A Political Kenya: Latest Politics and Kenya Economy News

The word gubernatorial is one which you may expect to see used very often in the near future.
It is an adjective which means of or pertaining to a governor. With every Tom, Dick and Harry dreaming of occupying a governor's mansion, the kind of writer who likes to make reference to President Kibaki's gentlemanly mien or to the mammoth crowds that turn up at Prime Minister Raila Odinga's campaign rallies will soon have a new word to play with.

More seriously, the fact that the country is moving into uncharted electoral waters should give us all cause for thought. So far, debate on the new electoral offices has focused largely on the question of why all these old men whom we thought had retired from politics, have suddenly resurrected their political ambitions, and resolved to serve the nation as senators.

Such views overlook the fact that in all democracies, senators are often old men, and often much older than any of our current lot of senatorial aspirants.

In the US, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina served in the Senate from 1956 to 2003, and retired as the only senator to reach the age of 100 while still in office.

You would think that the 47 years he was senator would also make him the longest serving senator in US history. But in fact, that title goes to Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who served in the Senate from 1959 to 2010. He died in June this year, at age 92, while still a senator having been one for 51 years.

Nor is great age the only thing commonly found in senates all over the world. Some democracies have instituted lifetime tenure for some members of the senate, or whatever body they have that is equivalent to a senate.

To quote one source: A senator-for-life is a member of the senate or equivalent upper chamber of a legislature who has life tenure. As of 2010 [update], seven Italian senators out of 322, four out of the 47 Burundian senators and all members of the British House of Lords have lifetime tenure. Several South American countries once granted lifetime membership to former presidents but have since abolished the practice.

And no doubt there are those among President Kibaki's most dedicated supporters who now wonder how on earth they left out a clause in the recently promulgated constitution, which would have enabled the President to spend the rest of his life in the Senate, without having to bother about the nuisance of re-election campaigns.

One more thing we can learn from the US example: these complaints we have heard about how some regions will have more MPs for each senator, while in others there will be very few MPs for each senator or governor, have no basis at all.

No country has yet found a perfect formula for the ratio of MPs to senators to governors; and there will always be some irrational outcome from the attempt to provide adequate representation at every level of government.

In the US, each of the states gets two senators, and there is a 100-member Senate. But when it comes to the House of Representatives (where the congressmen serve) the basis of calculating the numbers is that the 435 seats must be divided equally on the basis of population.

And so you find that a large state like California has two senators and 53 congressmen; while a small state like Delaware has only one congressman (based on its population) but nonetheless has two senators.

We must therefore accept that there will always be dis-satisfaction about the varying levels of representation resulting from a two-chamber legislature.

That depending on whether you focus on geography or on populations, there will always be regions that will appear to have benefited at the expense of others. And there will always be plenty of old guys in the senate.

But what should be of far more concern to most of us, and what will certainly touch our individual lives in a far more direct manner, is the question of who gets to be a governor.

For this will be a man or woman who with barely any serious oversight institutions looking over his or her shoulder, will be in charge of a budget of some Sh3 billion for the county.

And while admittedly much of that money will go to pay salaries and other recurrent expenses, there will be plenty of room for development expenditure which has traditionally been the focus of huge rip-offs in Kenya.

So the question is, will each county really be able to find a man or a woman who can be relied on to spend Sh3 billion annually, in ways that will provide long-term benefits to the ordinary people?

The writer comments on topical issues.

It is more than one and a half months since Kenyans overwhelmingly voted for the new constitution. The new set of laws are a landmark step towards the establishment of a truly democratic and just society where probity, accountability, transparency, equality and equity will be the prime movers of our social, cultural, political and economic development.

That a massive 68 per cent of Kenyans endorsed the new constitution is in itself a testimony to the strong desire Kenyans had held for so long for a new dawn of governance that gives dignity and opportunity to every Kenyan regardless of their ethnic, gender, religious, racial or economic backgrounds.

It was the hope of one and all that when President Kibaki promulgated the new constitution, we would all hit the ground and commence the implementation of the new document. However, that does not seem to be the case. While the President and Prime Minister Raila Odinga have shown total commitment to the implementation, it is clear that some of their hardline lieutenants are bent on sabotaging the process.

