Kibaki, Raila must go back to the basics

Once again Kenya is at a political crossroads characterised by uncertainty over the future of the fractious Grand Coalition Government.
Hanging over a country that just a little over three years ago was in flames over disputed presidential election results is a dark cloud of anxiety over the present and uncertainty over the future. The cornerstone of the current fears and silent cry for Kenya is the standoff between President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga over nominations to four key constitutional offices. The offices were either created by or are to be rendered vacant by the Constitution that we promulgated at the tail-end of August last year.
Because of the gigantic leap it portended for Kenya’s democracy, and the big promise it bore, as well as the joy that radiated on every face, regardless of the fact that some had opposed the new law, we called this day the birth of the Second Republic. We also compared the joy and ecstasy, as well as the sense of expectation hanging over Kenya, to Independence Day in 1963.
There were, however, calls on Kenyans to bear in mind the hardest part had just started, which would be entrenchment of the tablet of laws and creation of new ones to ensure full implementation. It is therefore tragic that the two principals have been unable to compromise on postings to the four offices — Attorney General, Chief Justice, Director of Public Prosecutions and National Budget Office. Why else would leaders who claim to subscribe to the ethos of meritocracy, competence, fairness and transparency, fail to agree on four positions? What is so much at stake it seems one side in a hurry to take it all?
If staffing these offices with the best available in the Kenyan market was the only consideration as envisaged in the constitution, why does it look like the list sent to House Speaker Kenneth Marende was dispatched before consultations were concluded?
We ask these questions bearing in mind the fact that no matter the arguments being presented, the first casualty of the nominations, are the institutions twe were out to reform. Tragically, the eminent Kenyans on the President’s nomination list are increasingly being seen as his henchmen rather than respected professionals.
No matter how the standoff is resolved, and if the President has his way through our divided Parliament which votes largely on the basis of personal, party and ethnic interests, perceptions the nominees were handpicked with a specific mandate in mind, will not go easily.
Predictably, the most painful body has been inflicted on the Judiciary, which has been trying to reclaim its place of honour among Kenya’s institutions deemed independent. Many Kenyans certainly are uneasy with a CJ, AG and DPP who owe their allegiance and jobs to the President.
MERE TOOLS
The reasons why these offices were pliable in the hands of the Executive to the point it would hold trials of dissidents at nightfall, sentence them at midnight, was because they were appendages and tools of the Presidency.
The President’s action has merely perpetuated this perception, and sadly sucked into disrepute the upcoming office of Controller of Budget, who by virtue of the unenviable task of equitably sharing out the national cake, must be seen to be working unencumbered by vested political interests and buoyed by independence from any one appointing authority. But now all we hear is that the appointees have a specific mandate which they themselves might not know, and which have two faces; to give the President who is retiring next year a hand in the next government; and raw pursuit of selfish and narrow ethnic and party interests. To this end, whether deliberate or unintentionally, some in Kenya believe, given the ethnic roots of three of the four appointees, the nominations were patterned out on the infamous Kikuyu-Kalenjin-Kamba political alliance. It may be false, but perceptions are made of a set of coincidences and realities on the ground.
They are also the hardest to remove. Like a nail on a piece of wood which can only be driven out by another nail, the President should have anticipated the hostilities and suspicions that a half-baked list, which was bound to be met with the PM’s protestations, would definitely stir.
It may not have mattered to him the worrying message his unilateral act would send through Kenyans’ minds, because the intentions could have been to grab them all and humiliate the PM’s party, probably buoyed by the belief that with the support of the Rift Valley MPs who have rebelled against Raila, the decision could stand the test of Parliament.
Yet, the Rift Valley MPs appear unwilling to support a nominee the President and his handlers seemed to have thought they would automatically root for. But again they are doing so for political and personal reasons, not because they believe the particular nominee is incompetent. Could worse be happening in the Grand Coalition?
Would it not have been more prudent for them to have the positions advertised and pre-qualification assessment carried out by an independent team of professionals from both the State and private sector?
INFLAMING PASSIONS
What message is the President and PM is sending to foreign investors and the international community? Are they deaf to the desperation of Kenyans? Did they consider how the latest row can easily set the tone for next year’s elections, and probably even inflame passions ahead of it, with catastrophic consequences just like in 2007?
Is this Government committed to reforming the Judiciary and demonstrating collective leadership.? Kenyans are also wondering what will become of those who merit the positions, but have no access to the high and mighty.
Didn’t the responsibility vested in the President and PM to pick the nominees imply they would have to consult with the relevant State commissions and constitutional committees? Should they not have resorted to a formula that would allow for interrogation and audit of the nominees by their peers and professional colleagues, before passing it over to Parliament? Isn’t it an act of bad faith and a betrayal of the constitution to push on with a list that has been contested and poisoned by controversy? Ironically, were it not for the battered image of the Judiciary, the courts would have been the natural platform for the aggrieved to seek remedy through interpretation. This leaves the President and the PM with one option: to restore Kenyans’ waning confidence in their leadership by withdrawing the list and beginning afresh, even if only to salvage the respect they command, and restore confidence in these institutions.
If this is not done, then the first agenda of the next government, just like that of the Kibaki administration in 2003, will be to set up tribunals and judicial commissions to undo the appointments. After all the words of Arnorld Glasow should still ring in the ears of our leaders: "One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognise a problem before it becomes an emergency."