President William Ruto (left) and his first batch of Cabinet nominees.
President William Ruto’s Cabinet nominees, who included four top lieutenants of opposition leader Raila Odinga, face what is expected to be a tough and rigorous vetting next week as MPs, under pressure after anti-government protesters stormed Parliament last month over their decisions, are under a microscope to ensure the scrutiny is top notch.
The National Assembly’s Appointments Committee, chaired by Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, will start a four-day vetting process, beginning Thursday, on the 20 CS nominees President Ruto wants in his broad-based government.
This week, Mr Wetang’ula set the tempo, telling members that the country will be looking at them, and that they must rise to the occasion on the issue.
For the nominees, they will be facing a House desperate to redeem its image after it was accused of being tone-deaf and failing to read the mood of the people when they railroaded the Finance Bill, 2024, and passing it on the same day angry protesters were demonstrating against high taxation, and were to later storm Parliament and burnt section of it.
The reorganisation of Cabinet was one of the many concessions by President Ruto, including withdrawing the Sh346 billion tax plan, and the youth will have their eyes fixed on the committee and the House when it vets the nominees.
500 memorandums
Already, the committee, by Friday evening, had received more than 500 memorandums on the nominees, ahead of the deadline, according to Mr Samuel Njoroge, the clerk of the National Assembly.
“I cannot tell the memorandums are for which nominee because they are still being sorted out. We can only know that after the deadline,” Mr Njoroge said.
He also confirmed that there will be another briefing for the committee on appointment on Wednesday evening after the deadline for receiving the memorandums.
Similarly, lawyer-led civic movement has launched a petition to reject 14 names in President William Ruto's Cabinet nominees.
Bunge la Mayuts-Kenya is crowdsourcing youth to sign the petition at various locations in Nairobi and Kiambu counties.
The exercise started on Friday and will continue on Monday and end on Tuesday. It is aimed at amplifying young people's voices in the political process.
Lawyer Nerima Akinyi Were, who initiated the exercise, told Sunday Nation that some of President William Ruto's nominations contravene Article Six of the Constitution.
“The document is available on social media, and we are urging the youth to come forward and sign the petition. We can’t continue embracing what we don’t want,” said Ms Were, who has set up desks in various law firms in Nairobi and other strategic places to receive them before sending them as a batch.
Ms Were argues that the nomination, vetting and possible approval of Cabinet nominees is in total violation of the Constitution.
The 14 she wants rejected are ODM nominees Opiyo Wandayi (Energy), John Mbadi (Treasury), Hassan Joho (Blue Economy), and Wycliffe Oparanya (Cooperatives); as well as the 10 reappointed Prof Kithure Kindiki (Interior), Alice Wahome (Lands), Soipan Tuya (Defence), Aden Duale (Environment), Davis Chirchir (Roads), Salim Mvurya (Trade), Rebecca Miano (Tourism), Dr Alfred Mutua (Labour), Kipchumba Murkomen (Youth and Sports) and Justin Muturi (Public Service).
The six new nominees are Dr Debra Barasa (Health), Julius Migos (Education), Dr Andrew Mwihia Karanja (Agriculture), Eric Muriithi Muuga (Water), Stella Soi Lang’at (Gender), and Margaret Nyambura Ndung'u (ICT and Digital Economy).
But for the nominees, the test, it seems, does not just end with the memorandums and petitions for their rejection, it would just be the beginning.
Fearing the wrath of the now angry young protesters, MPs have suggested that they would not want to be seen as the weakest link in approving persons with integrity questions or seen as unsuitable, or incapable of delivering for fear of facing the wrath of protesters again.
Those re-appointed in the new Cabinet are set for tough questions over their tenure in the dissolved team.
Under microscopic scrutiny
Among the questions that awaits them is what they will do differently that they had no opportunity to do in the previous Cabinet, while those sent to their previous dockets, questions on achievements and failures in the last 19 months they were in office.
The wealth of those re-appointed will also be under microscopic scrutiny as details of any increase of their net worth will have to be explained in detail.
For Mr Murkomen, the public display of his flashy expensive lifestyle that has been widely criticised by Kenyans will likely be a subject of discussion during the vetting. The Sports CS nominee has apologised for his display.
From left: Hassan Joho, Wycliffe Oparanya, John Mbadi and Opiyo Wandayi.
Mr Muturi will once again face his former classmate, Mr Wetang’ula, as he re-appears before the committee, and will likely face questions of his previous job as Attorney General at a time questions are raised on the soundness of legal advice to the government given many court rulings quashing State projects.
For Mbadi, who until last week was putting government officials to task over expenditure of taxpayers’ money his capacity as Public Accounts Committee chairman, is set to face his colleagues, with the biggest question being his plan to reduce taxes per his belief and how to address runaway debt.
Mr Wandayi, on the other hand, will find himself in unfamiliar territory as he faces tough questions on cost of fuel, frequent power outages, and illegal power connections.
Prof Kindiki and Ms Wahome, the only CSs re-appointed to their previous dockets, the big question will be on how they handled their roles.
On Prof Kindiki, questions police during the protests, banditry questions, cases of abductions and illegal arrests will likely top the session.
For Ms Wahome, questions on President Ruto’s housing programme, taxes collected from Kenyans, and progress of the constructions of the houses are on the table.
In the memorandum submitted to the National Assembly by Ms Were’s team, the petitioner argues in the memorandum that the 11 Cabinet Secretaries that have been re-nominated by President Ruto should not be approved by Parliament since they were dismissed on account of non-performance.
Holistic appraisal of the performance of the CSs and listening to the demands of Kenyans was also another reason why the CSs were dismissed from office, Ms Were’s petition arguing that nothing has changed and therefore don’t deserve to serve again.
“Individually, and collectively, the persons dismissed were unfit to remain in office as members of the national executive. The President determined that those persons could no longer be accountable, individually, and collectively, for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions, hence their dismissal,” reads the memorandum.
While acknowledging that the President has powers to nominate persons to serve as CSs with the approval of the National Assembly, the petitioner argues that the President has no mandate to nominate persons that he had already dismissed on account of non-performance.
On the four ODM men, the petition argues: “The President cannot, lawfully, decapitate, gut and feed on the carcasses of rival political parties by co- opting their publicly-declared members and leaders to join his Cabinet. This violates the constitutional edict that Kenya shall be a multi-party democratic State.”
By-election in Ugunja
Both Mr Oparanya and Joho are deputy party leaders in ODM, Mr Mbadi is the party’s chairman while Mr Wandayi serves as the party’s secretary for political affairs.
“This political and ideological distinction and differentiation extends to composition and membership of the national executive of the Republic, as it is in Parliament and county assemblies,” reads the memorandum.
In particular, the memorandum is opposed to the nomination of Mr Wandayi whom they argue if approved by parliament will occasion a by-election in Ugunja at a time the country is struggling financially following the rejection of the Finance Bill, 2024
Section 6 (9) of the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act, 2021 provides that “any person may prior to the approval hearings and by written statement on oath, provide the clerk with evidence contesting the suitability of a candidate to hold the office to which the candidate has been nominated.
Article 118 of the constitution provides that Parliament shall facilitate public participation and involvement in the legislative business and other business of parliament and its committees.
Section6 (4) of the Act further provides that the Clerk shall notify the public of the time and place of holding an approval hearings at least seven days prior to the hearings.
