By Samwel Kumba skumba@ke.nationmedia.comPosted Friday, February 18 2011 at 21:00
In Summary
- For the second time in as many years, the President has been humiliated in Parliament for making certain legal decisions
Whichever way the Speaker would have ruled, it was always going to split the coalition. However, one thing stuck out: For the second time in as many years, the President had been embarrassed in Parliament for making certain legal decisions.
The first time was in 2009 when he unilaterally re-appointed Mr Aaron Ringera to head the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, only for Parliament to overrule him.
Could it be that the head of state, who has the most elaborate access to legal advice and intelligence, was being misled by close aides? Or was the President too fixated with a particular school of thought to accept counsel?
The Saturday Nation spoke to several leaders familiar with government operations and the picture that emerged was of a leader who strongly believed in the merit of his decisions. Others said the ruling was not a measure of the advice the President was getting.
“The ruling is not meant to please anybody. It is the rule of law that has to be followed. It cannot be interpreted as an embarrassment to the President, maybe to the Prime Minister who had rejected our proposal to advertise the positions,” said Justice minister Mutula Kilonzo.
He said the new Constitution empowers the courts and Parliament to overrule the President on matters legal.
“We told him that public participation in these appointments is very critical and that the best way to go about it is by advertising the positions. We were, however, later informed that Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s office had opted for handpicking the appointees, a position the President had to accept to accommodate the PM in the spirit of consultation,” said Mr Kilonzo.
Narc-Kenya chairperson Martha Karua said the President had been blinded by power and assumed his PNU coalition would force the names through Parliament because they had the numbers.
This view was shared by a politician working closely with State House, who said the President’s sympathies lay with six Kenyans who had been put on notice over post-election violence by the International Criminal Court.
“To him at this point, the country, internally displaced persons and what happened in 2007 that led to post-election violence, have taken a back seat,” said the politician who could not speak on record for fear of retribution.
A senior counsel said the President had fallen captive of a clique plotting his succession and had ignored the advice of Attorney General Amos Wako.
“He always used to complain that his opinion was never taken seriously yet he is the government’s chief legal advisor,” said the lawyer who could not be quoted as he consults for government.
Mr Wako did not respond to Nation’s enquiries on whether he was consulted. The closest Mr Wako has come to dissenting from a presidential decree was a fortnight ago when, together with Chief Justice Amos Gicheru, he attended a press conference by the Judicial Service Commission that declared the President did not follow the law on the nominations.
University of Nairobi chancellor Joe Wanjui, who is also one of the President’s closest allies, said the ruling indicated that democracy was developing and taking shape in Kenya.
PNU strategist Peter Kagwanja said the ruling did not reflect the kind of advice the President was getting because it was partisan.
“Primarily, Marende is an ODM MP and it is through ODM votes that he became the Speaker and so his primary loyalty is to the party,” said Prof Kagwanja.
Lawyer Kithure Kindiki said the ruling had more than just politics and the law. He said it had set a paradigm shift requiring that all public appointments be done openly, competitively and must reflect Kenya’s ethnic and gender variety.
Mr Salim Lone, a close associate of Prime Minister Raila Odinga, defended the Speaker against claims that his ruling was influenced by ODM.
“I cannot speak for the President. The Speaker does not go by the position taken by the Prime Minister. Even the Judicial Service Commission said the process was unconstitutional,” he said.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment