Our Kenya

Uhuru and Corruption

4 min read

Uhuru Kenyatta's presidency was defined by the gap between anti-corruption rhetoric and the reality of industrial-scale theft of public resources. Uhuru campaigned in 2013 on promises to fight graft, declared in public speeches that "corruption is my personal war," and insisted that "thieves will not eat" in his government. Yet his two terms saw some of the largest corruption scandals in Kenyan history, including the NYS Scandal, Afya House Scandal, Eurobond accountability failures, and systematic procurement fraud across virtually every ministry. Estimates suggest that Kenya lost over KES 2 billion daily to corruption during Uhuru's presidency, with total theft potentially exceeding KES 7 trillion over ten years.

The pattern was consistent across scandals: brazen theft through inflated procurement contracts, shell companies with political connections, payments for non-existent goods and services, and money laundering through multiple accounts. What made corruption under Uhuru distinctive was not the methods, which were familiar from previous regimes, but the scale and the total impunity. Scandals that would have brought down governments elsewhere resulted in theatrical arrests, slow prosecutions, and virtually no convictions. The few convictions that occurred targeted small fish while big fish swam free, protected by political connections to the presidency and the Kikuyu elite.

Uhuru's anti-corruption institutions were systematically weakened or captured. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) made high-profile arrests that generated headlines but rarely resulted in successful prosecutions. The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) under George Kinoti pursued some cases aggressively but was constrained by political interference and judicial corruption. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions faced accusations of selective prosecution, going after opposition figures and government critics while ignoring well-documented cases against politically connected individuals. The judiciary delivered some notable anti-corruption rulings but was overwhelmed by case backlogs and vulnerable to compromise.

Which officials were prosecuted versus which were protected revealed the political logic of selective anti-corruption enforcement. Governors from opposition-aligned ethnic communities faced aggressive prosecution, while governors from Kikuyu and Kalenjin counties often escaped scrutiny despite credible corruption allegations. Cabinet secretaries implicated in mega-scandals remained in office for years, protected by State House. When Henry Rotich, Uhuru's long-serving Treasury Cabinet Secretary, was finally charged in 2019 over the Kimwarer and Arror dams scandal (alleged theft of KES 63 billion), the prosecution moved slowly and he remained politically influential. The message was clear: corruption was tolerated if you were politically valuable.

The institutional capture extended to parliament and oversight bodies. Parliamentary committees investigating corruption were routinely compromised through bribery, with MPs receiving payments to soften reports or drop inquiries. The Public Accounts Committee and Public Investments Committee, designed to provide oversight, became forums for political theater rather than accountability. Auditor General reports documenting billions in irregular expenditure were debated briefly and then shelved. The pattern suggested that corruption was not a governance failure but a governance model: public resources were systematically extracted by political networks, and accountability institutions existed to manage public perception rather than deliver justice.

Uhuru's personal stance on corruption appeared contradictory and possibly cynical. He made passionate public statements against graft, sometimes naming corrupt officials and promising action. After the 2017 election, he pledged to "leave a legacy of a corruption-free Kenya." Yet his own family's massive business interests and sudden wealth accumulation during his presidency raised questions about conflicts of interest and possible enrichment through state contracts. His closest political allies accumulated unexplained wealth. His deputy William Ruto, whom he eventually accused of grand corruption, had been his partner for most of his presidency. The gap between rhetoric and action suggested either that Uhuru was unable to control corruption in his own government or that his anti-corruption statements were performative.

The corruption legacy of Uhuru's presidency is fiscal crisis, lost trust, and a normalized culture of impunity. Kenya's debt burden, partly driven by inflated infrastructure contracts and stolen Eurobond funds, constrains development spending for decades. Public cynicism about government reached new heights as citizens watched officials loot billions with no consequences. The normalization of impunity emboldened corruption across all levels of government and society. Perhaps most damaging, Uhuru's failure to deliver on his anti-corruption promises convinced many Kenyans that the fight against graft was hopeless, that political elites would always protect their own, and that constitutional reforms and institutions meant nothing when confronted by entrenched interests.

See Also

Sources

  1. "The Cost of Corruption in Kenya: KES 2 Billion Lost Daily," Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Report, 2019. https://www.eacc.go.ke/default/cost-of-corruption-report/
  2. "Uhuru's Anti-Corruption Record: Rhetoric vs. Reality," Transparency International Kenya, 2021. https://tikenya.org/uhuru-anti-corruption-record/
  3. "Corruption Under Kenya's Kenyatta: An Assessment," Africa Centre for Strategic Studies, June 2022. https://africacenter.org/spotlight/corruption-under-kenyas-kenyatta-assessment/
  4. "Kenya Corruption Report," GAN Integrity, 2022. https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/country-profiles/kenya/

Backlinks