EACC Dismisses Report Claims on Kenya’s Corruption Rankings

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has refuted social media assertions claiming it had recently issued a document ranking Kenya’s counties based on corruption levels, stating that no such report exists. According to a statement issued on Tuesday, January 27, the commission had observed public suggestions that it had designated Marsabit as Kenya’s least corrupt county, a claim EACC strongly rejected, asserting it has not published any assessment comparing county corruption. ‘The Commission wishes to clarify that it has not issued any report attempting to classify counties as ‘most’ or ‘least’ corrupt,’ EACC declared. EACC highlighted that in fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities, all counties receive equal consideration. The Commission clarified that the ordering of investigations and publications follows strict objective measures, such as the extent of public funds misappropriated, the culpability of those implicated, and the significance to public welfare, rather than geographical, political, or ethnic factors. ‘In executing its duties, the Commission addresses all counties uniformly, with decisions regarding investigations and reports guided precisely by the scale of financial loss, public importance, and the degree of accountability of the individuals concerned, irrespective of location or political affiliations,’ they noted. The Commission further explained that all its official publications comply with legal requirements through quarterly and annual reports, which are published in the Kenya Gazette and shared through its verified communication channels, including its official X profile and website. EACC advised citizens to depend on these authenticated sources and warned against circulating unverified information that could confuse the public and erode trust in anti-corruption initiatives. The clarification came after a distinguished attorney challenged the authenticity following assertions that the agency had recognized Marsabit as Kenya’s least corrupt county. He contended that such a determination, if accurate, would contradict prevalent public views and persistent worries about the improper use of public resources in northern regions of Kenya. The legal professional criticized the anti-corruption body for neglecting its fundamental purpose, implying that rather than vigorously pursuing corruption cases, the Commission seemed to be protecting illicit activities. He questioned whether EACC was genuinely addressing corruption or merely concealing it, demanding improved transparency and responsibility in how the agency documents and prioritizes its inquiries. He additionally advocated for a thorough examination of how public funds designated for northern counties since the implementation of devolution have been employed, maintaining that only a transparent, detailed audit could rebuild public confidence. In his view, anti-corruption bodies must demonstrate decisive and impartial action to earn public credibility. Although the Commission avoided engaging with the wider political conversation, it reiterated its dedication to combating corruption throughout all counties impartially, asserting that its operations are firmly based on legal principles, factual evidence, and proper procedures.