The hardliners are sending wrong signals to Kenyans and the international community about the government's determination to see the process reach its conclusive end.

After endorsing the new constitution on August 4, Kenyans handed the mantle over to parliament to legislate 49 more provisions to make the new constitution fully operational.

One would therefore expect our parliamentarians to conduct themselves maturely by seizing this opportunity and accomplish for Kenyans the yet-to-be cleared path in the implementation of the new constitution.

Once Parliament re-opens in October, The MPs should debate and enact relevant Bills that will guide us in the new constitutional framework. Hurling accusations at each over the Bills to be enacted does not help Kenyans in any way. Take the brouhaha about the Provincial Administration for example.

In submitting their views to the review body, Kenyans were very clear that they were not comfortable with the widespread abuse of office by chiefs, DO's, DC's and PC's. They however did not call for the scrapping of the system.

In their wisdom, members of the Committee of Experts recommended that the Provincial Administration be restructured to fit into the devolved system of government. The restructuring process is to come via legislation by parliament and that is as it should be.

Why are the MPs, including senior cabinet ministers, now taking us in circles over this issue? The CoE never called for the scrapping or abolishing of the Provincial Administration. And that is the truth as we speak now.

Does restructuring mean abolishment?

There are very influential forces in this county who are ready to do everything to frustrate the implementation of the new constitution. Those forces have pawns and decoys in Parliament.
Earlier in the year, we saw a substantial number of MPs, including Cabinet ministers, who overwhelmingly voted for the draft constitution in Parliament later asking Kenyans to vote against it during the referendum.

Today, we are witnessing politicians who over the years have been posing as reformers taking the front seat in sabotaging the implementation of the new constitution they have been purporting to advocate for.

Those calling for the scrapping of the Provincial Administration are not offering any solutions as regards filling up the administrative and security loopholes to be created by such a move.
Provincial administrators are part of the national security system. Thus, whatever constitutional decisions we come up with, must not create a security gap that would later be exploited by hate mongers to cause chaos.

President Kibaki and the Prime Minister Raila should convince their troops to read and act from the same script.

The era of opposition for the sake of it is long gone. The new constitution should enable us to start on a clean slate as far as governance is concerned.

We however need to begin by changing our mindsets from the petty, parochial, ethnic and tribal approaches that have gripped and dragged us back for many years.

Were we to change our mindset, we shall find out that it is completely unhelpful to keep on engaging the public on useless subjects at funerals, press conferences and public rallies instead of encouraging them to tend their fields, feed their livestock, expand fishponds, take their children to school, impart religious morals into our youth, refuse to give and take bribes, invest in real estate, industries, transport, sports and education.

Our leaders must start investing in truth and honesty. As president Barack Obama once said, we must choose to live on the right side of history. Time has come for all of us to return to reason. Let each one of us play our part. Parliamentarians should stop confusing Kenyans. We should all stop living in the past. We must match forward, with our eyes on the ball - forever.

The author is the national chairman of the Kenya Football Federation

A maverick city MP caused a commotion at the main entrance of JKIA when he arrived aboard a boda boda motorbike last Friday. The MP had abandoned his sleek ML Mercedes Benz and jumped onto the bike as a traffic snarl-up on Mombasa Road, caused by an accident near Panari Hotel, would have made him miss a morning flight to Mombasa for a meeting with his business partners. But on reaching the airport entrance, the police manning the gate turned away the motorcycle rider, not noticing the passenger was a mheshimiwa. After the haggling, the MP removed the helmet which he had put on due to massive wind, gave the police a dressing down, before proceeding with his journey to the local departures. Unfortunately for him, he missed the flight and had to wait for the next one!

***

Campaigns in Makadara constituency ahead of September 20 by-elections has turned into high voltage politics for the moneyed if yesterday's events are anything to go by. One of the aspirants, Gideon Mbuvi Kioko, of Narc-Kenya offered to transport Buruburu residents and all commuters on Jogoo Road in the constituency free rides to and from town. Our mole tells us that the aspirant has unleashed a fleet of 15 matatus and one double-decker bus for the free transport services as one of the ways to woo voters ahead of the next week's vote.

