Uproar followed the news on 16 May that British tourists were being shipped
home from Mombasa on security advice.
Tourists, inconvenienced and disappointed, were sceptical of the threat. The
Kenyan government and public accused western governments of destroying their
tourist industry. Within days, local media reported the loss of 4,000 jobs
lost at the Coast.
Only hours later, news arrived of explosions in Nairobi. Ten Kenyans died
and some 70 were injured. These indicated that the threat in Kenya presented
a new and more dangerous level of lethal sophistication.
The tragedy lies in the deaths and injuries of innocent Kenyans. Their
government has failed them twice over.
These events coincide with renewed public attention in Kenya to corruption
scandals exposed ten years ago while I was British high commissioner, but
reaching back longer.
These comprised 18 dodgy contracts, almost all in the security sector,
called collectively 'Anglo-Leasing'.
They illustrated how Kenyan procurement could be subverted for private gain
on a huge scale, cloaked under secrecy deemed necessary for such
security-related equipment. They also demonstrated how grand corruption in
Kenya had become institutionalised, with contracts like these being handed
on from rent-seekers in one government to the next.
The Kenyan government cannot get out of paying for these fraudulent
contracts. One result of that is the government has to re-schedule part of
its debt. Another is to delay Kenya's issuance of its first Eurobond.
Terrorism itself reduces confidence in Kenya further.
The dodgy contracts have delivered nothing commensurate to Kenya's defences.
Nor has the extensive foreign assistance rendered in the last 15 years.
The government's insouciance in face of the threat combines with a
thin-skinned response to criticism. When 18 ambassadors signed a call for
renewed efforts against graft last month, they were duly berated by
President Kenyatta's attack dogs.
The fact is that Kenya's institutions are so corrupt that the large funds
allocated over the years to security have been largely squandered.
Its leadership is repeatedly embarrassed by recurrent demonstrations of how
Kenya's declarations of intent on graft fail against the engrained venality
in the system.
Its citizens are effectively swindled twice: their taxes stolen while their
security is not one whit improved, leaving them exposed to violent
criminality and terrorism, culminating in last year's attack on the Westgate
shopping mall, and now these events. The UN calls Nairobi its most dangerous
posting.
Finally, no tragedy is complete without the element of farce. Nine years
ago, a man called Joshua Kulei was declined a visa to visit Britain - a
privilege he had hitherto regarded as a right.
Mr Kulei was a personal assistant to former President Moi, and one of the
iconic figures of the grand corruption associated with that regime. Although
Anglo-Leasing reaches back into that era, it was not the most egregious
case.
When Mr Kulei was told in 2004 that his presence in this country was not
conducive to the public good it was a shock. Mr Moi rang me to intercede, in
vain. As the news spread, it caused disbelief, then glee, in Kenya.
Last month, Mr Kulei again visited the United Kingdom, rejoicing at his
freedom to travel here in his usual style after a denial of ten years.
The question arises, what has he done to redeem his unsavoury reputation?
I put exactly that question to my constituency's MP, Justice Secretary Chris
Grayling. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny anything out of respect
for Kulei's privacy.
The Foreign Office, for its part, provided a long bromide from Mark Simmonds
about the UK government's unchanged policy on corruption in Kenya.
But something clearly has changed, and we have a right to know what.
Corruption flourishes in Kenya as ever. The policy of excluding a couple of
dozen luminaries of a corrupt elite has had a useful effect: it helped
disrupt the corruption networks - which run through the UK, incidentally -
and exposed to public ridicule those affected.
It dented their confidence that they could rely on entry to the UK as a safe
haven if life ever got too hot.
It signalled to Kenya's long-suffering citizens that we were on the side of
the anti-graft movement.
Our interests, like theirs, are in a government which is effective in
service-delivery and especially in combating insecurity. Badly run
institutions and venal leadership are a menace to these interests.
So, why has Mr Kulei been let off? What signal does his presence here send
to us and to Kenya? How many more Kenyan VIPs denied visas will quietly be
allowed back?
Will we protect their privacy at the expense of seeing Kenya's security
attacked by dedicated terrorists who raise their game faster than the
better-resourced but lumbering Kenyan state and its flawed elites?
Sir Edward Clay (British high commissioner in Kenya, 2001 - 5).