Who writes and edits newspaper gossip columns? Do they have any background in journalism? We don’t think so. Because if they did, we would at least read a story that is weaved with a recognisable, basic structure.
The basic structure would at least pretend to address the reader’s curiosity. What happened? Where? When? To whom or by whom? Why? How?
Now, we would understand if names are redacted, because the short stories run 100 per cent with anonymous sourcing and are grapevine for potential libel.
What we do not understand, though, is why the stories show zero attempts at verification – in a newspaper.
And what we really struggle to understand is why the writers seem to specialise in opacity, being unintelligible. You read a story and it tells you, well, nothing.
For illustration, consider “Corridors of Power,” The Star’s notorious sidebar on Page 3.
“MAJOR POLITICAL REALIGNMENTS are looming in Mt Kenya East,” one piece stated on October 6.
Why capitalize “major political realignment”? If you have something credible to say, don’t shout. Just say it. Shouting it in uppercase is a red flag for sensationalism.
The story goes on: “Sources whisper to Corridors that a senior politician from the region has received intelligence that his competitor, a sitting senator, could be handed a direct ticket.”
Sources whisper, huh? Why the need to whisper? Because, you’re saying, no need to give this any importance. It’s just gossip. A senior politician from the region? Describe senior, please. Is it an elected politician, a former legislator, a party official, or just mpiga debe?
More darkness: “Thus, the politician has been meeting with a key political leader to plan a different lineup.” Ah, so the former “politician” is not a “key political leader”? A different line-up. Different from which one?
But the entanglement with words gets worse. “Another politico, who is exiting the scene, has also reportedly made up with his 2017 political rival.”
Let’s count this, shall we? We had a senior politician. Then, a political leader. Followed by a politico. Now, a political rival. What in the world is this writer talking about?
Wait for clarity: “The plan is to make the area enemy territory for a particular presidential candidate. Only time will tell whether they will succeed.”
The plan, huh? What plan? By whom? Does it really harm to name the presidential candidate? And, oh, the story is incomplete without the maddening, meaningless cliché, “only time will tell” – if who will succeed?
Whenever you meet “only time will tell,” the writer has quit pretending to report anything objective. They’ve jumped into the story, throwing in their opinion, making the story now about themselves.
At the end of that news snippet, readers are annoyed. Because they started out knowing nothing. And they end knowing nothing.
One more example: “JUST WHO WILL rescue an elderly woman who was conned out of Sh400,000 by a sister-in-law promising to facilitate her son’s hiring by the Kenya Defence Forces? While the matter was reported to a police station in Nairobi on March 2, no action has been taken against the suspect. Corridors of Power is apprised that the suspect enjoys the protection of unscrupulous police officers both in Nairobi and elsewhere with whom she works in cahoots. Those in the know are further questioning the long period other investigating agencies are taking to probe and bring the matter to a close to ensure justice is served.”
An elderly woman? Age is more informative. A police station in Nairobi? Which one? Corridors is “appraised”? Told is fine – oh, and by whom? Unscrupulous police officers, huh? In Nairobi and elsewhere? Where is that, Loyangalani? “Those in the know?” Who exactly is considered to be “in the know”? Long period? Put a number to it.
What purpose do these gossip snippets serve? Disinformation? In information business?
1 thought on “Gutter press: If you want to be uninformed, read the gossip columns”
THE HIDDEN FILE: INSIDE KERRA’S CONTROVERSIAL CERTIFICATE
VERIFICATION ORCHESTRATED BY EX-DG KANDIE
In Kenya’s public service, integrity, transparency, and accountability are not negotiable virtues, they are constitutional obligations. Article 232(1) (a–f) of the Constitution of Kenya (2010) anchors the values and principles of public service, demanding “high standards of professional ethics, efficient use of resources, transparency, accountability, and fair competition and merit as the basis of appointments and promotions.”
Yet at the Kenya Rural Roads Authority (KeRRA), a storm is brewing over a questionable certificate verification exercise conducted under the leadership of former Director-General Eng. Philemon Kandie. What was meant to strengthen compliance and integrity now stands accused of breaching every principle of fairness and objectivity that the Constitution and the Public Service Commission (PSC) Regulations (2020) demand.
A verification shrouded in secrecy According to multiple internal accounts, KeRRA’s certificate verification process, undertaken in 2022 was not coordinated by the Human Resources Department, as required under PSC regulations and standard HR practice. Instead, it was reportedly managed directly by then Director-General Eng. Kandie, who handpicked an external consultant to carry out the exercise. This consultant, reportedly brought in without a transparent procurement or vetting process, was granted unfettered access to staff personal files, an act that many employees now describe as a gross violation of confidentiality and HR protocols.
