Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

A parliamentary committee has moved to regularise President William Ruto’s appointment of Chief Administrative Secretaries by approving a bill seeking to entrench the position in law.

The Justice and Legal Affairs Committee (JLAC) chaired by Tharaka MP George Murugara, however,while approving the bill yesterday, proposed that the number of CASs be capped at 22, who will be appointed by the President upon recommendations of the Public Service Commission.

The capping seeks to reflect constitutional provision on the number of people to be appointed.

MPs also proposed that the recommendations should consider regional and gender balance. The report will be subjected to debate and approval or rejection by the National Assembly’s plenary.

In its report on the National Government Administration Laws (Amendments) Bill, however, the committee stipulated that functions and designation of the office of CAS will require to be streamlined to avoid conflict of roles with Principal Secretary.

“Establishment of the office of the CAS is necessary. The complement of the Chief Administrative Secretaries shall not be more than 22,” the report.

The lawmakers also proposed further amendments to the Bill to bar the CASs from dealing with matters relating to parliamentary affairs unlike before where the Bill allowed them to be responsible for among other matters, liaising with Parliament and county governments on matters of concurrent mandate.

The CASs will, however, be responsible for matters relating to the portfolio assigned to the office as well as performing inter-ministerial and sectorial coordination, representing the Cabinet Secretary at any meeting as directed by the CS, and performing any other duties assigned by the Office of the Attorney General.

But despite the proposals getting a majority support, Rarieda MP Otiende Amollo recorded a dissenting opinion against the move, insisting that the functions ascribed to the office of the CAS are a duplication of those already assigned to CSs and PSs and therefore likely to result in conflict of roles.

Amollo argued that having been a member of the Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review and having undertaken public participation around the country, it was his view that Kenyans intended to do away with position of Assistant Ministers and office of the CAS is akin to that of Assistant Ministers thus, the proposal offends the spirit of the Constitution and the will of the Kenyan people.

Uncapped number

“That even the courts have pronounced themselves on the unconstitutionality of the office of the CAS as was determined.

“That the Constitution under Article 152(1)(d) limits the number of Cabinet Secretaries to 22. Consequently, the proposal to introduce an uncapped number of CASs is indeed an affront to the Constitution and would occasion additional expense on public finances and pose an unnecessary burden on Kenyan taxpayers,”Amollo noted.

Bill was published after the court ruled against appointment of the CASs.

President Ruto last year picked 50 individuals to the position of CASs but the High Court later stopped from assuming office.

The 50 CAS were sworn in by President Ruto on March 23, last year after the National Assembly declined to vet them, saying it had no constitutional authority to do so. The High Court later issued orders barring the CASs from assuming office pending the hearing and determination of the petition.

President Ruto cited the huge workload while defending his decision to appoint 50 CAS to deputize 22 Cabinet Secretaries.

The committee’s decision came after various agencies approved the amendments.

The State Department for Internal Security and National Administration agreed to the amendments to the Act while the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) submitted that given that the complement of the CAS would have an impact on the total public wage bill, it was its view that the it be amended to include the maximum complement for the position of CAS.

Huge workload

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) said the Schedule of the Bill did not indicate the section of the Act being amended and recommended the inclusion of a new clause to indicate the section being amended.

Mzalendo Trust, however, opposed the proposed amendments on grounds that they do not align with constitutional provisions including Articles 10 and 201(d) of the Constitution.

“Further, the proposal shall occasion an additional expenditure of public finance and, in light of the existing financial strain on the taxpayer, the proposed amendments ought to be informed by a substantial justification and rationale,” Mzalendo Trust argued.