate, the taskforce received numerous allegations from the public

pertaining to nepotism, favoritism and other malpractices in the recruitment process.

The following are the allegations raised, findings and the conclusions given by the taskforce.

1.

The secretary for CPSB (CS Elipida Mwakamba) is alleged to have employed her

daughter, Elizabeth Ngele as the PA to CEC education.

1.1

Narration

This matter was raised through the social media (facebook) and during the public hearings.

An interview with the CPSB secretary revealed that, indeed, Elizabeth Ngele, the PA to

CEC Education is her daughter.

Elizabeth Ngele was introduced by her mother to the CEC education, Jemimah Tuja, as a

human resource graduate who was then jobless (doing small businesses); during a

luncheon in Mombasa after a high court hearing of H.E the Governor where she

established contacts with the CEC. Elipida alleged that at first her daughter was not

interested in working in Taita. After a series of communication, the CEC education

convinced her to work in Taita as her PA.

Initially it was revealed that the executive had not used the right procedure in attempting to

hire the PAs causing the CPSB to nullify the exercise. The CPSB asked the executive to

make an indent on the hiring of the PAs which was duly signed by the County Secretary;

this was then ratified by the CPSB.

1.2 Findings

While taking into account the fact that CECs were given a free hand to pick their PAs,

information gathered by the taskforce concerning the sequence of events before Elipidas

daughter was engaged; that the mother introduced the daughter to the CEC, that the

daughter was looking for a job, that the introduction was taking place at a time when the


32/79


Fair Play

Page 32of 79

CEC was looking for a PA undoubtedly led to the CEC decision to pick her as the PA.

Considering Elipidasposition in the county, and the timing of the introduction, one would

no doubt resolve that she possibly influenced the appointment of the daughter.

The appointment of the PAs was done following a decision made by the cabinet members;

where they resolved to have PAs to source for people they could trust as their PAsand wrote to

the CPSB to establish the office and regularize the positions.

1.3 Conclusion

The taskforce locates Elipidas possible influence in the employment of her daughter given

her position in the CPSB. The executive should take appropriate action.

2. It was alleged that the personal assistant to Hon. Ben Mghana (CEC Agriculture)

Mr. James Mafuri is his relative and that they come from the same village.

2.1Narration

This matter was raised through the public hearings.

An interview with the CEC Agriculture, Hon Ben Mghana, revealed the following:

It had been resolved in a cabinet meeting that the CECs were supposed to source for PAs who

met the following criteria: - a computer literate, a form four leaver, a person of integrity and

whom you know. As he was the last CEC to report, Hon Mghana recounts that he was advised

by the former interim County Secretary, Mr. Ouma, to present the name of his PA.

Hon Mghana said that the PA whom he chose was Mr. James Mafuri; whose neighborhood

was as a result of land consolidation in that village but were not related.

2.2 Findings

The CEC and the PA are not relatives though they come from the same village.

2.3 Conclusion

The taskforce finds no fault with the appointment of this PA to serve the CEC, as it is his

personal choice.


33/79


Fair Play

Page 33of 79

3. It was alleged that the personal assistant for Hon Masamo, CEC Community

Affairs, Trade and Tourism, named Sadiki was not qualified for the post and was related to

the CEC

3.1Narration


An interview with Hon Masamo revealed that Sadiki finished his secondary school and is

computer literate. He stated they come from the same constituency but not related at all.

The CEC said that when they took over their jobs it was not easy for them to perform their

functions without secretaries and anyone to assist. The cabinet resolved that CECs source for

persons whom they could easily work with and forward the same for ratification by the CPSB.

According to the CEC, the core qualifications were computer literacy and secondary school

education. The CEC believed that in case any PA whose details were forwarded to the CPSB

for ratification and the board thought that he was deficient of some qualifications then the

CPSB had the right to request the CEC to propose another person as the PA.

3.2 Findings

According to Hon Masamo, his PA is academically qualified and they are not related.

3.3 Conclusion

The allegation is unfounded.

4. Three employees i.e. in Press (Mwambela), ICT (Chris ) and a ward administrator

are alleged to be relatives of CEC administration and devolution, Hon Linet Mavu and come

from Chome village.

4.1Narration

This matter was raised during the public hearings.

