By ALPHONCE SHIUNDU ashiundu@ke.nationmedia.comPosted Sunday, February 20 2011 at 12:24
When James Orengo sought to censure the then National Assembly Speaker Francis ole Kaparo fifteen years ago, he had the support of nearly all the big shots in the current coalition government.
Mwai Kibaki, Raila Odinga, John Michuki, Kiraitu Murungi, Anyang’ Nyong’o, Charity Ngilu, Oburu Odinga and Orwa Ojodeh are some of those who supported the censure of Speaker ole Kaparo.
Back then; this lot was firmly in the opposition enjoying the new found freedom of multi-party politics.
The bone of contention, that Wednesday morning of July 10, 1996, just as it the case now, was the Speaker’s ruling.
The motion to discuss Mr Kaparo’s conduct and to censure him arose after his ruling sought to edit the report of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report and replace the word “president” with the word “government”.
The peg of the censure was that the Speaker wanted to edit a report that was not even before the House. The MPs argued that Mr Kaparo was keen on protecting President Moi, because the report was linking him to the multi-billion Goldenberg scandal.
“The matter over which the Speaker made the ruling had not become a (matter for debate) in this Parliament…he has nowhere to hide. He’s completely naked!,” Mr Kibaki, then one of the leading opposition figures said. “The Speaker should have owned up that he was trying to please the institution of the Presidency, He should own up and say that he was trying to be a good boy.”
Mr Odinga, the current Prime Minister, was the last speaker on the floor before the matter was placed to the vote and he was clear that the Speaker was guilty of anticipating debate.
Mr Kiraitu Murungi, then a backbencher, tore into the Speaker accusing him of having “great fear” for the President.
“The Speaker is more afraid of the President than he is afraid of this House and this is the real issue,” Mr Murungi said.
He alluded to Mr Kaparo’s nomination by Kanu as evidence that his ruling was influenced by party loyalties.
“Although it is us in the House who elected the Speaker, he was nominated with the consent and approval of the President and he feels he is responsible to the President and not us,” Mr Murungi, the Imenti South MP added.
Similar arguments are already flying regarding the ruling of the current Speaker, Mr Kenneth Marende, whose nomination came from ODM, a party led by Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
Mr Marende declared President Kibaki’s nominations unconstitutional, but the President has held his ground and now wants the courts to rule on the matter.
The High Court had already made a ruling on the matter declaring the nominations illegal. The President had early this month promised to “respect the parliamentary process and its outcome”, but when Mr Marende’s verdict came, he decided to wait for the courts.
His key point man in Parliament, Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka has already promised to lead the PNU brigade –together with their new-found allies from ODM—in filing a substantive motion to review the Speaker’s ruling.
The politics of the Speaker’s election are likely to feature in the debate should the motion be approved, given the ire and gusto with which the PNU MPs and their supporters have denounced the ruling.
The debate is also likely to be acrimonious, especially, given the sharp divisions in the coalition with regard to the ruling.
In the 1996 debate, three MPs –the then Kangundo MP Joseph Mulusya, the then Mukurweini MP Muhika Mutahi and the then Kasipul Kabondo MP Otieno Kopiyo—were kicked out of the House during debate for exhibiting disorderly conduct.
George Saitoti, William ole Ntimama, Musalia Mudavadi, Henry Kosgey, Fred Gumo and George Khaniri all voted down the motion. All of them, buoyed by the then predominantly Kanu frontbench and backbench, were keen supporters of the President.
They argued that the Speaker was within his rights to do what he did.
“One of the cardinal responsibilities of the Speaker is to preside over the debates of the House and to enforce the rules of the House. This Motion has been brought by the Opposition to this House for nothing other than cheap publicity,” said Mr Johnstone Makau, the minister for Information and Broadcasting. Mr Makau is no longer in Parliament.
Prof Saitoti, the then Vice President, defended the Speaker: “It is unfortunate that this morning we are discussing the issue of censuring the Speaker, knowing very well that the institution of the Speaker is a representation of this House. It is the dignity of this House, therefore, that is being discussed.”
He added: “The institution of the Speaker is important not just to the government side, but also to all of us and we should not set a precedent here merely to malign somebody or intimidate him for no reason. Basically, the motion is null and void…we’re going to reject (it). In so doing, we are going to send the following message to the Kenyan people, that, we affirm our total confidence in the chair.”
In the end, the censure motion was defeated 88 to 57.
But the tide has changed! And so have many things. Mr Kibaki is now the President. Mr Odinga is the Prime Minister. Most of the backbenchers are now in government and most of them are ministers.
The threshold to censure the Speaker is 167 MPs (75 per cent of all MPs in the House).
Mr Marende is now the Speaker. The circumstances are not the same, given that Mr Marende waited for the reports to be tabled in Parliament before making his ruling. In his initial ruling when he referred the nominations row to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee and to the Finance, Planning and Trade Committees, the Speaker had argued that Parliament was not properly seized of the matter.
For now, everyone waits as PNU sharpens its swords for the Tuesday battle in Parliament. The President too, holds his breath waiting for the Constitutional bench to rule in his favour, while the Prime Minister keeps promising that the “problem is not that big” and that he’d sort it out with the President. Kenyans continue to wait.
No comments:
Post a Comment