The fact that she bought a 100 million shilling spread in Kitisuru means nothing. An auditor wrote some time back in the papers that when an audit is conducted, the bottom line in the books is of secondary importance; an audit is meant to reveal whether or not the accounting rules that apply to an organisation have been complied with. So you look at the paper work, and make sure that for every entry or payment on the books is accounted for. If it s an audit of a public institution, you confirm that the cash the department received matches what expenditures it made according to the law and according to the approved budget, especially the budget line items.
The former Cabinet Secretary for Devolution and Planning is nobody's fool. By all accounts she is hardworking, intelligent and driven. She has been in employment far longer than her stint in the public service and to simply presume that her entire wealth has been bought and paid for from her proceeds as a public servant is a scurrilous accusation for which no proof has been advanced. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that she made a fortune before she became a Cabinet Secretary and, which her advancing years, she felt it was time to invest in prime property when she eventually became Cabinet Secretary.
Those attempting to insinuate that there is a link between her wealth and her former office as Cabinet Secretary without providing even a scintilla of proof betray a personal animus against her that demonstrates that they had a personal vendetta against her. The financial mismanagement at her former Ministry have been well-documented by the newspress, but not one person has drawn a line between her wealth and that mismanagement. Not one person has been able to show that she took money for favours or that she had a hand in the the theft of the 791 million shillings at the heart of her resignation.
She was not a very good Cabinet Secretary, despite the accolades her former Ministry garnered for its initiatives. She forgot that even in a technocratic Cabinet, Cabinet Secretaries are still important political actors and that they do not simply operate in a world of laws and by-laws. Politics informed many of her initiatives and she should have realised that despite her successes, politics would inform any challenges she faced from corners outside the national Executive. In fact, the perceived presidential special treatment she received, was going to be a millstone around her neck sooner rather than later and she should have taken steps early enough to carve out a robust political persona that did not rely too much on the President or his Parliamentary Party.
Neither the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission nor the Auditor-General have alluded to any links between her wealth and her former office. If they had, she would not be described as a witness for the DPP, but a suspect. The raid by the anti-corruption agents on her property seems to be a publicity stunt; it is unlikely that the Cabinet Secretary would be in possession of any documents related to the IFMIS scam as the Cabinet Secretary is not an authorised user of the IFMIS system. I will be shocked if she is ever charged in a court of law with any offence linked to the missing 791 million. Very surprised indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment