Introduction

Corruption in the private sector of Kenya’ economy is represented in a wide variety of forms: bribery, money laundering, fraud, and collusion among others. This phenomenon is dangerous because it not only distorts markets but also has a negative impact on the Kenyan society as a whole. Corruption in the private sector contributes to health and safety problems, environmental damage, human rights violation, and economic instability. It also deprives Kenyan citizens of their capital, which is needed for economic growth of the country and erodes civil confidence in public institutions. It should be pointed out that corruption in the private sector is a final link in the chain of violation of business ethics in Kenya. In fighting corruption in the private sector, it is necessary to fight it at the top leadership level because business ethics adopted there defines business ethics for lower levels of Kenya’s society. Hence, this cannot be simply reversed because corruption is confined to the Government and political spheres. It is a broad decline in moral and social values.
The purpose of this essay is to consider corruption in the private sector of Kenya’s economy. The current state of affairs in this sector and most scandalous corruption case studies have been analyzed. The key factors which resulted in the rise of corruption in Kenya such as centralized power, the absence of effective and strong institutions, impunity, and lack of public accountability are also considered here.

Defining Terms

The term “corruption” refers to the misuse of power or resources for private gain. It is correct to define it as the abuse of entrusted power for self-gain. There are three main aspects to this definition. The first aspect defines the ethical principle which prohibits one’s relationships to affect the economic operations with the third party. A well-developed market economy rests on equal treatment of all economic agents. Bias towards certain economic agents significantly violates such ethical principles. Therefore, it fulfills a necessary condition for corruption. Without partiality, there will be no corruption.
Two necessary preconditions for corruption should be fulfilled for observed bias to be defined as corruption. The first precondition is that the bias must be intentional. Thus, an accidental violation of the ethical principle because of, for instance, distorted information, cannot be defined as corruption. Second, an individual who violates an ethical principle must benefit from it. In particular, the actions violating impartiality may be defined as discrimination, not corruption.
There are some categories of corruption. All of them are considered in Table 1.
Table 1: Categories of corruption

Categories of corruption	Description
Bribery	The crime of dishonestly persuading somebody to act in favor of a certain person by payment or something else of value (inducement). Inducements may take the form of fees, loans, gifts, services, donations, etc.   The use of bribes results in collusion (e.g., inspectors disregard offences in exchange for inducements).
Embezzlement	The crime rests on stealing, misdirecting or placing misappropriate assets or funds in somebody’s trust or under somebody’s control. From a legal point of view, sometimes embezzlement may not involve corruption.
Facilitation payment	A sum of money (also called a “grease” or “speed” payment) paid to expedite or secure the performance of an action to which the payer has the entitlement or a routine.
Fraud	The act of dishonest and intentional deception of people to gain an illegal or unfair advantage (political, financial, or otherwise).
Collusion	A secret or illegal arrangement between people designed to act together to achieve a certain purpose or influence improperly the actions of another party.
Extortion	The act of obtaining money or other benefits by harming or impairing, or direct or indirect threatening to harm or impair somebody or the property of such person to obtain something from such a party.
Patronage	Patronage is financial support given by a patron to a certain organization. In Government, it means the practice of appointing people directly.

 
The term “private sector” is used to determine the organisations that follow their mission and strategy to engage in profitable activities, whether by commercialisation, production of goods, or provision of services. The sector includes individual entrepreneurs, financial institutions, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), co-operatives, farmers, and large corporations. Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs), independent foundations, civil society organisations, and business associations do not fall under the category of the private sector of the economy.
Private economic units operate within an industry or sector of the economy with necessary economic conditions. There are four levels of this setup:

• Individual enterprises;
• All enterprises that operate within an industry;
• All enterprises that operate within an economy;
• Business conditions within which the enterprises of the private sector are created and operate.

Corruption in Kenya

The African continent is commonly considered as one of the most corrupt places in the world. Corruption significantly contributes to the impoverishment and stunted development of the African states. Many international organisations widely perceive this notion. For example, Transparency International (a leading international organization which monitors the level of corruption in the countries of the world) reports that 60 per cent of the most corrupted countries in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa.
In 2002, an international organization, African Union, estimated that the Governments of African countries lost about $150 billion because of corruption. This data significantly exceeds the financial help Western countries donated to sub-Saharan Africa ($22.5 billion) in 2008. Some researchers stress that African authorities should curb corruption instead of receiving international aid. Nevertheless, anti-corruption measures in African countries have shown some results in recent years, but researchers fear that the leading international partners would not stimulate African Governments to change the situation for the better. Even though the African economic model is quite vague, it shows perspective in some extractive industries. Some researchers suggest that African Governments are interested in attracting foreign investment. This way, the leaders of Africa will be motivated to spur more efforts to fight corruption.
Overall, the culture of corruption in the Kenyan society roots back to the epoch of colonialism. Today, it has become endemic. Financial and social institutions, which were created for regulating the relationships between the taxpayers and the state, are used for the personal enrichment of the Kenyan officials (bureaucrats and politicians) and other private agents such as individual entrepreneurs, businesses, and groups. Corruption exists in Kenya because civil servants benefit from it. Furthermore, the governance institutions do not have the capacity and will to stop them from doing what they do. Unfortunately, corruption has been normalized in Kenya’s organisations.

Causes of Corruption in Kenya

All economic agents work to maximize their utility. This way, economic agents follow their selfish interests which are the basic motifs for the financial transactions between them. Human and financial resources are allocated to the economic activities that are expected to provide the fastest return on investment.
As rent annexations are used to increase individual worth, economic agents engage in a rent-seeking course that is based on creating and distributing rent. Thus, there are some ways to create the rent, but Government intervention is the most effective rent generator. A direct violation of free market operations leads to corruption at all levels of economy.
Corruption in Kenya extends from the level of individuals to the institutional and structural levels. A societal state of Kenya is the primary cause of corruption since society is the basic institution that underpins and supports the type of governance as well as the rule of law. Furthermore, the community determines to which extent it upholds the rule of law or acts in the best interests of the Kenyans.
The neglect and undermining have systematically applied because the Kenyan institutions outside of the Executive significantly weakened in favour of the personalised power of the President of Kenya. This way, a model of the Government based on the centralised presidency reached its crescendo under the 24-year administration of Daniel Arap Moi.
According to the National Anti-Corruption Plan (NACP), the ruling of this leader resulted in the emergence of poor institutional governance. An overall atmosphere of impunity in the country led to the miserable rule of law, low inefficiency, and morale. All these factors contributed immensely to an adverse environment that allowed corruption to thrive and then reach devastating levels.
Unfortunately, public accountability and ethical leadership in Kenya became severely lacking. Public accountability means holding the authorities responsible for their actions. This aspect is central to effective governance. A lack of public accountability is an urgent issue in Kenya because irresponsibility among its powers has been nurtured for centuries. In turn, it has led to cynicism among the Kenyans.
Unlimited personalised power of the President of Kenya and weak institutions of governance are not the only factors that nurture corruption in this country. There is a wide range of secondary elements that make corruption cascade down to society. High incidences of bribery are one of such elements. Whatever transaction – getting a national identity card, Government contracts for goods and services – it is done through the bureaucratic procedure. Such exercise of assumed powers means that illegal payments have to be made. Otherwise, the transactions will not be completed. Such a phenomenon can be regarded as the regular exploitation of unlawful income-earning opportunities by Kenyan officials. Generally speaking, incentives for corrupt behaviour arose in the Kenyan society since public officials have almost unlimited control over the financial instruments that regulate valuable social and economic benefits. That is why private parties want to make their illegal payments to secure such benefits.

