By Reuben Musonik, THEDISPATCH.DIGITAL, NAIROBI
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has denied reports in a section of the press that it refused to clear former Kakamega Governor Wycliffe Oparanya for vetting for appointment to the Cabinet. Amidst swirling allegations and misinformation, the EACC has moved to clarify its role and actions regarding the vetting of Cabinet Secretary nominees.
A section of leaders has propagated the narrative that the EACC “refused to clear Hon. Wycliffe Oparanya for appointment as Cabinet Secretary.” However, the Commission has stated unequivocally that this is not true. According to the EACC, under the current law, it does not have the authority to clear or bar anyone from holding any public office.
“The Commission’s role in the integrity vetting process is to provide factual information regarding the integrity status of each candidate as of the material date,” the EACC clarified. “We do not pass any judgment but present these facts upon request, leaving it to the Parliamentary Vetting Committee to decide on the suitability of the nominees.”
In the case of Oparanya, his lawyers, led by Ken Nyaundi, have accused the EACC of acting with malice by stating that Oparanya still has an outstanding corruption case, despite the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) having withdrawn his earlier approval to prosecute. This accusation stems from a letter dated 1st August 2024, which was addressed to the National Assembly and circulated widely in the media.
Responding to these accusations, the EACC distanced itself from claims of malice. The Commission acknowledged that on 25th July 2024, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) sent a letter withdrawing the decision to prosecute Oparanya. However, the EACC did not accept this reversal. The Commission reiterated its original recommendation to charge Oparanya and his lawyer, Ken Nyaundi, based on substantial evidence of corruption, abuse of office, conflict of interest, and money laundering.
“The EACC’s decision to maintain the prosecution recommendation was informed by detailed reasons, including the cogent evidence previously deemed sufficient by the DPP,” the Commission explained. “Therefore, the allegation that the EACC acted with malice and misled the National Assembly is unfounded.”
This situation underscores the importance of understanding the EACC’s mandate. The Commission’s primary function in the vetting process is to provide integrity reports without making judgments. The final decision rests with the Parliamentary Vetting Committee, which considers the information provided by the EACC.
For more clarity, the EACC has encouraged the public and interested parties to review the official letters and records available in the National Assembly to understand the Commission’s position fully.
Stay tuned to TheDispatch.Digital for comprehensive coverage and updates.
Read also:
EACC and ODPP Clash Over Corruption Charges Against Oparanya