Fresh questions are emerging over the operations of the Government Delivery Unit after a staff member at the Public Service Commission raised concerns about recruitment practices, leadership decisions and the management of public resources within the agency.
The complaint, submitted confidentially to the commission, paints a troubling picture of an institution that was created to track government projects and ensure promises made to Kenyans are delivered.
Instead of focusing on that mandate, the whistleblower claims the unit has become the subject of growing internal concerns that demand urgent attention.
At the centre of the allegations is the recruitment of several employees in 2023.
According to the complaint, the positions were never publicly advertised and no competitive interviews were conducted.
The staffer claims that selected names were simply forwarded to the Public Service Commission for processing, effectively locking out other qualified Kenyans who may have wished to apply.
If true, the allegations would raise serious questions about fairness, transparency and adherence to public service recruitment rules.
Public jobs are expected to be filled through open competition to ensure equal opportunity and public confidence in government institutions.
Any departure from that process risks creating the perception that jobs are reserved for a chosen few rather than the most qualified candidates.
The complaint also questions whether the Government Delivery Unit still serves a unique purpose. The whistleblower argues that several government offices already carry out similar monitoring and reporting functions, including ministries, county commissioners, regional administrators and other coordination offices.
This has sparked concerns about possible duplication of roles at a time when the government continues to face pressure to reduce spending and eliminate waste.
Even more troubling are claims that some officers within the unit allegedly rely on ministries, agencies and contractors for logistical support during project inspections because of limited funding.
The whistleblower further alleges that complaints have been raised by ministry officials regarding requests for money from contractors involved in projects under review. While no evidence has been publicly presented to support these claims, the allegations are serious enough to warrant independent scrutiny.
The leadership of the unit has also come under the spotlight. Questions have been raised over why the recruitment process for a substantive head was reportedly halted after it had already begun.
The whistleblower wants answers on who stopped the process and why an acting arrangement was allowed to continue instead of an open competition for the position.
The complaint further alleges that leadership disputes and staff dissatisfaction have affected morale within the unit. Although these claims remain unverified, they add to a growing list of concerns that the government cannot afford to ignore.
No official findings have been made against acting head Sitati Olando or any officer mentioned in the complaint. However, the allegations have highlighted the need for a thorough and transparent review of the unit’s recruitment practices, leadership decisions and operational mandate.
For an institution tasked with monitoring accountability in government projects, questions about its own accountability are likely to attract significant public interest until clear answers are provided.