International Benchmark of Corruption in the Private Sector in Kenya

A large number of international companies monitor the level of corruption in Kenya. For example, Kenya’s Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) shares a quite grim picture of the level of corruption in this country. It has been stated that bribes in Kenya vary from KShs.80,000 (US$800) to about KShs.6,000 (US$60) while the average monthly income is just US$76. Most bribes are offered when Kenyans obtain essential services such as medical help or a national identity card. In light of this, Transparency International places Kenya at 139th out of 168 countries in its corruption ranking.
Even a quick review of Kenyan daily newspapers shows that corruption is an urgent issue of concern for this country at all its levels (from national to the individual). Many researchers express frustration as the problem extends and no constructive solution seems to be found. The Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM) is another organization that works to help Kenya change its corruption-tainted narrative as well as provide Kenya’s private sector with the necessary tools to actively integrate into business operations.
Over 79 per cent of the respondents in Kenya said they perceive corruption to be commonly present in businesses. 76 per cent of respondents say prosecution and punishment of those guilty of fraud would stop corruption. In other words, Kenyans seem to believe in regulatory activity with about 70 per cent of respondents saying it positively affects the economy. Unfortunately, senior managers tend to engage in most corruption or fraud practices actively or simply turn a blind eye to it. It has been discovered that 77 per cent of top managers said they would like to justify an unethical behaviour if it helps a business survive. One out of three would like to offer cash payments if it helps him/her win or retain business.
Unfortunately, Kenyans also do not consider corruption to be a big deal. About 32 per cent of respondents have a relaxed attitude towards this social vice while 73 per cent justify corruption. These people hold the view that unethical actions can be justified if it helps a business survive. Kenyans think that young people should pay attention to the problem of corruption because they are the future of the country.
Some other surveys on corruption in the private sector of Kenya discover that bribery is still one of the top dangers for Kenya’s firms. 75 per cent of private enterprises in Kenya report being forced to make illegal payments to resolve the existing problems. According to the estimations, corruption and bribery cost Kenyan enterprises no less than 4 per cent of their annual sales. By international comparison, it is considered to be too high. Furthermore, Kenya’s private enterprises and firms have to pay about 12 per cent of a public contract’s value in the form of bribes.
Prosident Uhuru Kenyatta is apparently committed to eradicating corruption and leaving a great legacy in this respect.  The Kenyan Government has announced that the officials such as accounting and procurement chiefs would have to pass lie-detector tests to root out corruption in the country. Edward Ouko, auditor general of Kenya, shared his ideas with Reuters. He said that if Kenyans do not stop corruption, it will engulf them. He also said that the actions of the civil servants who steal billions of Kenyan shillings are coordinated at a high level.

Case Study 1. Power Privatization in Kenya

Due to the pressure of financial donors, Kenya allowed liberalisation and privatisation of its energy sector. With less than 20 per cent of the country’s population connected to the national power grid, Kenya had to cover the rest of the country’s territory. Since power generation, transmission, and distribution were considered inefficient, it was determined they create independent power producers (IPPs) throughout the country. These enterprises soon became engaged in corruption scandals.
In making this sphere of economy effective, access to its energy market has been allowed for private capital. In 2006, about one-third of shares of KenGen company, a national power generator, was privatised. This case is considered to be a milestone in the large-scale process of privatisation of the electric power producers throughout the country. Charges of profiteering and inflated prices that emerged between IPPs and KPLC significantly undermined this process.
The decision to liberalize the energy market changed Kenya’s economy for the better. In particular, ten independent power producers contribute over 600 megawatts (MW) to Kenya’s national grid. A private power plant located in Manda Bay adds about 1 gigawatt (GW) to the current capacity of 2,200 MW. Finally, the Amu Power Company launched a project that allowed millions of Kenyans to have access to electricity.
Since Kenya’s power projects benefit from regular donor contributions, local officials and top managers were caught taking bribes. Despite these power projects developing the economy of Kenya, they leave much room for corruption. In particular, the management contract signed with the Canadian company, Manitoba Hydro, allowed unblocking of US$152 billion from the World Bank. The contract also purposed to create 400,000 jobs and reduce system losses by 14 per cent. The largest project initiated by Amus Power Company depends on a contribution from private Kenyan banks and a financing dotation from the Chinese Development Bank.
Nevertheless, the latest more scandalous corruption case exploded when around 350 power companies were blacklisted from energy tenders. These companies were engaged in the corruption schemes initiated by Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd. This case of corruption in the private sector was so significant that Charles Keter, Kenya’s Energy Minister, had to monitor it. He evaluated the data derived from an internal audit and discovered that 350 of the 500 companies had not met the required benchmarks for pre-qualification. Moreover, such data revealed how some employees were taking bribes and giving preference to questionable enterprises.
This case shows that liberalisation and privatisation of Kenya’s power sector are mid-way. Nevertheless, the country’s energy sector develops positively. Since it is impossible to avoid the problems linked to the project, the Government of Kenya has attempted to curb corruption. Unfortunately, this problem is far from being resolved because corruption has plagued all of Kenya’s institutions. Hence, transparency in dealings between Kenya’s national agencies and private agents will be fundamental as this country moves forward. Even though corruption impedes a quick development of Kenya’s economy, some positive results are also evident: today, no less than 25 per cent of Kenyans have access to power compared to 10 per cent in 1990.

