HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 13960,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/13960/?format=api",
"text_counter": 386,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Dr. Monda",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 83,
"legal_name": "Robert Onsare Monda",
"slug": "robert-monda"
},
"content": "4. Prof. Harun Mengich - 81 per cent. According to the Minister, on the basis of the results, the board recommended that Prof. Mengich be appointed for another period of three years notwithstanding the fact that the one year extension granted to him earlier had been made conditional to the board empowering a new CEO to succeed Prof. Mengich. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the consideration of the results of the interviews and recommendations of the board, the Minister noted critical anomalies regarding the recruitment as follows - This is the Minister speaking - “There were anomalies in the appointment or recommendation for appointment of Prof. Mengich to be the CEO of this hospital”. One of the anomalies noted by the Minister was that the position attracted a very limited number of applications up to the final interview. He, therefore, considered the process not to have been competitive enough. The Minister indicated that among the candidates recommended by the board, Prof. Mengich, had served the institution since it was established. The Ministry headquarters was still of the view that the hospital required a fresh CEO to steer the institution to greater heights of development and service delivery in line with the reforms that the Ministry was implementing. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, indeed, it was for the reason that when he gave the one year extension as Minister, it was with the express understanding that the board and the CEO would look for a successor. Therefore, the Minister was of the view that Prof. Mengich was in his final term since the extension was so indicating that Prof. Mengich would be serving the last term. The Minister further indicated that there are a number of current developments and activities going on in that hospital that have a bearing on the appointment of the new director of the hospital as follows: The hospital was facing serious financial constraints that made it unable to meet its obligations. This is despite the hospital’s budget having almost doubled in the last six years. The main reason behind this constraint has been employment of staff beyond approved establishment of 2,700. The hospital, as it were, at this time had employed staff of over 3,000 having an excess of over 300 members of staff beyond its staff establishment. This number is besides the 220 staff members who were serving the hospital on casual or locum engagement. Secondly, the Kenya National Audit Office (KENAO) was undertaking a forensic systems audit at the hospital. It was yet to complete its report. In addition, the Ministry at the request of the Board of Management had invited the Efficiency Monitoring Unit (EMU) to assist the hospital identify inefficiencies in the systems and thus make appropriate improvements. Third, the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC) was investigating allegations against Prof. Mengich relating to abuse of office, nepotism and staff contract matters among other concerns. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to indicate that besides what the Minister indicated or gave us as evidence to the Committee, he appeared again before the Committee on 5th July, 2011 and informed us further that Prof. Mengich had served as a CEO since 1998 until the time he was being interviewed for a second time. That is a period of 13 years of service to the hospital. He further indicated that there was a decision to extend Prof. Mengitich’s term by one year to allow the Board to recruit a new director. He also indicated that he felt that the recruitment process was not properly handled as the sitting CEO went ahead to apply, after which he was interviewed and the Board went ahead to shortlist him. Only four candidates were interviewed as indicated earlier. As I move on, I want to indicate that after the Minister gave evidence to the Committee, we had a chance to take evidence from the Chairperson of the Board of the Moi Referral and Teaching Hospital, Eldoret. Appearing before the Committee on 14th July, 2011, the Chairperson of the Board, Prof. Ruth Oniang’o, together with her full Board, informed the Committee that, having been assented as the Board Chairperson, she only took over towards the end of 2010. During that time, the Board was not comfortable with the manner in which the hospital was being run by the Management. This necessitated a thorough process of hiring a CEO. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Chairperson of the Board of the hospital said that the management had kept the Board in the dark as to the imminent expiry of the extension of the term of and retirement of the hospital’s CEO, Prof. Mengich. The Board, therefore, resolved to advertise the position. Secondly, the Chairperson had advised the CEO of the hospital not to apply for the position since she felt that the hospital needed new and agile leadership. Prof. Mengich had served for a long uninterrupted period, and may not have injected any new management prudence required at the hospital. The Chairperson further told the Committee that the Hospital Board advertised the position of the Director on 17th and 24th September, 2010 in the local dailies. A total of 11 applicants had applied. Only four candidates turned up for the interviews conducted by the Board on 10th February, 2011. The Minister for Medical Services had advised the Board to nominate three or four candidates from whom one would be appointed. One of the candidates, a Prof. Kimaiyo, withdrew while another, a Dr. Kibosia, failed to attend the interview without notice. The breakdown of the scores for the four candidates is as I had given earlier. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Chairperson of the Board further indicated that she forwarded the list of the four interviewed applicants to the Minister for Medical Services, through a letter dated 14th February, 2011, recommending that Prof. Mengich be appointed for another period of three years. In her letter to the Minister, she also conveyed that the then CEO, Prof. Mengich, wanted to continue and that the position did not attract enough applicants. In her letter, she recommended to the Minister that the current CEO – Prof. Mengich – continues for one more last term of three years. This is despite the fact that the same Chairperson had earlier advised Prof. Mengich not to apply for this position. So, her letter to the Minister contradicted the same position showing a shift of opinion each time. During that time, the Board wanted Prof. Mengich to continue so that they could develop a succession plan, which would see the entry of a new CEO in three year’s time. On receipt of the list, and after consulting the Board, the Minister for Medical Services advised the Board to re-advertise the position in order to attract more candidates and allow for the process to be competitive. Consequently, the Board put a third advertisement in the dailies on 31st May, 2011. Unlike the first advertisement of 17th September, 2010, which carried an age limit of 45-55 years, the second and third advertisements did not ask for age limit. The first one did but the following two did not. This was after the Board was advised by the Ministry, according to the Chairperson of the Hospital Board, that the requirement for age limit may be construed to discriminate against certain individuals, which is against the Constitution. