EACC’s push for prosecutorial powers sparks debate over media narratives and institutional overreach
In recent weeks, public debate has emerged over the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and its longstanding push to acquire independent prosecutorial powers.
Critics argue that the campaign has increasingly spilled into the public relations space, with concerns raised about attempts to shape media narratives in ways that cast the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) in a negative light.
At the centre of the latest controversy is a series of media reports that appeared shortly after a journalists’ engagement hosted by the EACC this week. Observers have linked the timing of these stories to renewed criticism of the ODPP.
One such report appearing on the front page of the newspaper allegedly contained inaccuracies, including references to cases said to have failed under the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Renson Ingonga, despite some of the cited matters predating his tenure, which began in September 2023.
The same report also appeared to attribute investigative shortcomings to the ODPP, an assertion that legal experts quickly pushed back against, noting that investigations fall squarely within the mandate of investigative agencies, while the ODPP’s role is limited to prosecution and legal decision-making based on evidence submitted.
More controversially, the article was said to have cited unnamed “political analysts” advocating for the EACC to be granted prosecutorial powers. Critics questioned the existence and independence of such voices, though again, no verifiable details were provided.
The debate is not new. The EACC has for years advocated for expanded prosecutorial authority, frequently arguing before parliamentary committees that direct prosecution would enhance efficiency in corruption cases.
However, opponents warn that merging investigative and prosecutorial functions could weaken oversight and erode constitutional safeguards. They argue that the current separation of roles is deliberate, ensuring that investigative findings are independently assessed before prosecution.
In a more extreme interpretation raised by critics, unchecked prosecutorial powers could risk abuse if exercised without sufficient institutional checks, an argument often used to defend the existing constitutional architecture.
Questions have also been raised in public discourse about EACC’s investigative track record. In some instances, courts have criticised procedural lapses in corruption cases, including matters where evidence handling and procedural safeguards were questioned.
In one instance, a court ruling in a case involving Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya raised concerns over procedural issues handled by EACC, including questions around access to legal counsel and the handling of financial records during investigations.
In another matter, a corruption case in Tharaka Nithi involving a judiciary official collapsed after challenges emerged during prosecution, including issues where EACC admitted to losing the exhibit, a Ksh. 50,000 bribe, which ultimately led to the withdrawal of charges at the request of the DPP.