Case Study 2. Smith and Ouzman Foreign Bribery

This case of corruption exploded in two parts of the world at a time – in Africa and Europe. It is another example of Kenya’s culture of impunity. It went down in history as the Chickengate scandal. Two top-managers of the British company, Smith and Ouzman, were accused of paying bribes in December 2014 to sign contracts in Kenya. These illegal payments were encrypted as “chicken” in their business correspondence. This case showed the difference in the attitude to corruption in Kenya and Great Britain.
James Oswago, a senior manager of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), and his subordinate, Trevy Oyombra, were accused of being the leading actors of the Chickengate scandal. The officials of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) expected to interrogate them in the police station. It should be pointed out that these people were not the only ones suspected of taking bribes. Kenneth Karani and Hamida Ali Kibwana were arrested in their houses as the main suspects. James Oswago and Trevy Oyombra were arrested in their homes in Nairobi. All these people faced corruption charges in a Kenyan Court. Isaack Hassan, an EACC former electoral Chairman, who also faced corruption charges, was exonerated. Overall, EACC found evidence of criminal engagement of the four persons in the corruption scheme. This information was reflected in the special report to Keriako Tobiko, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time who agreed with the accusations.
The Chickengate case soon became a symbol of the corruption in the private sector of Kenya’s economy. As such, it increased international co-operation between the Kenyan authorities and the Ghanaian, Kenyan and Swiss police for their help in securing these convictions. San Francisco international airport became another important participant in the prosecutions of those convicted of corruption. Moreover, the prosecution indicated the ferocity with which the United States prosecutes and convicts the people guilty of overseas bribery. Those who took bribes in Kenya thought that their wrongful acts committed in Africa would not be punished in Europe or the United States of America.
Unethical behaviour overseas came into focus in Europe. It resulted from recent changes to the director disqualification regime. This regime is a set of ethical and business norms determining the main ideas of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. Disqualification of the director accused of unethical business behaviour is available both in Great Britain and outside. In case of an offence committed outside Great Britain, the British Court is empowered to take into account a director’s conduct in foreign companies when considering disqualification applications.  Under the Kenya Companies Act, No. 17 of 2015, modelled under the United Kingdom Companies Act of 2006, it is also possible to successfully obtain the disqualification of a director in similar circumstances.
The Chickengate case showed that Kenya’s Government changed its strategy to combat corruption in the private sector of the economy. The Government follows a global trend to improve the economic situation in Kenya for the better. The legal framework for fighting corruption in Kenya is intricately linked to the international measures taken in preventing this vice which has almost been ratified in this region. In fact, assuming presidential power after a public outcry of corrupt cases committed during the regime of President Moi became a key to Kibaki’s political program for Kenya. However, even with several legal frameworks and laws being adopted in 2002 to fight corruption, the issue is still far from being resolved.

