There is no reason why people here should follow what has been happening in the UK about MPs and 'second jobs' and related matters.
But recently you might have found some interest in it.
It is instructive about what the idea of 'conflict of interest' might mean when we are thinking about Members of Parliament.
The Constitution stresses this idea.
It says, “The guiding principles of leadership and the integrity code include — objectivity and impartiality in decision making, and in ensuring that decisions are not influenced by nepotism, favouritism, other improper motives or corrupt practices; …and the declaration of any personal interest that may conflict with public duties."
And “A State officer shall behave, whether in public and official life, in private life, or in association with other persons, in a manner that avoids— (a) any conflict between personal interests and public or official duties; (b) compromising any public or official interest in favour of a personal interest”. MPs are 'State officers'.
WHAT HAVE UK MPS BEEN DOING?
The issues include that over 90 out of the 360 governing Conservative Party MPs have jobs in addition to that of MP.
The basic salary for a British MP is just under £82,000 a year (or just about Sh1 million a month), plus allowances for travelling to their constituencies, keeping a second home if necessary, and running their office.
There is naturally some resentment when the median weekly pay for full-time employees is around £611.
At present, of course, salaries are affected by the coronavirus, but MPs’ salaries are not.
What causes particular concern is MPs who are employed as 'consultants', which may mean advising the employer on political issues or, even worse, using the MP’s position to lobby for the employer.
Currently in the spotlight is an MP who advises a company that makes hand sanitiser.
He is said to have chaired a government task force that recommended rules that made it easier for the company’s product to be recognised for use in the UK.
Another issue that causes anger is when MPs neglect their constituents in favour of their second jobs.
The current much-discussed example is a lawyer-MP who has clients in far-flung places — meaning that he has been far from the UK and Parliament and his constituents, not to mention earning around £1 million (about Sh150 million) in fees this year.
The Guardian newspaper has said that over 30 MPs have political consultancy jobs, while “dozens more have lucrative board seats and advisory council jobs that are likely to involve giving political advice.”
A recent revelation is that to enable a quick response to the coronavirus, the UK government had a 'VIP lane' for procurement through which prominent people could recommend companies supplying necessary equipment.
MPs were among those who recommended companies.
For most, there may have been no moral wrongdoing – though one must wonder what value VIPs added to the procurement process.
But one MP referred a company co-owned by a person who donated a substantial sum to support the MP’s campaign to become his party’s leader a few years ago.
Not about second jobs for MPs, but it certainly does not look good.
HOW ABOUT KENYAN LEGISLATORS?
I have in the past suggested that our MPs (either house) should not have second jobs.
In fact, when the constitutional provision about second jobs was introduced, it was with MPs, particularly in mind.
The Constitution says, “A full-time State officer shall not participate in any other gainful employment.”
Apart from lawyer legislators who seem to get away with it – and Wilson Sossion who remained Knut secretary-general despite being an MP – do we even have any idea which parliamentarians have other jobs, and if so as what?
It is very common for the National Assembly to be unable to make decisions because they have no quorum.
MPs just do not turn up. (It’s not uncommon in other countries — it happened in Ghana the other day).
But what are they doing? Some would say they are doing CDF business. But could others be moonlighting?
MECHANISMS?
How is it possible to regulate the activities of legislators? The starting point might be a constitutional value: transparency.
MPs should be required – and compelled – to declare not just their wealth but also their interests in a broader sense.
We should know what other claims upon their time and the attention MPs have.
I don’t mean novel reading or running. But in some countries MPs have to declare not just earnings but involvement in organisations that include commitments to work for a certain number of hours in a month – even if unpaid — or chairing an NGO.
In Kenya, at one point there was a proposal that the Constitution should include an obligation to make public financial declarations.
This disappeared, leaving not even an obligation to declare privately.
However, the Public Officers Ethics Act passed in 2003 – in that brief period of enthusiasm for openness and justice after the end of Moi – does require public servants to declare their wealth, but privately.
MPs began to regret even that, reducing the obligation from annual to every two years.
MPs are supposed to make their declarations not to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission but to the Parliamentary Service Commission – a body dominated by the members of the two houses.
The disclosure is only about money – property and income – but not about other interests that might affect the way members use their judgement.
A common way to guide members of Parliament is to have a Code of Conduct that relates general obligations to the specific issues that arise from being in Parliament.
Remarkably, there should be three codes for Kenyan members: one under the Public Officers Ethics Act and one under the Leadership and Integrity Act.
The first has been prepared, while members’ obligations under the second Act still depend on a general Code.
Neither gives specific guidance on outside activities – perhaps because initially, members thought they were full time and could not have second jobs.
However, the third Code – under the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act – does say that members must “register with the relevant Speaker all financial and non-financial interests that may reasonably influence their parliamentary actions”.
All the codes are very general and rather vague.
Though common sense would suggest that there is a problem with second jobs in terms of time commitments and giving rise to conflicts of interest, members would all too readily turn a blind eye – as the British MPs have shown.
As those MPS have also shown, a mechanism of enforcement is also needed.
The Committee on Powers and Privileges is supposed to do that for Kenyan parliamentarians. Recent reports of the National Assembly committee show that it did indeed consider allegations of bribery of members.
Its other recent reports tend to involve misbehaviour that casts a bad light on Parliament rather than betrays the people – like brawling in the house or allegedly leaking confidential information. They seem to be concerned with personal grievances.
Various countries have – rather than a committee of MPs – a separate independent body, or a combination of both. Canada has the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner – appointed by the head of state (not of government) after consulting all political parties.
This has investigated an MP who employed her sister in her constituency office, an MP who tried to influence voters to support her husband as a candidate for elected office and another who tried to benefit her husband’s business interests.
It also investigated the Prime Minister about vacations as the Aga Khan’s guest, at a time when he might be in a position to affect matters of interest to the Aga Khan.
We need to know more about our legislators and tighten up our system.
A good start would be a single Code of Conduct, addressing the real temptations to members in a clear specific way, explaining why they are wrong. It would be good if MPs could do it.
(Edited by V. Graham)