***

Trouble is brewing at the National Cereals and Produce Board over staff promotions. Our mole says that despite a reputable recruitment firm being contracted at a cost of Sh14 million to interview candidates for certain jobs, senior officials have continued to give out jobs to their kin ignoring the recommendations of the firm. The private firm has already conducted all interviews and handed a list of the best suitable candidates to the board. Insiders are now wondering why the board had to spend the Sh14 million for a list that is now gathering dust in one of the board's shelves.

***

The National Taxpayers Association says it has identified two phantom projects in Kieni constituency in the financial year 2007/08. The projects were officially allocated Sh450,000 from the CDF kitty for construction but they do not physically exist on the ground.

***

A top city lawyer has fallen prey to a former MP from one of the East African countries. The foreign MP lured the lawyer into parting with Sh8 million for his upkeep claiming that he was expecting some of his donors from the Middle East and Asian countries to wire funds for one of his projects. The lawyer went ahead to surrender the money only for the former MP to disappear secretly. Attempts to get the former MP to refund the money have been fruitless and now the matter is with the Provincial Criminal Investigation Officer in Nairobi.

***

A well known MP from Kisii is causing waves amongst his colleagues after he seduced another man's wife and rented her a house in Kisii. The MP, who is an assistant minister, was the talk of the town over the weekend when he showed up at a funeral with the woman in tow. He did not seem bothered by the whispers that broke out from the astonished mourners who were surprised by his audacity and lack of shame.

***

The Permanent Secretary for Agriculture has moved fast to stop the practice of hiring or promoting people on the basis of their ethnicity. The PS has written the National Cereals and Produce Board's management instructions that they stop the practice with immediate effect to ensure that the staff reflects the country's diversity as per the national cohesion and integrity guidelines.

***

A goof can happen anywhere. But whoever was on duty at the Presidential Press Service yesterday must have been pretty off. The PPS despatched a photo of President Kibaki at the burial of Njenga Karume's son, Joseph, in Kiambaa at the weekend. The caption? "President Mwai Kibaki bids farewell to the outgoing Ambassador Shigeo Iwatani of Japan at his Harambee House office, Nairobi!" No apologies were made but the PPS later sent the correct photo and caption.

In the several decades journey for the New Constitution, intense debate on what to do with the Provincial Administration has always taken centre stage.

Amongst the reasons for that debate is the draconian use to which the Imperial Presidency under the old constitution put the Provincial Administration from the assistant chief to the chief, the DO, DC, PC, to the OP and the Presidency. The oppression of the people, denial of basic freedoms in the Bill of Rights, including social gatherings, was only possible through the Provincial Administration.

Memories are still fresh when even a visit by in-laws or the slaughter of a goat needed a permit from the chief, who was also required to ensure no criticism of the government or the president took place at any such gatherings. The Provincial Administration was relied upon by the imperial Presidency to rig elections so as to weed out government critics.

The 1988 mlolongo elections where in many cases the shorter queues won is a memorable reminder. The history and role of the Provincial Administration is thus far from positive. The root cause however was the imperial Presidency not the Provincial Administration per se.

It is ironical that this all powerful institution of the Provincial Administration was never anchored in the old constitution. The new constitution for better or for worse anchors the Provincial Administration in the constitution for the first time in the constitutional history of Kenya.

Section 17 of the Sixth Schedule (all the schedules are part and parcel of the constitution) provides: " 17. Within five years after the effective date, the national government shall restructure the system of administration commonly known as the provincial administration to accord with and respect the system of devolved government established under this constitution."

The Sixth Schedule is in turn based on Article 262 of the constitution, which provides:
"The transitional and consequential provisions set out in the Sixth Schedule shall take effect on the effective date."

On a correct interpretation of Article 262 and Section 17 of the Sixth Schedule, abolition of the Provincial Administration now would require an amendment to the constitution. The institution of the Provincial Administration is firmly anchored in the constitution of the Republic of Kenya.

What Section 17 of the Sixth Schedule requires is the restructuring of the Provincial Administration to accord with and respect the system of Devolved Government established under the new constitution. "Accord with and respect", is a powerful caveat.