The Role of the Parliament to Fight Corruption

Kenya’s Parliament launched a war against corruption in all sectors of its economy after this country was ranked the world’s third most corrupt country in Transparency International’s corruption index. In the light of this, international and local Government agencies designed a sustained interest in the governance of Kenya’s economy. Despite Kenya gaining its independence in the 1960s, corruption prevails mostly in the private sector of its economy. Some researchers consider corruption to be an integral part of Kenya’s business ethics even when this country was a British colony.
When Kenya became independent, the Government focused mostly on the economics of transition. Hence, the economic empowerment of the Kenyans was stressed. It was associated with the political decision to distribute the wealth received from the hands of the British colonialists and foreign investors to the hands of the native people. These attempts would result in many unintended activities that in their turn would affect Kenya’s public service. For instance, the upcoming Kenyan national elite, in the Executive and the Parliament, found more tactics to obtain wealth.
When in 1969, Kenya’s President Jomo Kenyatta changed the political system in the country and having turned Kenya into a one-party state; Parliament became weaker. Furthermore, it adopted constitutional changes dictated by the Executive. The Ngei amendment adopted in 1974 can serve as an example of such a change. This amendment allowed the President of Kenya to detain any Members of Parliament with no apparent reasons. Moreover, the circumstance appears to be ripe for uncontrolled corruption in the Kenyan private sector since the Executive reinforced its grasp on power through state resources. Parliament lost all its functions. In fact, it had been turned into a watchdog that had no power, and even its main structures were inoperable. A misbalance of power between the Parliament and the President led to the rise of corruption in the country.
The Ngei amendement is a complex case for political research, while on the other hand it had significant implications on business conjuncture in the country. Typically for authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes, the leader, Jomo Kenyatta by that time, either established or covered a stable structure of corruption flows, whereas all legal and gray market businesses were ought to pay bribes to police or other Government officials so as not have bureaucratic complications. Through a complex Government network, several Government officials, including Ngei, received money from bribes from lower-standing officials. There was, however, another dimension of Government-related corruption, when Government officials facilitated businesses for their friends and relatives; Ngei, in particular, was accused of providing preferences for wholesale purchases of maize for his wife, as she was enabled to buy maize in large quantities from local farmers which caused shortage of this product in the country.
Corruption scandal that followed forced Jomo Kenyatta to seek for political solutions that would defend his allies in the Government as he wanted to maintain his power. The resulting constitutional amendment decreased powers of legislative and judicial branches and simultaneously saved Ngei’s position as according to the new constitution, the decision whether to prosecute Ngei, fell under Kenyatta’s authority. The economic consequences of this amendment resulted in that Kenya remained unsuccessful in terms of fighting corruption, as corrupted politicians in higher ranks often had personal friendship with the President. Thus, business competition in profitable sectors was eliminated which resulted in decrease of quality of products, their supply and increased prices.
The most outstanding case that demonstrated how the officials could fight corruption in the private sector of the economy was in 1985. The President of Kenya, Daniel Arap Moi, and Simeon Nyachae, the Head of the Civil Service, demanded that Parliament ratify an amendment to the Exchequer and Audit Act. The ratification would help to limit the powers of the Controller and Auditor General. Moreover, the Constitution of Kenya allows Parliament to execute the oversight responsibilities through the numerous committees created by Standing Orders. In particular, Standing Orders 147 and 148 initiated the creation of the Public Accounts Committee. By that time, Controller and Auditor General were considered as the major control bodies, officials of which forced small businesses to be involved in corruption due to pressure that the former could impose.
Although the assurance of occupancy of the Controller and Auditor General was restored, human resources issue became a significant problem. The wages of workers of these committees were much lower compared with their colleagues working in the private sector. Thus, a common scenario of corruption of Government officials occurred: workers simply needed more money which rationalized their decision to take bribes from businessman.
Under the Constitution of Kenya, Parliament is deprived of direct powers to sanction corruption. The situation results in the spread of corruption in all sectors of the economy. Although Parliament recommends sanctions, which are the responsibility of the Attorney General’s office, the rise of corruption is impossible to stop.

