Conflict of Interest Bill, 2023: Senators reject key Ruto proposals to curb corruption by public officials

A fierce tug-of-war has erupted between President William Ruto and Parliament over efforts to introduce strict laws to stop public officials from enriching themselves through state contracts.

The Conflict of Interest Bill, 2023, which the President returned to Parliament with key reservations, is facing strong resistance in both the National Assembly and Senate.

The leaders are determined to retain watered-down provisions that weaken the original intent of the Bill, stopping officials from using their positions for personal gain through state contracts.

The Bill, which was initially passed by the National Assembly in November 2023 and later endorsed by the Senate in June 2024, has undergone major changes.

These alterations prompted Ruto to decline assent and demand the reinstatement of at least 12 clauses he believes are critical to fighting corruption within public service.

However, the Senate’s Justice and Legal Affairs Committee has recommended rejecting most of Ruto’s proposed changes.

“The Senate fully accommodates the President’s reservations to clauses 30, 31 and 35 of the Bill but does not accommodate reservations to clauses 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 20,” reads the report by committee chair Hillary Sigei.

The committee supported changes around definitions of “material change” in income and assets, and clarification of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission’s (EACC) role.

But broader reforms, such as redefining what constitutes a conflict of interest or including relatives in the scope of the law, were rejected.

One clause that drew sharp disagreement was the revised definition of conflict of interest. The Senators deleted a section that treated dealings involving family, associates, or close connections as a conflict.

They instead narrowed it to apply only when a public officer fails to declare a private interest in a matter involving their public role.

President Ruto opposed the change, arguing that it fails to reflect the real, potential, and perceived nature of conflict of interest, a standard widely accepted in ethics laws.

In response, the Senate committee dismissed perceived conflict as being too subjective and warned it could lead to confusion and poor enforcement.

“We recommend focusing on tangible and demonstrable conflicts to ensure clarity and effectiveness in governance,” the committee’s report stated.

The President also wants the original definitions of “family” and “relative” restored. He warned that removing them allows public officials to use family members as proxies in corrupt dealings.

But Parliament sees this differently.

Other Topics To Read

• Headlines
• National
• President William Ruto
• EACC
• Senate
• Corruption
• Conflict of Interest Bill
• Conflict of Interest Bill
• 2023: Senators reject key Ruto proposals to curb corruption by public officials

Clause 2, which defines a relative as someone related by birth, marriage, adoption, or affinity, was especially contentious.

Senators rejected the word “affinity,” saying its wide and unclear meaning can be misused for political harassment.

“The amendment will cause problems as it is ambiguous,” said Vihiga Senator Godfrey Osotsi.

Another hotly debated proposal was the requirement for public officers to declare gifts received by relatives within 48 hours.

Senators termed the requirement unrealistic and difficult to monitor, especially where the term “relative” remains broadly defined.

President Ruto also proposed giving the EACC more power to begin asset recovery proceedings where public officers fail to disclose wealth. But the Senate committee refused to support this, saying it would create overreach and legal complications.

At the heart of the standoff is the President’s effort to seal loopholes that have allowed public officers to become overnight millionaires by doing business with the same government they serve.

However, Parliament’s move to shield officials from stronger scrutiny suggests a growing reluctance to adopt far-reaching reforms.

To defeat the President’s reservations, the Senate would need a two-thirds majority, at least 45 out of the 67 senators. Whether such a threshold can be met remains uncertain as the battle over the Bill continues.