Amongst the objects of devolution set out in Article 174 are:

(1) to give powers of self-governance to the people and enhance participation of the people in the exercise of the powers of the State and in making decisions affecting them;

(2) to recognise the right of communities to manage their own affairs and to further their development; and

(3) to facilitate the decentralisation of State Organs, their functions and services, from the Capital of Kenya.

Accordingly, any restructuring the effect of which is to dilute n any way these objects of devolution in letter or spirit will be unconstitutional.

Further, Section 5 of the Sixth Schedule needs to be taken into account. The Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution is the one mandated in sub-section 6(a) to monitor, facilitate and oversee the development of Legislation and Administrative Procedures required to implement the constitution and (b) co-ordinate with the Attorney General and the Kenya Law Reform Commission in preparing for tabling in Parliament the Legislation required to implement the constitution.

Since the new constitution does away with Provinces and makes the 47 Counties sacrosanct, creating a "cluster" of counties may very well run counter to the objects of devolution. The restructuring will however need to accommodate the presence of the National Government at the County Levels and below.

The counties themselves are required in Article 176(2) to decentralize their functions and provision of services to the extent that it is efficient and practicable to do so.

It is in the interests of the counties and the National Government to keep track of events so that the National Government is aware of the goings-on at the County Level and vice versa.

The Challenge is to get the balance right between the two systems of government, National and County which must co-exist for the benefit of all the people of Kenya, social and economic.

The writer is a senior counsel.

Expectedly, powerful status-quo forces in government are desperately trying to subvert the new constitution under the pretext of establishing administrative structures to "coordinate and facilitate" government functions in the counties before those devolved structures are even established.

They are attempting an impossible task: the premature and illegitimate resurrection of the Provincial Administration before their official death and burial.

Ironically, coordination and supervision of the execution of all government functions is a constitutional preserve - at least for now - of the PM who has never used the Provincial Administration to execute his functions. Moreover, the "reasons" those at the OP have expressed as the "basis" for their love for the Provincial Administration are the very reasons Kenyans have overwhelmingly voted to abolish them; to stop them from being used by the imperial presidency as instruments of oppression.

Devolution is a governance system that decentralises power, resources and services from the centre to the grassroots. It will allow the people to make decisions on matters that affect their lives. The counties will elect their governments. There will be County Assemblies where laws will be made.

The national government will have no authority to coordinate and supervise local matters for the counties. To permit that would mean we transform devolution into "delegation". That will not happen.

The Provincial Administration is an ad hoc administrative department in the Office of the President. It's under the Ministry of Internal Security and Provincial Administration. It was never provided for in the old Constitution and has only been retained for five years for "restructuring," which, frankly, is just a nice way of saying "dissolution".

For more than 50 years, the colonial and neo-colonial governments used this corrupt instrument for control, exploitation and manipulation as well as manipulation and rigging of elections, suppression of dissent and spying for the imperial presidency.

Senior officials from the OP have said they "are in the process of restructuring" this colonial relic. If allowed, it would be tantamount to permitting the violation of the Constitution and the usurpation of powers of the Implementation Commission, which, has the exclusive man-date to monitor, coordinate, prepare and present legislation and other mechanisms of ensuring the letter and spirit of the Constitution is respected.

Some power mandarins have said, "we can't wait five years to restructure the 'Provincial Administration; restructuring will be completed in a maximum period of six months. The national government must coordinate its activities all over the country." That's mystifying. The implementation of the Constitution and the coordination of government functions must be done by institutions, organs and agents recognised by law. Presently coordination is the purview of the Office of the PM while most aspects of implementation are reserved for the CIC.

No one can "appoint" anyone to superintend for the President, no matter how imperial, to the yet-to-be-operationalised counties. Purporting to "cluster" counties or the disbanded districts in administrative units without legal authority is utter contempt and disregard of clear constitutional provisions.

The Constitution transforms governance by creating, entrenching and enhancing transparency, efficiency and fairness in public affairs. It also eradicates the imperial presidency. Kenyans were determined to use the new charter to promote democracy.

Their aim was not just to transform the laws; they wanted to create new institutions and leadership responsive to the public interests.