The role of the President in the fight against corruption

The Constitution of Kenya prescribes the President to play a critical role in the crusade against corruption. The President is expected to provide the necessary political measures to fight unethical behavior in business and set the country’s agenda for good governance. Kenyans believe that their President will help them to build a prosperous society because he is not only the Head of State and Government but also the Commander-in-Chief of the Kenyan Defense Forces. In other words, he symbolizes national unity.
The foundation of the Constitution of Kenya is to respect and guard Kenya’s principles of governance and national values (Article 10) as well as its economic integrity and leadership. In addition, under Article 132(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Constitution, the President is expected to report annually to the nation on the progress achieved in the realization of the Kenyan national values listed in Article 10 of the Constitution. Notably, Kenya’s principles of governance and national values are set out in Article 10(2)(c). They cover good governance, integrity, accountability, and transparency. To control the implementation of the President’s Annual Report, the Kenyan ministries, departments, and agencies have to implement the measures pointed out in the President’s Annual Report. This mechanism has been designed to prevent corruption in all sectors of Kenya’s economy. However, due to the peculiarities of the subordination between the officials, the cases of corruption occur again and again. It is obvious that the Constitution of Kenya seems to have no real influence.

Legal and Constitutional Status of EACC

In fighting corruption, some additional committees and commissions have been created.  The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is the main anti-corruption agency in Kenya. It should monitor the ethics of business relations as stipulated in Article 79 and Chapter Fifteen of the Constitution of Kenya. The Commission is composed according to the demands of section 3 of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act which was adopted in 2011.
The Act is seen as another step in fighting corruption in Kenya. It echoes Article 79 of the Constitution and requires Kenya’s Parliament to enact legislation to establish an anti-corruption commission and set the rules of business ethics for enforcing the provisions of the Constitution. In other words, this Act determines the business ethics which must be followed to make a breakthrough in the world of international business. Furthermore, EACC’s mandate derives from other laws regulating the basic tenets of business ethics: the Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012 (No. 19 of 2012), the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act (No. 22 of 2011), the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003, and the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003.
The Government of Kenya started monitoring the cases of corruption in the private sector when Kenya entered the international economic system. Adherence to the rules of fair business is a must for all parties of the international business process. Therefore, a new business era is marked by the precise monitoring of the cases of corruption in Kenya.
For example, observers and researchers state that Kenya’s Attorney General monitors how the Anti-Corruption Agencies prosecute people guilty of corruption cases. Such measures are no longer considered to be an invasion of their set of powers. In contrast, they are seen as an integral part of a checks and balances model. This model separates investigation and prosecution functions, that is why it is considered to be ideal to handle the prosecution of such criminal cases. Moreover, the Anti-Corruption Agencies are considered to be incompetent to handle corruption cases without the help of the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecution. These officials are considered to be more trustworthy and capable of handling the most scandalous corruption cases than the Anti-Corruption Agencies. Nevertheless, the realisation of the idea to separate investigation and prosecution of such cases is quite weak. Therefore, the population of Kenya tends to trust Anti-Corruption Agencies.

Other Documents Adopted to Fight Corruption in the Private Sector

It will be incorrect to state that the Government of Kenya disregards the problem of corruption in its economy. Some acts regulating business ethics and the rules of running a business have been adopted. More so, the Public Procurement and Disposal Act was enacte in 2005. Soon after, the Government of Kenya established the Procurement Commission which is responsible for micromanaging all procurement and corruption issues. Moreover, this commission could also impose sanctions on entrepreneurs or companies if some breaches of the Act were detected.
In 2007, the Supplies Practitioner’s Management Act was adopted. This document regulates the rule of training and certification of Kenya’s public procurement officers. In 2009, the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act was implemented. It is believed that the Government of Kenya had to enact the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act because of international pressure.
Finally, Kenya’s Constitution was adopted in 2012 in a referendum. It is a milestone in the struggle against corruption. Chapter Six of the Constitution establishes high standards for the integrity of public and state officers. The purpose of the Constitution is to strengthen and protect political and civil rights and privileges by expanding the authority of the judiciary and restricting the Executive powers. This Constitution also regulates the work of the Controller of Budget and the Auditor General. These agencies are independent public offices, so they require a well-developed scheme of coordination between the persons involved.

