Overview
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) holds constitutional authority to prosecute all public crime in Kenya. The office is responsible for anti-corruption prosecutions of government officials. However, the DPP has been subject to political interference and has failed to secure convictions in most major corruption cases. This institutional failure has perpetuated impunity among corrupt officials.
Role and Authority
The DPP reports to the Attorney General and operates within the Ministry of Justice. The position is theoretically independent, protected by constitutional tenure. However, political reality has often superseded constitutional protection. Presidents have pressured DPPs to drop cases against politically connected figures or to selectively prosecute opposition figures while protecting government allies.
Political Interference Patterns
Political interference in DPP prosecutions has followed consistent patterns across administrations: (1) cases against major government figures are slow-walked, with deliberate delays in investigation and trial, (2) cases against opposition figures are prioritized, even where evidence is weaker, (3) DPPs who have attempted to prosecute powerful figures have been pressured to resign or have faced removal attempts.
In the Kibaki administration, the DPP prosecuted opposition figures involved in post-election violence (2007-2008) while declining to investigate credible corruption allegations against cabinet ministers. When the DPP attempted to pursue Anglo Leasing cases against high-level officials, political pressure forced withdrawal of the cases.
In the Uhuru administration, selective prosecution of opposition figures occurred while government corruption remained largely unprosecuted. The DPP's office investigated and charged opposition politicians with various offenses while declining to initiate cases against government officials engaged in similar conduct.
Prosecutorial Capacity
Beyond political interference, the DPP's office faces capacity constraints. The office is under-resourced with insufficient investigators, prosecutors, and support staff. Cases are assigned to prosecutors who lack specialized training in complex corruption cases. Investigations take years, allowing witnesses to be intimidated or influenced, evidence to be lost, and memories to fade.
Major corruption cases are further delayed when the accused are wealthy enough to afford sophisticated legal representation that can outlast the DPP's resource-constrained prosecution teams.
Conviction Failures
The DPP's office has initiated relatively few prosecutions in major corruption cases and has secured even fewer convictions. Of the cases that have been prosecuted, many have resulted in acquittals or plea bargains where the accused agree to forfeit a fraction of stolen assets in exchange for dropped charges.
For instance, major figures implicated in Goldenberg, Anglo Leasing, and NYS scandals have either not been prosecuted or have faced trials that lasted decades without definitive judgment. The delays themselves serve the interests of the accused, who can continue operating within institutions or enjoying illicit assets while trials proceed.
Institutional Pressures
The DPP operates under pressure from multiple institutional actors: (1) the president's office, which may pressure the DPP to drop cases or prioritize certain prosecutions, (2) parliament, whose members may be implicated in corruption and who control the DPP's budget, (3) the judiciary, which may be reluctant to convict high-ranking officials, (4) the police and EACC, whose investigations may be influenced by political direction from above.
In this environment, the DPP has often chosen to prosecute cases where political pressure to convict is low and where conviction is likely (cases involving lower-level officials or opposition figures) rather than cases involving powerful government figures where conviction is unlikely and political pressure to abandon the case is high.
Reform Attempts
The 2010 constitution established the ODPP (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) as a distinct constitutional office with independence protections. However, practical independence has remained limited. Subsequent administrations have continued to influence prosecutorial decisions through budget allocations and personnel appointments.
See Also
- Accountability and Justice
- Corruption in Kenya Overview
- Corrupt Officials Who Faced Accountability
- Corruption Reform Prospects
- Auditor General Role
- Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission