Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Ingonga has been accused of misleading Parliament after telling senators that granting the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) powers to prosecute graft cases would require amending the Constitution through a national referendum. The assertion, made before a Senate committee, has sparked immediate backlash and deepened the rift between the country's two top anti-corruption bodies.

The controversy strikes at the heart of Kenya's struggle with public corruption: who has the ultimate power to take graft suspects to court? For years, the EACC has investigated officials, only to hand over files to the DPP, who holds the constitutional mandate to prosecute. This arrangement has become a flashpoint of frustration, particularly after the DPP's office withdrew 18 high-profile county corruption cases, often without consulting the EACC investigators who built them.

A Question of Law

Appearing before the Senate Committee on National Cohesion, Equal Opportunities and Regional Integration, Mr. Ingonga made two contentious claims. First, he argued that his office holds a near-exclusive authority to prosecute. Second, he warned lawmakers that empowering the EACC to prosecute would make legislators themselves primary targets of investigative agencies.

However, legal analysts and critics were quick to point to Article 157(12) of the Constitution, which explicitly states: "Parliament may enact legislation conferring powers of prosecution on authorities other than the Director of Public Prosecutions." This provision suggests that a simple Act of Parliament, not a constitutional amendment, is all that is needed to give the EACC the teeth it has long sought. The claim that a referendum would be necessary has been described as "ill-informed and a misreading of the law."

Frustration in the Senate

The DPP's remarks were not received well by senators who have grown weary of the perceived lack of progress in the war on graft. The withdrawal of cases involving billions of shillings in counties like Isiolo, Makueni, and Nakuru has created a clear disconnect between the two agencies.

Several senators have voiced their exasperation, describing the ODPP as the "weakest link in the fight against corruption."

• Nyamira Senator Okong'o Omogeni noted a "clear disconnect between the office of the DPP and the EACC," questioning how the war on graft can be won if cases are withdrawn so casually.
• Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei echoed these sentiments, suggesting the EACC should be given prosecutorial powers to fix what he termed "a big problem."

The Justice and Legal Affairs Committee (JLAC) has previously recommended a middle ground, suggesting the DPP could use his existing powers to simply gazette EACC lawyers as special prosecutors, a move that would streamline the process without requiring legislative changes.

The Kenyan Bottom Line

For the average Kenyan, this institutional turf war is more than just a legal debate. It directly impacts whether the billions of shillings lost to corruption are ever recovered and whether public officials are held accountable. When a case involving alleged misappropriation of over KES 1.9 billion is settled out of court for a fraction of the amount, as seen in a high-profile case involving a former governor, it raises questions of justice and deterrence. The EACC has argued that allowing its investigators, who understand the complex financial details of a case from the start, to also prosecute would lead to higher conviction rates and faster timelines, freeing up the DPP to focus on other serious crimes.

As the debate continues, the pressure now falls on Parliament to assert its constitutional authority. The question remains whether lawmakers will act on the powers granted to them by Article 157(12) and fundamentally reshape the country's fight against corruption.