Lawmakers face first test on their independence

It is test time for the National Assembly. Yesterday, a House panel started vetting the individuals nominated to President William Ruto’s new Cabinet. The process runs until Sunday, after which the committee shall compile its report for plenary verdict.

The process has encountered its first significant revelation. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission sent a letter to the committee, disclosing that one of the candidates is embroiled in substantial integrity issues. This revelation has raised serious concerns about the candidate’s suitability to serve.

The public was asked to submit to the committee their memoranda regarding all candidates. You can trust Kenyans not to disappoint. These submissions are, as of yet, not in the public domain. But soon, the dossiers will be a matter of public knowledge.

The public will follow to see the extent to which Parliament conducts its oversight role. It is criticism of this conduct that has got Kenya into trouble in the recent past.

The country has been on the edge for the last two months. It started quietly with the public expressing their wishes that the 2024 Finance Bill should not be passed. Submissions to this effect were made to the House, but MPs looked the other side and passed the bill anyway.

The bill is not the only disappointment in this Parliament, which has been accused of being tone-deaf. The first disappointment, in fact, came through the confirmation of the Cabinet that is being replaced by the one that is being vetted now.

Even then, Parliament was given the reasons some of the appointees were unsuitable for the offices to which they were appointed. But Parliament looked the other way and confirmed the candidates anyway.

This gave nominated MP John Mbadi of the ODM party a platform to make his now famous quote: “Let us give Ruto his skunk”. Fate can be mischievous at times. Mbadi, this time round, will appear before the committee to be considered for Treasury minister.

The test comes with a question about the lessons that Parliament may have learned. During the Gen Z protests, one of the major complaints was that MPs were not listening to citizens and that House proceedings did not reflect the feelings of the general population.

Quietly whispered on the streets was whether Parliament had ceded too much to the Executive. Members of the UDA party partly contributed to creating this perception. Before a decisive vote, they would show up in Parliament via State House, where they would have been whipped to vote in a specific way.

Even members who may have contributed differently to a debate on the floor would return to Parliament after these morning breakfasts to a different tune and cast votes that did not reflect their contributions on the floor.

This appearance of a lack of independence, concern, and interest that rhymes with that of the public has contributed to the diminishing of Parliament’s image and heft in people’s perception. This could have contributed to the overrunning of Parliament when protesters matched to the House and laid it bare.

Now, it is time for the House to redeem itself. The first opportunity is the vetting of the Cabinet. For a start, would the letter from the EACC suggesting that one of the candidates is not qualified matter? The evidence the agency has may not be sufficiently weighty and could be overlooked. But Parliament will need to explain that.

The other submissions would then need to be seriously considered before being thrown out or accepted. The point is that Parliament should be perceived as doing its work rather than being a rubber stamp for the Executive or other external influences.

Should Parliament pass this test, one thing could be sure: other tests will be on the way. But it could reduce the impact of the anger of the public against Parliament. The recent public protests will not have been in vain. It is all in the hands of Speaker Moses Wetang’ula.

— The writer is the Dean of Daystar University’s School of Communication