Justice Smoking Wanjala Discusses Sanctions Office Structure and Effectiveness

By Grace Mwende 

In a comprehensive address, Kenyan Judge Smoking Wanjala detailed the operations and challenges of the sanctions office within a prominent international banks, emphasizing the importance of integrity and robust investigative practices in combating corruption.

Judge Wanjala, appointed as a sanctions commissioner in 2019 and reappointed in 2022, outlined the office's reliance on the bank's corruption department and its investigative unit, known as PIAC (Presidential Investigative Arm on Corruption). 

PIAC investigates allegations of corrupt practices by entities funded by the bank, focusing on corruption, collusion, and obstruction. Upon concluding its investigations, PIAC submits its Findings of Actionable Practices (FOSB) to the sanctions office.

The sanctions commissioner then evaluates the evidence to determine whether it is more likely than not that the entity engaged in corrupt practices. If the evidence is compelling, the commissioner issues a notice of sanctions proceedings, which includes the allegations and provides the respondent company time to respond.

Sanctions can range from a letter of reprimand to negotiated settlement agreements, conditional non-development, or, in severe cases, debarment from bank-financed projects for up to four years. The decision of the sanctions commissioner is final unless appealed.

Despite its crucial role, the sanctions office faces significant structural challenges. It operates with minimal staff, consisting of the commissioner, an alternate commissioner, and a small secretariat. Judge Wanjala highlighted the heavy documentation workload and the need for more collaborative decision-making, comparing it to the multi-member tribunal structure that allows for thorough deliberation.

Appeals to the sanctions commissioner's decisions are handled by a three-member sanctions appeals board. Since the office's inception in 2012, there have been only two appeals, both resulting in reduced sanction periods but affirming the commissioner’s findings.

Judge Wanjala also noted recent efforts to improve collaboration among the various institutional bodies within the bank, which had previously been operating in silos. This initiative aims to enhance the overall efficacy and due process within the sanctions system.

He praised the due process afforded to entities under investigation, noting that they are given ample time to respond to allegations and present evidence. He emphasized that the sanctions process is designed to be facilitative rather than obstructive to bank lending and development efforts.

Concluding his remarks, Judge Wanjala called for structural reforms to empower the sanctions office further, ensuring it can continue its critical work with greater support and collaboration. He lauded the bank's management for establishing a system that upholds high standards of integrity and due process, serving as a model for effective and fair governance in the financial sector.