An interview with the CEC Administration and Devolution, Hon Linet Mavu, revealed that she

comes from Werugha and was married in Shigharo. She knows very few people in Shigharo as


34/79


Fair Play

Page 34of 79

she hardly stays there. She knows that Chris and Mwambela hail from Shigharo, but she was

not aware whether they were related to her. She said that she found Chris as an intern when

she joined the County Government.

However, Mwambela shares a name with her father-in-law but may not be related. She said

that she knew the immediate relatives but Mwambela was neither a 1sta 2ndnor a 3rdcousin to

her husband. She also said that he was initially a volunteer in the Ministry of information

office and later applied for the post in the County information department when it was

advertised and he was employed. She added that her husband could be in a better position to

explain the relatives as he hailed from there.

On the allegation of a ward administrator who was her relative she was not aware of one. She

said that she came to know them after they were recruited.

4.2 Findings

According to Hon Linet Mavu, she is not related to Chris and Mwambela.

On further follow up, as regards the ward administrator, the task force found that the

complainant was referring to Rozina Wawuda from Shigharo currently posted to

Mghange/Mwanda ward; however the complainant said that he did not know of any

relationship between the administrator and the CEC.

4.3 Conclusion

The allegations are unfounded.

5.

Revenue collectors at the Wundanyi toll station are alleged to be relatives to Hon

Linet Mavu, the CEC administration and devolution. They are from Chome village.

5.1Narration

This matter was raised during the public hearings.An interview with the CEC Administration and Devolution, Hon Linet Mavu, revealed that she

did not know the revenue collectors.


35/79


Fair Play

Page 35of 79

5.2 Findings

The complainant failed to point out the specific allegation about the relationship between the

revenue collectors and Hon Linet Mavu.

5.3 Conclusion


6. The CEC Community Affairs, Tourism, Trade and Industry is alleged to be a cousin

to H.E the Governor.

6.1Narration


An interview with the Governor, H.E Eng. John M. Mruttu, revealed that, they are distant

cousins (their fathers are cousins). However on whether he had influence in the recruitment of

the CEC, Hon Masamo, H.E the Governor said that the County Government Act, Sec 35 and

Sec 30(2) d, allowed him to nominate the CEC members but he did not do so, instead, he

allowed competitive sourcing of the CEC members through advertising the vacancies and

having them appear before an independent panel for selection and appointment and then vetted

by the County Assembly - Hon Masamo went through the same process.

6.2 Findings

Though Hon Masamo is a distant relative of the Governor, he (the Governor) said that he did

not have any influence in the CECsappointment but he went through the competitive

recruitment process which was conducted by an independent panel, and was the only criteria.

6.3 Conclusion

The taskforce concludes that the allegation on relationship is true. However, since the CEC

went through the competitive recruitment process, which was carried out by an independent

panel, the relationship did not influence his appointment.


36/79


Fair Play

Page 36of 79

7. It is alleged that the CEC Roads and Public works, ICT and Energy was the chief

campaigner for H.E the governor and also does not possess a degree; which was a pre-

requisite for eligibility. It is also alleged that he did not get vetting approval by the county

assembly but was given the job.

7.1


An interview with the H.E the Governor revealed that indeed Hon Mwangeka was his

campaigner. However, he applied for the CEC position and was also taken through the

competitive recruitment process.

Findings

According to Sec 35(3) of the County Government Act 2012:-

A person may be appointed as a member of the county executive committee if that person

(a) is a Kenyan citizen;

(b) is a holder of at least a first degree from a university recognized in Kenya;

(c) satisfies the requirements of Chapter Six of the Constitution; and

(d) has knowledge, experience and a distinguished career of not less than five years in the field

relevant to the portfolio of the department to which the person is being appointed.

H.E the Governor said that the County Government Act, Sec 35 and Sec 30( 2)d, allowed him

to nominate the CEC members; instead, he allowed competitive sourcing of the CEC members

through advertising the vacancies and having them appear before an independent panel for

selection and appointment and then vetted by the County Assembly. Despite the fact that Hon

Mwangeka was a campaigner of H.E the Governor, he was not appointed on these lines.

According to the vetting report availed to the taskforce, Hon Alexander Kubo Mwangeka wasvetted by the county assembly. However, the minutes obtained from the County Assembly by

the taskforce on the vetting proceedings of Hon Mwangeka, did not capture questions on his

academic qualifications which is the bone of contention in this allegation.


