Tough proposals on integrity for team on new Kenya law

From left: Members of the Constitution Implementation committee Millie Odhiambo, Abdikadir Mohammed and Ababu Namwamba. Photo/FREDRICK ONYANGO

By ALPHONCE SHIUNDU ashiundu@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Sunday, October 17 2010 at 21:30
In Summary
Parliament’s Justice and Legal Affairs Committee has proposed many changes to the Cabinet’s Commission for Implementation Bill, 2010.

Top on the list of the radical changes are stringent measures to ensure a higher integrity threshold for the candidates seeking positions in the commission.

The committee meets on Tuesday to ratify the amendments to the Bill before tabling them for adoption in the House in the afternoon. The integrity test will see people with pending criminal cases in court barred from the commission.

Parliament also wants the candidates to prove that they are dutiful taxpayers and that they’ve never been convicted of abuse of office or other economic crimes.

Any applicant who owes the government the university loan, normally given by the Higher Education Loans Board, will be automatically disqualified. “Let’s get Caesar’s wife to do this job,” said Mr Isaac Ruto (Chepalungu, ODM) who sits in the committee.

The proposed benchmarks will be appended on the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution Bill, 2010, when it comes up for the Third Reading (amendments and final approval by Parliament). The committee also adopted the lawyers’ proposal that the secretary of the commission ought to be subjected to vetting just like the rest of the commissioners.

On Wednesday, Parliament began debate on the Bill, the first of the 49 that will help roll out the new governance regime. “We want a body that is beyond reproach, where all values espoused in the new Constitution are included,” Mr Ruto said.

MPs Millie Odhiambo (nominated, ODM), Mutava Musyimi (Gachoka, PNU), Ruto and George Nyamweya (nominated, PNU) were going through the proposed amendments presented to the House by the Law Society of Kenya, the International Commission of Jurists (Kenya Chapter) and the Federation of Women Lawyers-Kenya (Fida-K).

The MPs agreed with the proposals from the group that public servants who hinder the implementation be punished by up to two years in jail. The MPs also backed a proposal to amend the Bill to bar President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga from ignoring the nominees of the Public Service Commission and the vetting panel, and instead present names to Parliament for approval.

“If we want to give the Executive powers, they must be powers that are proper,” said Ms Odhiambo, who chaired the meeting. The MPs also agreed to increase the number of people to sit in the vetting team for the commissioners so that the public feels involved in the selection process.

“There’s no other way of involving non-state actors without including organised civil society,” said the Reverend Musyimi, who felt that this would help include even those who voted against the new Constitution in the implementation process.

Rev Musyimi dismissed the argument by the ICJ, LSK and Fida that they ought to be included in the recruiting team because they have been fighting for the Constitution. “Nobody has fought harder and longer than the church for a new Constitution. This self-righteousness ought not be there,” he said.

Those convicted of economic crimes, but who paid back whatever they had stolen, will still be barred. “If you stole, we cannot have you back to steal some more,” the Reverend Musyimi said.

Even those adversely mentioned in inquiry reports will be blocked: “If the Controller and Auditor General tells Kenyans that you squandered, say Sh1.2 billion of public money, and we know you’ve never been convicted, why do we need you in the committee?” asked Mr Ruto.

However, Rev Musyimi asked if barring people who were under criminal investigation did not amount to negating the constitutional principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. To this, Ms Odhiambo responded:

“The practice is that once you’ve been mentioned adversely, you have to step aside. Why should we have you step aside later, when we can do so even before you get into the commission?” The committee wants a definite date as to when the quarterly reports will be handed in to Parliament.