Gladys Shollei the CRJ admitted authorizing an irregular payment for PREFABRICATED COURTHOUSES in the sum of Ksh82,737,000.00 to JKUAT Enterprises Ltd for interimarchitectural consultancy without any interim certificate of works being provided. The Commission observed that the CRJ’s response to the effect that interim payment certificates are normally used while paying contractors and not consultants was not true because JKUAT were supervising consultants and they could only be paidagainst the certificates submitted by the contractors, this is in line with theprovisions of Section 14.7 of Government Financial Regulations . The CRJ did not make available the contract signed with JKUAT Enterprises Ltd for consultancyservices to confirm the terms of the agreement. 3. Personal integrity The CRJ denied the allegation that she irregularly received sitting allowancesamounting to Ksh2,560,000 . 00 when the JSC was conducting interviews for Court of Appeal Judges and High Court Judges when she did not participate in the saidinterviews . The Commission referred to signed register and the verbatim reports forHigh Court and Court of Appeal interviews for 2012 and 2013, which confirm that the CRJ did not participate in the interviews. The Commission noted that thequestion of integrity is personal and if there were any erroneous payments made,they ought to have been refunded at the earliest opportunity.Between October 31 and November 21, 2012, the CRJ irregularly caused herself toreceive payment totaling e ight (8) m onths’ salary advance in the total sum of Ksh3,539,250.00 from the Judiciary Milimani Court Deposit fund. The CRJ admitted the allegation and stated that the facility was also available to otherJudges. She presented a list of the Judges with salary advance which she approved.In her response, the CRJ stated that she had repaid a substantial amount and stillcontinued to make payments. The Commission observed that there was no evidenceof such repayment save for a receipt of Ksh680,625.00 . The Commission noted that taking salary advances from the Judiciary Fund as opposed to the Consolidated FundServices, which was the CRJ’s pay -point, contravened Section 5.8.3 and 5.8.2. of the Government Financial Regulations which state that a salary advance must be obtained within the Vote which bears the cost of the officer’s salary and in this case CRJ’s salary point is the Consolidated Fund Services. The Regulations also state that salary advances should not be for more than two months and should only begranted when an officer has no other outstanding advances. Further, advances canonly be paid in very exceptional circumstances. The Regulations also state that collateral security is required when the advance exceeds two months . TheCommission observed that the circumstances called for the salary advance may not have been exceptional, and that further, the advance was also self-approved.The Commission received no evidence on repayment of the salary advance. Save forthe receipt of Ksh680,625.00 CRJ did not repay the salary advances as and whenprovided in the Government Financial Regulations. The pay slips referred to by CRJin her response were missing from the documentation presented to theCommission.The Commission noted that salary advance is generally made out of cash availablefor other services. The overall effect of such advances is to cause liquidity problemsin the Judiciary. Misbehaviour The CRJ admitted the allegation of misbehaviour, which had stated that on August 19 , 2013 she addressed the media and publicly referred to the Commission’sresolution among others as, “irresponsible” thereby exhibiting open contempt for the Commission. She stated she had a right to administrative action. The CRJresponse confirms the allegation that she prefers to employ temporary and casualstaff instead of advising the JSC to employ the necessary staff to support corejudicial functions.The CRJ admitted to issuing Government vehicles to junior officers in her office,paying them special perks and giving them titles without the authority of the JSC.The regulations (JSSR) the CRJ alludes to support her actions are not applicable inthe Judicial Service.The appointments were made without reference to JSC thus the CRJ actioncontravene Articles 172(1)(c) and (2), 232 and Part III Third Schedule of the Judicial Service Act, 2011 and the JSC policy of “equal opportunity and selection of candidates on merit through fair and open competition from the widest range of eligible candidates”.
Posted on: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:32:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015