How NTV whitewashed Parliament, the Judiciary and Martha Karua

Today, I’m turning over my notebook to a reader, Mike Johan, to critique the NTV series “We The People”, mostly because I concur with his criticism. So, here goes:

The idea behind the series is quite noble — to take stock of our constitutional journey 10 years after its promulgation. However, I feel some of the interviews do not add much value to an analytical mind and, in many instances, the interviewers made no effort to fact check or interrogate the views advanced by those being interviewed. There is almost a deliberate effort to avoid asking the hard questions. I have a few examples.

Interviewing Martha Karua, Olive Barrows was clearly intimidated and, from her questions and demeanor, one could tell she was careful not to upset her. Ms Karua took full advantage of the interview to put across her views — including her claims that she won the Kirinyaga governorship race, even though this was not one of the interview subjects.

Exceptionally talented

While Ms Karua is a heroine and an exceptionally talented and courageous individual, Ms Barrows shouldn’t have treated her with kid gloves but interrogated her fearlessly.

The Chief Justice interview was also lopsided. While the CJ, David Maraga, was left to heap all blame of Judiciary failures on the Executive, no attempt was made to grill him on the serious failures by the Judiciary.

For example, why did the interviewer fail to raise the issue of the deputy CJ, Philomena Mwilu, presiding over cases while she is facing corruption and money laundering charges?

The Constitution holds public officials to very high standards and any public office holder suspected of participating in corruption and other unethical behaviour is expected to step aside. The interviewer should have asked Mr Maraga to explain why this principle was not applied in Ms Mwilu’s case.

The other issue the interviewer failed to raise with the CJ is lack of financial accountability in the Judiciary. Attempts at investigating corruption in the Judiciary have been rebuffed by the courts as interference with its independence.

The CJ should have been asked to explain how public funds allocated to the Judiciary are accounted for and how he ensures that corruption is kept at bay.

Public perception

The interview should also have raised the issue of public perception of the Judiciary on how it dispenses justice. The average Kenyan sees double standards when it comes to how issues of the rich and powerful are handled as opposed to those of the poor. The case of Embakasi East MP Paul Ongili Owino aka Babu Owino is a classic example.

The perception one got from the interview was that it was tailored to give the CJ a platform to whitewash the failures of the Judiciary and blame everything on the Executive.

On separation of powers, again no attempt was made to hold Parliament accountable. While Parliament may have grievances about interference by the Executive, it has also undermined itself by pursuing personal interests of its members.

It is common knowledge that Parliament holds the Executive to ransom by withholding authority on financial bills until their allowances are paid or approved. Parliament is in perpetual war with the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) over the legislators’ attempts at increasing allowances without following the law.

Personal interests

There are many instances where Parliament has acted on party and personal interests. The average Kenyan has a negative view of Parliament, hence the nickname ‘MPigs’. No attempt was made to highlight its failures.

Lastly, it would have been good to invite the Executive to air their views. The people being interviewed could also have included groups other than politicians, activists and lawyers. That would have ensured a balanced series.

The Public Editor is an independent news ombudsman who handles readers’ complaints on editorial matters including accuracy and journalistic standards. Email: [email protected]. Call or text 0721989264