Uphold recent police recruitment to avoid compromising national security

My idea of police recruitment is that it's a pretty straight-forward affair. Men drop their shirts, remove their shoes and sprint for a few rounds after which candidates are inspected to ensure they conform to some standard that is strict on height, dental formula and physical deformities.

Deformity could be anything from a sixth finger to a scar above the eye. But then, it all depends on who is assessing. Everything is relative.

It particularly helps to have tall relatives, as playwright Francis Imbuga puts it, those who can see far ahead in the queue, are valuable, especially if one does not have enough money to bribe his way.

I hear police officers asked guided questions during the last recruitment exercise to verify if candidates had passed the test to join the force.

The test, naturally unofficial, evaluated candidates' instinct to bribe their way through, which is a core ethos in the force. After all, everything, from promotions to postings and uniform are all dependent on how easily one can grease their bosses' palms.

Quite understandably, police bosses were keen to get cadre who could maintain their hard-earned distinction as the most corrupt institution in the land.

Let's face it. There is something unnerving about our police to the extent that any motorist who is flagged down feels the urge to cough a little something even before they are prompted.

This is why candidates who voluntarily gave bribes to influence officers' decision to hire them should be applauded and rewarded for demonstrating the right work spirit.

I suspect the line of inquiry went along these lines: do you have anything to declare before we screen your pockets? Is the envelope in your right or left pocket? Is the envelope white or brown in colour?

Those guided questions, apparently, are sufficient codes to verify the size of the bribe and how it is to be distributed.

SUCCESSFUL CAREER

But even those recruited admit many more were left out, even after paying a bribe.

Which brings us to the question: If the singular criterion for a successful career in the police force is the capacity to give or receive bribes, why punish those who have excelled?

Conversely, since bribes will always be paid, isn't repeating the exercise akin to giving the hyena twice?

The suggestion here is that we learn to accept and move on. There are clever ways of doing that.

Firstly, police bigwigs should invoke the sensitivity of police operations to keep off a nosy public.

There is merit in such an argument. One can safely say if the academic requirements of the recruits are discussed in public, there is the legitimate fear of criminals assessing police competence and developing strategies that could potentially undermine their intelligence.

Alternately, the top cops could propose the establishment of parliamentary committee that can accept testimonies in camera to protect the integrity of bribe-taking officers.

EARLY GRAVES

Of course, revealing the identity of armed men could potentially send the hapless recruits to early graves.

But the ultimate reason for proposing the upholding of this year's recruitment is that all those who offered bribes intended to recoup them by extorting from members of the public. Denying them that opportunity will leave them with little other options other than taking arms and joining the outlaws.

The outcome of such a move would be too grave for us to contemplate. So let's bequeath them their blue uniforms and allow them to march on.