Good lessons learnt from Parliament’s pay scandal

The disturbing revelations on social media recall a 2009 expenses scandal which rocked the UK’s House of Commons and House of Lords. At the time, what snowballed into a major political disgrace revolved around expenses of members of the British Parliament – members were caught making false claims for reimbursement.

The disclosure of widespread misuse of allowances and expenses permitted to the British MPs led to many reforms, including the 2010 setting-up of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to ensure transparency and fairness. This is what should result from the ongoing outing of alleged mischief in the 11th Parliament’s handling of public funds allocated to it.

Admittedly, Parliament is not solely to blame for the ongoing scandal. It is in some ways a victim of its own self-governing and self-budgeting rules which were a creature of the 1995 Constitution. Left in the hands of reckless or irresponsible individuals, the almost limitless authority to determine facilitation, emoluments, and gratuity payable to MPs given to the House under Article 85 of the Constitution is open to abuse.

That freedom to manage its own affairs arose out of the good intentions of the Constituent Assembly (CA) which wrote the 1995 Constitution. The CA drafted the doctrine of separation of powers into our Constitution, giving the three arms of government; the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive distinct roles. The otherwise noble intent was to assure accountable government through the checks and balances enforceable between the separate arms of State through their independence from each other.

Unfortunately, recent history has shown that our MPs, left to their own devices, have an unhealthy proclivity for usually irrational upward revision of their entitlements. This is what should be stopped either through enactment of a specific law, or amendment of the existing Administration of Parliament Act, 1997.

Our parliamentarians must be persuaded to either adopt the UK reforms of 2010 or to follow Kenya’s lead. Kenyan MPs are covered under their Retirement Benefits Act, which spells out MPs’’ emoluments; pensions, medical cover and gratuity. It even describes the kind of security available to MPs at taxpayers’ cost. With a clear law in place, a useful safeguard would stand in the way of any temptation to abuse the public purse.

As the Inspectorate of Government begins an inquiry into corruption at Parliament, we must also ask whether it is tenable for a Speaker of Parliament to engage in so-called ‘community outreach’ through which hundreds of millions of shillings have disappeared in donations to constituents.