The issue, now being investigated by the Kenya Anti-Corruption Police Unit, is likely to add to growing inquiries on the manner the council conducts its affairs, including its apparent failure to attract major financial commitments from the international community to support its activities. 

In April, for instance, the council failed to win financial support from the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, though with 2.4 million HIV-positive people, Kenya is one of the countries hardest-hit by HIV. 

The Global Fund, a joint endeavour by the United Nations, the World Bank, governments and other groups, which has already received Sh140 billion in pledges for the next five years, subsequently distributed about Sh30 billion to 40 projects in 31 countries, excluding Kenya. 

A lingering suspicion among members of Kenya's civil society involved in the war against HIV is that among the factors the Fund considered while denying Kenya any support was the manner in which the council conducts its affairs. 

There was also the fact that since its establishment, the council has operated under an amorphous and unwieldy bureaucracy that is the Office of the President. 

The latter is especially contentious. Having had first-hand experience with bureaucracy and corruption in Government, many potential donors to Kenya's fight against Aids simply can't help wondering why the all-pervasive Office of the President should be the council's parent ministry. It already controls everything from defence and the provincial administration, to famine relief. 

The fact that the Office of the President is one of the most inaccessible ministries does not help either. Nor does the perception that funds voted into the department's coffers often end up as a slush fund for the political elite. 

Yet the Government's argument for placing the council under the Office of the President is not without some merit. The fight against Aids, a medical as well as a socio-economic problem, the Government contends, requires a multi-sectoral approach. This cannot be achieved by placing the council in any one ministry. 

It is an argument, though, that is not entirely convincing. A better option, some say, would be to set up the council as an independent body, somewhat like the Retirements Benefits Authority. 

The council could then independently co-ordinate the multi-sectoral approach needed to fight HIV, and have the flexibility to formulate policies and incur expenditure without having to seek authority from political interests. 

In the circumstances, removing the council from the shadow of the ubiquitous Office of the President is desirable in one important way. 

It would not only dissociate the council from the labyrinth of Government bureaucracy, which is often associated with corruption, misappropriation and inefficiency, but also help remove any doubts as to its commitment to its mandate. 

This, ultimately, could help nudge donors towards a more sympathetic view of the country's fight against HIV. In turn, this could translate into more financial and technical commitments for the council. 

Assistance would come from, for instance, the Global Fund and the American Government. Two weeks ago, the US Government announced a Sh40-billion raise in funds meant for the war against HIV in poor countries. 

Above all, it is imperative that the council moves to convince both Kenyans and the international community that it is really serious, unlike some private non-governmental organisations which purport to do so but are actually just fronts for accessing donor funding. 

The council only needs to look at the figures in its own books to see that, unlike other Government departments, it cannot afford to dilly-dally. 

Just last Tuesday, UNAids released a report which revealed that Kenya has the third highest number of Aids orphans in the world, estimated at 890,000. 

Reeling from an unprecedented economic crisis, Kenya can hardly hope to deal with the social challenges posed by the sheer number of the orphans, which the report identifies as potentially the most important Aids-related long-term threat to social stability. 

By being able to formulate informed policies on HIV/Aids and its after-effects, a respected and fully independent council is well-placed to co-ordinate the national response to the social aspects of the scourge, such as Aids orphans, and also to inform international opinion on the progress the country is making in its war against Aids. 

This can, however, be achieved only when the council is seen to be a truly transparent, accountable and responsible organisation totally committed to the fight against HIV. 

Questions such as the recent ones raised about its financial management are regrettable. They do not help to build the trust and goodwill the council needs to fulfil its mandate, and ultimately only serves to hamper the fight against HIV. 

---

Mr Kimani writes on science and health issues for The EastAfrican