RedCard Campaign
One of the strongest counterarguments against barring electoral aspirants and/or appointees into public offices has been anchored around Article 50 (2a) on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Given the average duration it takes to prosecute and complete especially corruption-related cases in Kenya, this account alone is enough to ensure no meaningful isolation of aspirants with integrity issues can take place. Additionally, the IEBC is on record clearing aspirants for elections because the aspirants, including convicted criminals, have pending appeals against their conviction.
Anchored on the knowledge that ethical standards seek to reward, not necessarily punish individuals in society, the REDCARD Campaign proceeds from the key assumption that anyone not cleared (of any, and all serious allegation and violations) is not ethically fit to run for public office.
Objectives of RedCard Campaign
Integrity
Name and RedCard aspirants from contesting the 2022 general elections on grounds of Integrity and Corruption.
Empower Citizens
Empower Citizens and communities to use vetting tools to RedCard aspirants at sub-national levels.
Encourage
Encourage Faith-based community leadership to speak publicly in support of Integrity and Corruption Accountability in 2022 polls
Faith Community
Encourage Faith community leadership to ban access to the pulpit for campaigns by all political aspirants
Law on Leadership & Integrity
Chapter 6 of the Constitution of Kenya
People's Vetting Commission
Vetting is a primary recourse of citizens and citizen organisations in the face of uncertain democracy practices. In Kenya, the conceptualization of leadership is a function of wealth (money) and political (party or bigwig) affiliation. increasingly therefore, leadership has been dictated by patronage as opposed to qualities and or track record of the person offering themselves for elections. Burden of proof for disqualification is on the one alleging it. Individuals who have pending criminal cases can participate in elections if they are out on bail. Previous criminal convictions no matter how serious do not automatically bar one from vying unless barred by Court.
Rationale
Kenya lacks clear procedures for appropriate disciplinary action, prosecution and removal proceedings for elected leaders who contravene Chapter Six. This gap has ensured that some elected leaders who have acted in breach of the leadership and integrity provisions remain in office. A distinction should be put in place within the law on the disciplinary and removal processes arising from a contravention of Chapter Six that is distinct from removal arising from criminal processes or those grounds outlined under any provisions for the removal from office of state and public officers.
As a society therefore, it is imperative that citizens and citizen organisations step in to salvage the situation by developing and operationalising an advocacy agenda and process for the social determination of leaders.