To achieve those goals, it specifies that at the level of the executive, consultations between the President and the PM must occur for all decisions, appointments and nominations. The legislature has the exclusive jurisdiction to vet those nominations. The yet-to-be-established Supreme Court has the exclusive mandate to resolve disputes and questions arising from the new Constitution.

The implementation of the constitution is supposed to occur in a consultative, fair, inclusive, and transparent manner. The Implementation Commission will monitor, facilitate and oversee the development of legislation and administrative procedures required to implement the Constitution and to work with each constitutional commission to ensure that the letter and spirit of this Constitution is respected.

On August 6, Kenyans created a constitutional democracy where ultimate power and authority vests on them. Government only exercises power and authority donated by the people. Therefore, if the executive does anything that contravenes or undermines the authority of the public, the decision or act becomes illegitimate and void.

The writer is the PM's adviser on coalition affairs. The views expressed here are his own.

What a pity that Star Thursday columnist Wycliffe Muga persists in promoting the preposterous notion that the referendum on the new Constitution was a popularity contest for the various self-anointed ethnic vote bloc chieftains ("Dilemma Facing VP and Deputy PMs", September 9).

Instead of such totally misplaced criticism, Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka and his Ukambani "political backyard" deserve praise for demonstrating political maturity — the VP for completely eschewing the cultivation of a cult of personality (notwithstanding the fact that, placed alongside the PM and his DPMs, he is the most personable personality by far). The people of Ukambani deserve praise for having nothing to do with the herd mentality and voting their own conscience.

Praising the tribal chieftains and their mesmerised massed followers is nonsensical and ought to have no place in the post-referendum period.

Prime Minister Raila Odinga himself publicly recently acknowledged that the next President will need much more than his own tribal vote bloc, however numerous, to make it into office. So, what is this talk about Kalonzo not having the Ukambani vote sewn-up and in his coat pocket?

The Presidential election of 2012 will be dependent entirely on the strength and attraction of the various campaigns. These are dynamics that are not yet clear. For all he knows, sometime in 2013, Muga will be bemoaning the fact that Ukambani came out as one when it came to the Presidency, proving the point that the referendum is not necessarily the General Election.

It is regrettable that Muga should stoop to ascribing "foolishness" to the VP on account of the fact that Musyoka harbours Presidential ambitions.

Muga's strategy has one clear aim — rubbishing the prospects of all other leading presumed Presidential candidates and asserting, by way of subtext and rhetorical question, that the decks are clear for the PM's candidature.

The columnist is entitled to his opinions and wish-listing scenarios. What he is definitely not entitled to, however, is snake-oil salesmanship disguised as political analysis. The Raila Odinga political persona and the Luo community's loyalty to that brand are completely different from the Kalonzo Musyoka political persona and the Kamba community's independent-mindedness.

Neither combination has propelled a Presidential candidate to State House, but the 2012 campaign will provide an excellent opportunity to assess which candidate, given many other dynamics, formations and alliances than are clear today, will become the fourth President of Kenya.

Handing the Presidency to Raila on a platter 23 months ahead of what he himself has said will be the "mother of all [electoral] battles" is very paraplegic political analysis indeed.

Let the fact not be forgotten that the next Presidential elections campaign will be drastically different from the previous several campaigns.

The reconstruction of Kenya under the new Constitution will be almost two years old when the campaign really kicks in and the governance and administrative edifice will look and function very differently from the case today.

In all likelihood, the majority of Kenyans will want a Presidential candidate whose basic assumptions, personality, style, integrity and respect for the rule of law are as different from what has been the case under the old and now retired Constitution as night is from day.

All the other political personages that Muga has mentioned in his column, including Odinga, are political dynasties whose careers and those of their distinguished forbears are steeped in ethnic chieftaincy as a springboard to national preeminence. The VP has never aspired to Ukambani political kingship nor have the Wakamba ever engaged in cult-like political adoration of any one figure.

Like President Kibaki, Musyoka is a well-educated professional from a hardship background who rose to national pre-eminence through his own sheer efforts and determination, without a trust fund or a billion-shilling fortune giving him any wind assistance. He is precisely the kind of figure that the new Kenya is looking for as it seeks to sever its more backward-looking links to the past.