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Chairperson of the Hospital Board further indicated that, following the advertisement, the Board received applications from 12 people and they shortlisted five for interviews. Dr. Kibosia, who had applied and was shortlisted in the first time, but who failed to turn up for interview, also applied. The Chairperson disqualified Dr. Kibosia on the grounds that he did not honour his initial opportunity for an interview. The interview was set for 13th July but as at now, the Board has not interviewed the candidates due to related court cases. According to the Chairperson of the Hospital Board, the process of hiring CEO is highly polarised and did not attract many suitable candidates nationwide probably due to the political intrigues that have characterised the entire process and the effects of the 2007 post-election violence in the region. Having heard from the various witnesses, the Committee observed that from the onset, the running of the hospital appeared to be polarised. Previous incidents where the public and civic leaders had attempted to evict members of the Management and the Board from the premises were reported. The Board cited that it was even becoming difficult for them to hold meetings without armed security. The Committee asserts that this must not be allowed to continue, and that the Government should put in place measures to ensure that the hospital runs smoothly, and that the security of every person serving at the hospital is not threatened. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, secondly, the Committee observed that it appeared that the process of appointment of the CEO of Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, Eldoret, was, initially, unclear to the Board and the parent Ministry. This is evident given the epic pronouncements made during the process and the correspondence between the Board with the Office of the Prime Minister and that of the Minister for Medical Services. We have annexed these correspondences and Annex II in the Report. The letter from the Office of the Prime Minister, signed by the Permanent Secretary, conveyed that the Prime Minister had publicly endorsed the appointment of Prof. Mengich during a visit to the Rift Valley. The letter requested the Minister for Medical Services to endorse the renewal of the candidate’s contract. In his reply, the Minister for Medical Services brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the legal requirement that the appointment should be made by the President and sought his guidance on the matter. He clarified to the Prime Minister that, at first, he had not been fully aware of the requirement. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, thirdly, the Committee observed that the Chairperson of the Board did not make the process any better. During an appearance before the Committee, she indicated that the Hospital Board was opposed to the re-appointment of Prof. Mengich since the hospital needed a new and agile leadership. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, however, when she forwarded the names of the candidates to the Minister of Medical Services, she not only recommended the candidate for appointment, but also indicated that she for the last three years allowed the Board and management to develop a succession plan. Contradicting positions by the chair of the Board compounded the uncertainty in the process of appointment. It appears that the re-advertisement and the amendment to alter the age limit may not have been made in good faith and was made to accommodate a particular candidate. The Committee learnt that the first advertisement was made on 17th September and contained an age limit of 45 to 55 years. Later, allegedly on the advice of the Ministry, their advert was amended to remove the age limit by way of another advert of 24th September, 2011. However, this second advert did not indicate that it superseded the earlier one. While the Minister for Medical Services indicated that the age limit for head of State corporations heads is 60 years, the Board and the Ministry contravened on the reasons given for the alteration to remove the age limit. The second advert also may have compounded the confusion. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have indicated earlier, while it is prudent for the Board to undertake due diligence and integrity qualifications on its employees, including the chief executive officers. It was unfair for the board to site the allegations forwarded by the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission concerning Prof. Mengich since they were not verified. In addition, the said information was withheld by the Chairperson of the Board at the time of confirming the nominations during full board meeting on 11th February, 2011. It is, therefore, unfair for them to withhold that information and then use it against the candidates when the controversy arose. The Committee held that such integrity tests should be carried out indiscriminately, verified, and if possible, candidates given opportunity to respond to any allegations. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we further observed that it appears that the entire process of sourcing, profiling and nominating the candidates for the post of the CEO was flawed for amongst other reasons, from the onset, the confusion demonstrated, prejudices by the Board on the applicants. The initial advertisement indicated the age limit. This is another controversial area which was later withdrawn. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I head to conclude, the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital Order as contained in the Legal Notice No.78 of 1998 is self-lacking. First, it provides that the Director of Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital shall also be a principal, College of Health Science, Moi University. The chairperson of the University Council informed the Committee when he appeared together with the full board that the university does not have and has not had a college by that title. The office only exists in law. It does not in a legal notice and, therefore, has not been in practice. The nearest to that as informed by the chairperson of the University Council is the School of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences. Secondly, the said order and its parent statute is the State Corporations Act, Cap.446, are both deficient in that they do not provide for the process of appointing the CEO. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it will need to be noted that without mandatory presidential appointment, the process of appointing the CEO cannot be complete and that is what the process ought to have been. The Ministry, the Board and other departments can only guide and supplement the process. Finally, it was clear to the Committee that the extension of the terms of contract for the previous CEO; that is, Prof. Mengich, were not done by the President. This being the case, the validity of such previous tenure remains questionable; that is, the third, fourth and fifth extensions or renewals were not in accordance with the law. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as a Committee, we did the following recommendations:"
}