Strategies to Fight Corruption

Kenya has great perspectives to get rid of this negative social phenomenon. There are some ways to reach this goal. First, it is necessary to analyse the corruption factors to develop an effective strategy for combating corruption. The approach should address the primary sources of corruption such as rent. Overall, rent is the primary source of corruption, so Kenya’s Government must intervene in the corruption cases that occur in the private sector of its economy. Some researchers think that Governmental intervention in corruption cases means implementation of a set of measures that would control economic activity in the private sector. Such an idea is far from being correct.
Deregulation is the primary element of the practical strategy for combating corruption in the private sector. In abolishing prohibitive Government intervention, market forces will counterbalance all the factors so they will return to their competitive level. Hence, there will be no bribery that would result in corruption. Moreover, such a strategy will improve the overall circumstances of the market. First, it will put an end to the black market. Second, there will be neither a shortage of some goods on the market nor queues for deficit goods. Consequently, there will be no extra payment which is generated and appropriated from the black market operations.
Deregulation will have some more benefits for Kenya’s market. It will decrease and even eliminate corruption in the private sector because of the lack of discretionary power of the Kenyan authorities. Private parties will not need to bribe officials or civil servants, as these people will be unable to offer any favour to the entrepreneur. For instance, due to such a decision, there will be no import licenses since anybody can import whatever he/she wants in the quantity that he/she finds necessary for running the business. Next, entrepreneurs will no longer need individual certificates issued by public officers to circumvent some barriers. Following this, public officers will be deprived of their power to affect the fortune of entrepreneurs.
Significantly, deregulation is not a remedy to eliminate corruption. Like many other economic strategies, it has limits which stem from the role of the Government. The Government exists to provide the rule of law. It defends the citizens of a state and protects the private property rights through contract enforcement. In making people respect the rule of law, a Government’s power should be absolute. Additionally, the Government may perform its role as a critical element of its anticorruption strategy. Moreover, adherence to the strict rule of law is the primary element of an effective strategy for combating corruption. This way, all measures that make the citizens respect the rule of law will significantly contribute to the crusade against corruption. On the other hand, such an approach will limit the freedom of the entrepreneurs. Finally, it will result in the state regulation of Kenya’s economy which is undesirable for the development of this country.
The creation of transparent rules of running business will strengthen the rule of law in Kenya. It will minimise the uncertainty of the parties and significantly decrease opportunities for corruption. Thus, entrepreneurs will understand the basic ideas of business ethics that will change the business climate in the country for the better.

Conclusion

Corruption is the most negative social phenomenon Kenya has to cope with. Until now, the anti-corruption efforts taken by Kenya’s Government have focused on private sector corruption. It is necessary to draw attention to private sector corruption since it may not only have negative consequences for the parties involved but also impact Kenya’s society. Most entrepreneurs have to make illegal payments to the public officers to resolve some business problems. Furthermore, these people cannot even imagine how to run a business without offering bribes.
Nevertheless, some corruption cases discussed in this paper bore companies financial losses, negative reputation, and criminal persecution of the managers guilty of taking and accepting bribes. Thus, the Chickengate scandal and other associated with power privatisation in Kenya allowed international observers and auditors to evaluate the level of corruption in this country and develop some strategies necessary to curb it.
Corruption is not a single problem in Kenya’s economy. Figuratively speaking, the economy itself is the basket that infects the apples. Therefore, anti-corruption strategies are as much about systems and rules adopted in Kenya. This negative phenomenon will only be curbed by changing the social values supporting corruption.

