'There is no legal framework presently on how a lifestyle audit is to be carried out on a public or a state officer who is suspected to be living beyond that person's lawful income'
Public and state officers facing corruption charges will undergo lifestyle audits in a proposed bill that seeks to entrench such wealth reviews in the law.
The Lifestyle Audit Bill, 2019, sponsored by nominated Senator Farhiya Ali seeks to provide what has been the missing link in the call for lifestyle audits.
President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto pledged to take the lead in the audit but that is yet to be undertaken.
ODM leader Raila Odinga has equally been calling, in vain, for the review of wealth owned by persons thought to be living beyond their means.
No information was provided to members of the public regarding the audit Uhuru ordered against procurement officers - most of whom have returned to the office.
The officers were suspended in June last year pending a fresh vetting.
“There is no legal framework presently on how a lifestyle audit is to be carried out on a public or a state officer who is suspected to be living beyond that person's lawful income,” Farhiya said.
The bill seeks to provide a framework for the lifestyle audit process and set the standards of professional conduct for officers carrying out the audit.
The proposal seeks to give the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), EACC, and the Public Service Commission powers to conduct the audit.
Members of the public would be allowed to lodge a complaint to the agencies on an unexplained wealth of public or state officers.
The proposed legislation also seeks to compel the EACC – as well as the involved agencies, to publish the income, assets, and liabilities declared by individuals facing lifestyle audit.
“The contents of a declaration or declarations clarification under this Act shall be accessible to the public,” the bill states.
There will be amnesty for individuals who volunteer to surrender illegally acquired wealth. They will not be prosecuted.
A true statement made by a person during a lifestyle audit exercise may be used to negotiate for a differed prosecution agreement, the proposal states.
Farhiya says the move will counter challenges posed by the long, expensive and complicated investigations that hamper the execution of economic crime cases.
The audit will be ordered after indications that a public or a state officer is living beyond his/her lawfully obtained and reported income.
It would also be staged when a public or a state officer is unable to account for the source of income and in the event that that officer has misappropriated funds under their care and trust.
Details such as name of public or state officer; birth information; marital status; home address; employment information and names of spouse or spouses will be sought.
Also to be sought shall be names of children and other dependents, financial statements as well as details of income “including, but not limited to, salary and emoluments and income from investments.”
Officers facing audits will also have to declare assets including, but not limited to, land, buildings, vehicles, investments and financial obligations owed to the public or state officer.
They will also be required to state their liabilities and companies that the public or state officer or the members of their family are the owners or beneficial owners.
The bill further proposes severe punishments for individuals who shall be found to have provided misleading or false information to agencies conducting the audit.
“A person who commits such an offence is liable on conviction, to imprisonment for a term of two years or to a fine of not less than Sh5 million or to both.”
Farhiya’s bill gives the court powers to issue an interim freezing order in respect of property which is part of the lifestyle audit.
Such a freeze will only last for a year effective the date of such a declaration.
EACC, KRA, and PSC officers who will ‘maliciously’ cause an account to be frozen will be required to personally compensate the affected audit subjects.
The bill says the court may order compensation to be paid to the applicant only if satisfied that the applicant has suffered loss as a result of the making of the interim freezing order.
Compensation would also follow in the event of a serious default on the part of the agency that seeks the order.
edited by peter obuya