Under the Public Service Commission Regulations (2020), Regulation 3 defines vetting as “the process of verifying academic certificates and identification documents for the purpose of appointment, promotion, or confirmation in the public service.” Importantly, the regulation vests this responsibility in the Authorized Officer, typically the Head of Human Resources, not an external consultant acting without institutional oversight. The Employment Act (2007) further emphasizes the duty of employers to protect employee information and to ensure fair labour practices, as enshrined in Section 5(3), which prohibits “discrimination or victimization in employment decisions.”
By sidelining the HR department, the verification process not only violated internal HR governance norms but may also have contravened national labour and administrative law standards on fairness, privacy, and due process. A report buried then resurrected For three years, the so-called verification report remained locked away in the DG’s office, never presented to the management board, the HR department, or even the PSC for validation. According to credible accounts within KeRRA, Eng. Kandie “sat on the report until his exit in 2025,” only to hand it over to the incoming Director General during the transition period.
Now, in an ironic twist, sources indicate that Kandie and some of his sympathizers within KeRRA and the PSC are pressuring the new DG to implement the same report, one that Kandie himself withheld for three years. This sudden urgency has triggered widespread disquiet among staff, many of whom question both the credibility and motive behind the report. As one employee anonymously lamented, “If the report was genuine, why hide it for three years? Why now when he is gone does he want it implemented with such haste?” Accusations of vendetta and manipulation Staff members allege that the report may have been weaponized to target certain individuals who had previously fallen out of favour with the former DG.
Described by colleagues as a man with a vindictive and controlling management style, Kandie is accused of using administrative exercises such as transfers and evaluations to punish perceived dissenters. The concern is now that the verification report could have been manipulated, possibly through insertion of falsified or tampered documents into select staff files, or through biased reporting designed to cast doubt on targeted employees. Under Article 41(1) of the Constitution, every worker has the right to fair labour practices, including protection from victimization or unfair disciplinary action. Similarly, Section 46(h) of the Employment Act explicitly prohibits punishment or discrimination for any reason not related to work performance.
The alleged partiality of the verification report, coupled with the breach of confidentiality, undermines both these protections, turning what should have been a procedural integrity check into a potential instrument of intimidation. The law is clear: HR must lead, not outsiders Both the PSC Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual (2023) and the Code of Conduct and Ethics for the Public Service (2016) make it explicit that all certificate verification exercises must:
1. Be conducted by the HR Department under supervision of the Authorized Officer;
2. Maintain confidentiality of staff records; and
3. Follow PSC Circulars and Ministry of Public Service guidelines on document authentication (often involving KNEC, KRA, or professional bodies).
Delegating such a process to an external, handpicked consultant without HR participation amounts to administrative impropriety and breach of PSC protocols. Moreover, Section 27 of the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act, 2015 mandates public bodies to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in all HR practices. Any process “conducted in secrecy, or perceived to target specific individuals,” directly violates this statutory obligation.
While KeRRA staff agree that authentic verification of credentials is essential and non-negotiable, especially in a public agency funded by taxpayers, they are united in rejecting the 2022 “Kandie Report.”
In a joint statement shared internally, employees have called on the new Director-General and the PSC to:
• Discard the disputed report in its entirety;
• Constitute a transparent, multi-agency verification team led by KeRRA’s HR Department and observed by PSC and the Ministry of Public Service;
• Audit the integrity of the 2022 consultant’s work, including verifying that no false documents were planted or removed from staff files; and
• Publicly communicate the scope, methodology, and outcome of any new verification process to rebuild staff confidence.
The goal, staff insist, is not to avoid accountability but to ensure the process is fair, lawful, and credible.
The saga leaves behind a series of troubling questions that strike at the heart of public sector governance:
• Why was the HR Department excluded from a process squarely within its mandate?
• Why did the former DG keep the report secret for three years, only to push for its sudden implementation after his departure?
• What safeguards existed (if any) to prevent manipulation of personal files by external parties?
• And finally, why is there apparent pressure from some PSC insiders to validate a report that violates PSC’s own verification protocols?
Until these questions are answered, the credibility of the entire exercise remains in doubt. Integrity demands transparency, not vendetta The Constitution, the PSC Regulations, and labour laws all converge on one point, fairness and transparency are the lifeblood of the public service. Any verification process, no matter how well-intended, that sidesteps these principles ceases to be a compliance measure and becomes an instrument of control and victimization.
KeRRA now stands at a crossroads. The new leadership has the opportunity to restore integrity by discarding the flawed 2022 process and initiating a new, transparent verification led by HR professionals in line with PSC, Labour and Constitutional provisions. In doing so, the authority can send a powerful message that governance guided by vengeance belongs to the past, and that in Kenya’s reformed public service, due process, fairness, and integrity will always prevail.