37/79


Fair Play

Page 37of 79

A letter of approval (of the CEC member) by an ordinary sitting of the county assembly held

on Thursday the 25thJuly 2013 was forwarded to the then Interim County Secretary, Taita

Taveta County.

Hon. Mwangeka presented his academic documents to the taskforce which included a copy of

his degree certificate from Caribbean University obtained in 1998 and a letter of recognition

from the Commission of Higher Educationreferenced CUE/10/9/1/Vol.176 and dated 26thof

September 2013.

Conclusion

Since Hon Mwangeka was cleared and approved by the County Assembly Vetting Committee,

any query on the same is left for clarification by the same committee.

8. Two people (Michael Mwakazi and David Mwakazi) were alleged to have been

shortlisted from the same family and four others from the same organization in the

recruitment of the county policing authority.

8.1Narration

This matter was raised through the public hearings. An interview with the CPSB revealed that,

they were not aware of this. The board was not aware whether there were siblings or whether job

applicants had relationships; as the interviews are done based on the qualifications and not

relationships. It was found that looking at the similarities of names in Taita Taveta County it was

apparent that there is homogeneity of names such that it is not easy to establish relationships.

According to the National Police Service Act No. 11A of 2011 Sec 41:-

41. County Policing Authority(1) There shall be established a County Policing Authority in respect of each county

which shall comprise

(a) The Governor or a member of the County Executive Committee appointed by the

Governor, who shall be the chairperson;


38/79


Fair Play

Page 38of 79

(b) county representatives appointed by the Inspector-General, who shall comprise the

heads of the National Police Service, the National Intelligence Service and the

Directorate of Criminal Investigations at the county level;

(c) two elected members nominated by the County Assembly;

(d) the chairperson of the County Security Committee;

(e) at least six other members appointed by the Governor, from among the following

categories of persons ordinarily resident in the county

(i) the business sector;

(ii) community based organizations;

(iii) women;

(iv) persons with special needs;

(v) religious organizations; and

(vi) the youth.

(2) The members referred to in subsection (1) (e) shall be recruited through a

competitive process by the office employing public officers in the county.

(3) The names of members nominated under subsection (1) (e) shall be forwarded to the

County Security Committee for vetting and subsequent thereto, the County Assembly for

approval.

(4) In nominating and appointing members under subsection (1) (e) the nominating

bodies, public service office at the County level and Governor shall

(a) uphold the principle of one-third gender representation;

(b) ensure geographical representativeness of the county; and may nominate more than

one representative in respect of each category.

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) (e), the membership of the County Policing Authority

shall be proportional to the number of constituencies in the County.

In the recruitment of the Taita Taveta County Policing Authority posts, the positions were

advertised and the process was to be competitively undertaken. One had to be recommended by

a registered organization in the county before being considered for the position.

8.2 Findings


39/79


Fair Play

Page 39of 79

The two brothers applied and were interviewed for the job.

Due to the fact that the advertised positions were supposed to be filled by representatives of

registered organizations in the county, some of the shortlisted applicants were from same

organizations. However, passing the interview was the requirement for nomination.

8.3 Conclusion

The allegation was unfounded.

9. The ward administrator who hails from Chawia is alleged to be related to the

Deputy Governor.

9.1 Narration

This matter was raised during the public hearings. An interview with the Deputy Governor

revealed that the ward administrator in question, Mr. Jacob Mwakughu, is a distant relative to

the Deputy Governor from her maternal side. It also emerged that he had his own ambitions to

work in the county following which he applied for several positions advertised by the County

Public Service Board. After going through the competitive recruitment process he was

appointed as a ward administrator. According to the Deputy Governor she never influenced his

appointment.

She also said that she had advised her own daughter not to apply for the Taita Taveta County

jobs as this would raise eyebrows given her position; she advised her to look for jobs in

Nairobi.

9.2 Findings

Mr. Mwakughu applied for several positions advertised in the county government such as

chief officer mining among others.

Conclusion

The allegation has no basis.


40/79


Fair Play

Page 40of 79

10. The CEC water and irrigation, Hon Eng. Joseph Mbogho is alleged to be related to the

Deputy Governor.

