On 21 November 2018, Parliament moved to have detectives examine claims that lawmakers were bribed to sink a controversial sugar report, with the National Assembly’s Powers and Privileges Committee saying the allegations could amount to criminal conduct.
The committee, chaired by Speaker Justin Muturi, said some MPs may have received Sh10,000 handouts to defeat the report on the importation of alleged illegal and contaminated sugar into the country. It concluded that there may have been bribery of members of the National Assembly and that the matter fell within both parliamentary discipline and criminal law.
As a result, the committee invited the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate the claims and determine whether prosecution should follow. The two agencies were given 90 days to probe the matter.
The 46-page report tabled in the House also said witnesses during the three-week inquiry described claims that bribes were shared in a toilet, in an effort to defeat the report. If adopted, the report would have seen two Cabinet secretaries — Henry Rotich of the National Treasury and Adan Mohammed, then in charge of East African Community and Trade — removed from office.
The committee said it found no CCTV footage showing envelopes or money being exchanged in the Chamber during the National Assembly proceedings of 9 August 2018, despite the allegation raised by Kimilili MP Didmus Barasa. It also said none of the witnesses produced evidence showing any MP receiving or paying bribes.
In its findings, the committee said there was a possible breach of privilege and a breach of the Code of Conduct under Section 16 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, 2017, as well as possible offences under criminal law. It also noted that Parliament’s CCTV system did not cover the members’ dining lounges in the new wing or the ablution facilities, where the alleged bribery was said to have taken place.
The report was presented against the backdrop of a heated parliamentary fight over the sugar inquiry, with the committee stopping short of naming any member as proven to have taken money, but still concluding that the allegations were serious enough to warrant police and anti-graft investigations.
