By Reporter
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) finds itself under renewed scrutiny after a string of high-profile investigative missteps, now compounded by what critics describe as a calculated media offensive to justify its push for prosecutorial powers.
Two recent cases have sharpened the spotlight. In the matter involving Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya, the courts raised serious concerns over how investigations were handled, including questions around why the high-ranking politician was allowed access to legal representation and how his financial records were obtained.
In a separate case in Tharaka Nithi involving a judiciary official, the DPP was forced to withdraw the case after EACC admitted to losing a key exhibit: a Ksh 50,000 bribe in their custody.
Against this backdrop, critics argue that the EACC’s renewed push for prosecutorial authority is not coincidental but strategic. Rather than addressing gaps in investigations, the observation points to the fact that the agency has turned to “dirty hands” tactics, leveraging sections of the mainstream media to shift blame and shape public perception.
The controversy intensified this week following a journalists’ engagement hosted by the EACC, after which a wave of negative stories targeting the ODPP quickly surfaced. Observers have pointed to the timing as more than mere coincidence.
One prominent front-page article reportedly contained glaring inaccuracies, including attributing failed cases to the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Renson Ingonga, despite some of those cases predating his tenure, which began in September 2023.
More striking was the attempt to pin investigative failures on the ODPP, an argument legal experts dismissed as misleading. Under Kenya’s constitutional framework, investigative agencies like EACC are responsible for building cases, while the ODPP reviews evidence and makes prosecutorial decisions.
The same report in the media further raised eyebrows by quoting unnamed “political analysts” calling for EACC to be granted prosecutorial powers. Critics questioned the credibility, and even the existence, of such sources, suggesting a narrative crafted to manufacture consent for institutional expansion.
For years, EACC has lobbied Parliament for direct prosecutorial authority, arguing it would fast-track corruption cases. But opponents warn that collapsing the line between investigation and prosecution risks eroding critical checks and balances. The current system, they argue, is designed precisely to prevent abuse by ensuring independent review of evidence before charges are filed.
Now, with questions lingering over its investigative track record, the Commission’s aggressive pursuit of more power, coupled with what appears to be a coordinated media push, has only deepened suspicion.
In the court of public opinion, the question is becoming harder to ignore: is this a genuine reform agenda, or an attempt to rewrite the narrative after a series of costly missteps?