The VP does nor prescribe how you should vote; he does not whip his community into one point of view. This is not a person whose appeal and support can be said to be narrow. When Muga scoffs at the VP's showing at Election 2007 he omits to note that he did better than Raila on his own first stab at the Presidency in 1997.

The next President of Kenya will need to appeal to 50% + 1 of the electorate. None of the tribal chieftain candidates will make that threshold in Round One of Election 2012. But a candidate who can appeal across ethnic divisions could well find that his time has indeed come and that the primitive and atavistic voting patterns of the 2007 poll, has become a thing of the past.

In fact, that process has started, as a correct and much more realistic reading of the national referendum results (where Kikuyu, Luo, Luhya, Kamba and a majority of many others voted as one) than Muga can give readily shows.

The author is Head, VPPS,

Many of our national institutions are steeped in controversies that are hampering their performance. While some owe their failures to loopholes in their establishment legislation, others are in a mess due to poor leadership or internal squabbles. The latest to join the ignoble list is the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.

Despite the veneer of normalcy at the commission, it has long been evident that things have never been the same since the departure of former chairman Maina Kiai. Florence Jaoko's succession of Kiai was natural and smooth. She had been the vice chairman and apparently the most qualified in the context of the gender balance which requires either gender to occupy the top two positions. But Kiai and Jaoko are worlds apart in their characters, profiles and styles.

Maina was a career human rights activist, renown for his advocacy and vocal protests. He had an international profile, having worked for Amnesty International as the Africa programme head. Enter Florence Simbiri-Jaoko, a senior magistrate straight from the conservative and much maligned judiciary. Not that Jaoko has anything in her past that would prejudice her performance as chairperson of the commission. But certain observations can be made about her tenure.

One, the profile, voice and visibility of the commission have dipped. Two, leadership wrangles have emerged from within the commission. Three, the overall performance of the commission seems to be dwindling.

There is evidence these issues are not just perceptions. Within the commission, they have been subject of discussion without comprehensive resolution, hence the eventual fallout. Jaoko therefore finds herself in the same mould as former Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission director Aaron Ringera and the Truth Commission's Bethwell Kiplagat; having to defend yourself when either the public or members of your own organisation are calling for your exit and you are insisting on staying on.

While the commissioners who are demanding her resignation have not made public their reasons, we have reason to believe the revolt is not a malicious campaign against one of their colleagues. And once questions are raised about your suitability for a position, however unfounded they may be, your defence is not in the judicial procedures for your removal but your conscience and the public court to which you are ultimately responsible.

I am inclined to believe that there are sticky issues that Jaoko cannot brush aside with the swipe of the law. It is about personal integrity and the responsibility we owe to the organisations we serve when our performance is questioned.

The fact that the sticky issues have not been resolved and are bogging the commission down means the chair-person must take responsibility for lack of leadership.

The integrity of the commission first came to light when accusations surfaced of moles within the commission leaking out sensitive information on witnesses to suspected perpetrators of post-election violence.

Before then was the enduring suspicion that some commissioners are lackeys of the intelligence system or police informers who cannot be entrusted with vital investigations of violations the commission handles.

And then there is the vexatious issue of why the vice-chairman was always articulating the position of the commission instead of the chairperson. When Hassan Omar finally resigned from being vice-chair, partly due to this rift, the commission literally became voiceless. Without a vent, the commission has literally become a captive of internal schisms. I would be shocked if Jaoko can stand up and claim all is right within the commission and she would like to continue steering it rudderless.

She has not excelled in projecting the face of the commission and one wonders why she is not outspoken on the many things that her predecessor was notorious for.

Security of tenure is one thing. But to cling to security of tenure when all the people who voted for you have changed their mind seems inconsistent with modern accountability principles.

The commissioners are entitled to a change of mind upon seeing your performance, and it seems to me that in Jaoko's case, that change has come and staying on is selfish and insensitive. The commission cannot continue with the animosity the fallout has generated.

Since she cannot dismiss the other commissioners, Jaoko needs to do the needful. If she does not have the confidence of her colleagues, she cannot have mine.

The writer is the director, The Media Institute, email dmakali@yahoo.com.