10.1 This matter was raised through the public hearings. The Deputy Governor had the

following response: Indeed the CEC Water Mr. Joseph Mbogho is a relative though a distant

one. They used to work together in a welfare group back in Nairobi; Tsavo Capital Group

where Mr. Mbogho was the Chairman. They only worked closely during the campaigns of

the just ended elections of 2013.

During the recruitment of the CECs, Eng. Mbogho applied in an open advertisement; the

Deputy Governor neither encouraged him nor influenced his appointment. He qualified for

the job. On issues affecting his integrity, they were handled independently by the County

Assembly during the vetting process.

10.2 Findings

H.E the Deputy Governor confirmed that indeed they were distant relatives with Hon

Mbogho and this did not influence his appointment.

10.3 Conclusion

The allegation on the relationship is true but there was no evidence that she influenced his

appointment.

11.There was a seminar for mining in Madagascar and the submitted names of Mrs. Jane

Kubos son who had a degree in the relevant field was alleged to have been left out and

another person who was a relative to the CEC mining was chosen despite the fact that

he had no degree but a diploma.

11.1 Narration

This matter was raised during the public hearings

An interview with Hon. Eng. Elijah Mwandoe (CEC Mining, Environment, Wildlife and

Natural Resources) revealed the following:-


41/79


Fair Play

Page 41of 79

The scholarships were advertised by the CPSB; among the requirements included being a

resident, above 23yrs, post-secondary qualifications preferably a degree in geology.

The applicants interviewed were 11. There was only one female applicant.

The CEC was present during the interview conducted by the CPSB.

Initially the CEC Mining had proposed that the education department should have handled

this; but as they were only handling ECDs and Polytechnics in the county they allowed the

CPSB to handle this.

The successful applicants were:-

Emmanuel Mwazighe Nyambu (Lushangonyi), Harrison Mdamu Lengube (Kasighau), Peter

Sholo (Bura) and Lucy Mshai Nyambu (Taveta)

11.2 Findings

The allegation in question was aimed at the Educational Scholarship on Mining in Madagascar

and not seminar.

The scholarship positions that were being sought were four; they were supposed to be

distributed in all the sub counties for regional balance i.e. 1 person per Sub County.

Out of the 11 applicants interviewed only one was female. Of these, two applicants were from

Taveta Sub County and were of the opposite gender; in order to ensure that there was gender

balance, the board resolved to select the female candidate.

The CEC member was not related to the alleged appointee from Taveta.

The minimum requirement was a post-secondary qualification, preferably a degree; hence a

diploma was also acceptable.

11.3 Conclusion

Based on the findings, the allegation lacked merit.


42/79


Fair Play

Page 42of 79

12.The Governors advisor Mr. Ronald Shako Mwasambo is alleged to have employed his

daughter Nancy Mleghwa Johnson in Procurement Section

12.1 Narration

This matter was raised through the public hearings. Mr. Shako had the following response:

He only has one daughter who is 34 years old and working in South Africa. The lady in

question, Nancy Mleghwa, is the daughter of the late former Senior Chief Mleghwa, from

Wumingu location.

12.2 Findings

Nancy is not a daughter to Mr. Shako.

She is also an intern in the county government and not an employee.There was also no evidence to show that Mr. Shako influenced the selection of the said intern.

12.3 Conclusion


13.The Governors advisor, Mr. Geoffrey Kimonge was alleged to have employed his wife,

Pauline Mawondo Kimonge as a senior secretary

13.1 Narration

This matter was raised through the social media (facebook) and during the public hearings

During an interview with the taskforce, Mr. Kimonge had the following response: His wife is a

secretary by profession. When the county executive secretary jobs were advertised she went

through the competitive recruitment process; she applied for the job; she was shortlisted,

interviewed and selected for the job. Mr. Kimonge said that his wife went through this processas Paulineand not as Kimonges wife. Referring to chapter 4 of the bill of rights and

considering her qualifications, Mr. Kimonge felt that his wife was eligible to apply for the job.

The CPSB also stated that they had no knowledge whether the interviewee was Mr. Kimonges

wife.


43/79


Fair Play

Page 43of 79

13.2 Findings

The taskforce found out that Pauline had applied, shortlisted, interviewed, and was appointed

on merit. However, she was requested by her husband Mr. Kimonge to decline taking up the

position;

ttc taskforce report

Documents