On MPs and tenders.

The business of Kenya, it seems, is to grant tenders. Multi-billion shilling tenders. That, at least, is the impression created by the heat emanating from the National Assembly and the county assemblies around the country. It is why when Alfred Mutua of Machakos proudly displays a bit of tarmac built at a fraction of the projected cost, it raises doubts in his detractors with rumours of corner-cutting being peddled on social media sites.

But at national level, the game is at a whole other level. Billions are earmarked for the new pipeline from Mombasa to Nairobi. Billions are earmarked for the million-acre irrigation scheme. Billions are earmarked for Olkaria Phase IV. Billions are earmarked for JKIA Greenfields Project. Billions are earmarked for the Safaricom security, surveillance and communication system. Billions are earmarked for laptops for children. And billions are earmarked for retiring national government debts and liabilities. These billions upon billions have attracted the attentions of vultures and schemers. It is why parliamentary committees have waded in with so much gusto.

When members of the Cabinet used to sit in the National Assembly, the relationship between procurement and "quiet deals" in Parliament was whispered about, but never apparent. It is how censure motions over financial irregularities were smoothed over; one either played ball with his parliamentary colleagues, who knew much about the irregularities, or one got his ass canned. In the here and now, parliament is privy only to what the Cabinet Secretary lets them know, if that. They have to find out things from secret witnesses and whistleblowers.

Taking a look at the contract for the construction of a new oil pipeline, it is clear that it is tenders that animate all parts of the government. It seems that parliamentarians are either interested parties or are in the pocket of interested parties. Even when a tender seems to have been awarded lawfully and the procurement law seems to have been complied with, an allegation of irregularity or corruption triggers a parliamentary enquiry that leads to calls for suspension or cancellation of the tender even before the enquiry is completed and the findings published.

A parliamentary committee wants the pipeline tender suspended while another wants the Safaricom tender cancelled. In both cases, allegations of impropriety have not been proven; the mere allegation alone suggests that something was amiss in the manner in which the tenders were negotiated and awarded. Jaindi Kisero is right; we need to find a way of ensuring that the public procurement process is made more transparent but also fast, effective and efficient. The cost of public projects is inflated with the procurement risk priced into the final financial offer. If there is greater certainty and faith in the process, the final cost of a project may fall to reflect the broader legitimisation of the process, especially the oversight of public procurement. But if we allow the same degree of opacity to persist, it is likely that Uhuru Kenyatta's flagship projects may never get off the ground having been hamstrung at every turn by an MP with an axe to grind - or a pocket to line.