Appointments put the much-publicised reforms at State corporations in doubt

President Uhuru Kenyatta. The President has succumbed to populism and short-term calculations. FILE PHOTO | SALTON NJAU | NATION MEDIA GROUP 

In Summary

• Under the new system, the number of directors of parastatals must be restricted to between seven and nine. Positions would have tenures and individuals appointed to boards would  have the relevant experience and skills.
• The Privatisation Commission of Kenya is yet another example. Until the other day, it was just a moribund agency waiting to be dissolved and replaced with the proposed Government Invest Corporation. Where is the logic of appointing a new chairman for such an entity?
• The President had signed on to the idea of collapsing Brand Kenya, Export Promotion Council, Kenya Tourist Board, and Kenya Invest into one fully-funded agency. Yet each of these entities has been given new directors with new contracts.

By JAINDI KISERO
More by this Author

Just the other day, we celebrated the launch of what has been christened the “Mwongozo code of leadership. This was at a State House ceremony presided over by President Uhuru Kenyatta.

What is the Mwongozo code of leadership? This is one of the bright ideas emanating from the work done by the presidential task force on parastatal reforms. It was lauded as the beginning of the transition to better corporate governance in parastatals.

Under the new system, the number of directors of parastatals must be restricted to between seven and nine. Positions would have tenures and individuals appointed to boards would  have the relevant experience and skills.

Yet when you look at the appointments announced on Monday, it is clear that President Uhuru Kenyatta has engaged the reverse gear in terms of what has been achieved in as far as reform of parastatals is concerned.

We are back to appointments based on political patronage and loyalty. Meritocracy has been thrown out of the window.

Why would you appoint somebody to a board of a parastatal that has been lined up to be merged or even dissolved? Mark you, according to plans already approved by the President, we are supposed to be merging all agencies giving credit to SMEs into one agency, in the mould of the South Africa’s National Youth Development Authority.

Under the plan, the Youth Enterprise Fund, the Women Fund, and the Kenya Industrial Estates are supposed to be merged into one strong body known as Biashara Kenya. Yet in  Monday’s appointments, all these entities have been given new directors and board chairpersons. Shall we assume then that the brilliant idea of a Biashara bank has been abandoned?

The Privatisation Commission of Kenya is yet another example. Until the other day, it was just a moribund agency waiting to be dissolved and replaced with the proposed Government Invest Corporation. Where is the logic of appointing a new chairman for such an entity?

Under the big plans, we are supposed to be introducing a single financial sector authority. The Retirement Benefits Authority, the Capital Markets Authority, and the Insurance Regulatory Authority were supposed to be brought under one roof. President Kenyatta appointed new chairpersons and directors for each of these entities.

Can we assume that the idea of creating a single development bank with a balance sheet large enough to make it possible for it to issue infrastructure bonds has been dropped? What is the logic of appointing new directors and chairmen for entities such as the ICDC, Industrial Development Bank, and the Kenya Tourist Development Corporation, which are supposed to be merged?

As I write, there is a fully-fledged committee charged with implementing these clever reforms. Shall we now assume that all the work done by the task force is to be put on the shelf? We are supposed to have a single investment promotion agency. The President had signed on to the idea of collapsing Brand Kenya, Export Promotion Council, Kenya Tourist Board, and Kenya Invest into one fully-funded agency. Yet each of these entities has been given new directors with new contracts.

I am not so naïve as to assume that appointments based on political patronage can end overnight. Indeed, political loyalty in this country comes at a very high cost, but  is  appointment to parastatals the only way of rewarding loyalty? When you recycle Kanu-era politicians by appointing them to boards of parastatals, can you really expect to be taken seriously as a leader who can take the country to the next level?

A good number of these institutions provide services that impact on the cost of doing business. In terms of parastatal reform, what President Uhuru Kenyatta’s administration had put on the table was truly game-changing. The President should not sacrifice these big ideas at the altar of political expediency.

The mark of good leadership is to press on with good game-changing ideas even when  your political survival is at stake. The President has succumbed to populism and short-term calculations.
President Kenyatta should  make sure that he does not drop the ball on this score.

jkisero@ke.nationmedia.com