Bibliography

1. Ashforth, Blake E., and Vikas, Anand. The Normalization of Corruption in Organisations, 25 Research in Organizational Behavior 1-52 (2003).
2. Barkan, Joel D. Kenya After Moi, 83 Foreign Affairs 1, 87-100 (2004).
3. Begovic, Boris. Corruption: Concepts, Types, Causes and Consequences. 26 CADAL, Year 3, (Mar. 1, 2005), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265364211_Corruption_Concepts_types_causes_and_consequences.
4. Cameron, McKenna and Nabarro, Olswang. Smith and Ouzman Ltd: Two Sentenced for Foreign Bribery, Lexology (Feb. 16, 2015),  https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bd2ead51-847d-47c5-b289-d4f5657efe8d.
5. Gamaya, Hoseah Edward. Corruption as a Global Hindrance to Promoting Ethics, Integrity, and Sustainable Development in Tanzania: The Role of the Anti-Corruption Agency, 10 Journal of Global Ethics 3, 384-392 (2014).
6. Hanson, Stephanie. Corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa. Council on Foreign Relations (Aug. 6, 2009), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/corruption-sub-saharan-africa.
7. Hood, Robert. Measuring Performance in Private Sector Development. Asian Development Bank, 5 (2007).
8. Iarossi, Giuseppe. An Assessment of the Investment Climate in Kenya 30-31 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009).
9. Jarso, James F. The Media and the Anti-Corruption Crusade in Kenya: Weighing the Achievements, Challenges and Prospects. 26 American University International Law Review 1, 35-88 (2010).
10. Kempe, Ronald H. Corruption and Development in Africa, 17-39. Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited (2000).
11. Kempe, Ronald H. Kenya’s Corruption Problem: Causes and Consequences, 52 Journal Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 4, 493-512 (2014).
12. Kempe, Ronald H. The Political Economy of Development in Kenya. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1-304 (2012).
13. Kompanek, Anna. How Kenya’s Private Sector is Addressing the “Supply Side” of Corruption, CIPE (Apr. 15, 2016), https://www.cipe.org/blog/2016/04/15/how-kenyas-private-sector-is-addressing-the-supply-side-of-corruption/.
14. Matiangi, Fred. Case Study on the Role of Parliament in the Fight against Corruption: The Case of the Kenyan Parliament, in The Role of Parliaments in Curbing Corruption, 352-354. (Rick Stapenhurst, Niall Johnston, Riccardo Pellizo ed. 2006).
15. Mueller, Susanne D. The Political Economy of Kenya’s Crisis, 2 Journal of Eastern African Studies 2, 185–210 (2008).
16. Njugunah, Margaret. Corruption, Bribery Thriving in the Private Sector and Employees Okay with It: Survey. Capital Business (Apr. 5, 2017), https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2017/04/corruption-bribery-thriving-private-sector-employees-okay-survey/.
17. National Anti-Corruption Plan Secretariat. (n.d.). National Anti-Corruption Plan. http://www.kacc.go.ke/Docs/Ntional%20Anti-%20Corruption%20Plan.pdf.
18. Otieno, Boniface. Energy CS Charles Keter Blacklists 350 Energy Firms, Daily Nation (May 29, 2018), https://www.nation.co.ke/news/Energy-CS-Charles-Keter-blacklists-350-energy-firms/1056-4584652-y42yq/index.html.
19. Ombati, Cyrus. Chicken Gate Scandal Suspects James Oswago and Trevy Oyombra Arrested, To Appear in Court, Standard Digital (Feb. 8, 2017), https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001228648/chicken-gate-scandal-suspects-james-oswago-and-trevy-oyombra-arrested-to-appear-in-Court.
20. Rensch, Simone. Kenyan Auditor General Warns of High-Level Corruption. Public Life International (Jun. 15, 2018), http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2018/06/kenyan-auditor-general-warns-high-level-corruption.
21. World Bank. World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. 2011.