Of IEBC and the peculiar security of our Constitution

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is back in the news again. Over the last few months, several political actors have been calling for changes at this institution.

Members of the political class have been quite vocal on this issue. The Chief Justice has lent his voice to this matter. Activists in the civil society fraternity have also stated their stand.

And now the clergy – the Catholic bishops and the NCCK – have joined the fray.

Clearly, such calls must not fall on deaf ears. Yet as we attend to these calls, there are some realities that must be borne in mind.

Firstly, some of these actors appear to employ outmoded tactics. For they miss the mark when they employ methods that bear a striking resemblance to those employed by blackmailers and even terrorists.

"Hey Kenya! Do this or else!" Surely, a less bellicose form of persuasion would prove more effective.

The truth of the matter is that this sort of approach is both unnecessary and counter-productive. After all, why the overwhelming focus on doom and gloom.

There are real benefits to be obtained in having a credible electoral process. So perhaps all actors should now focus on 'selling' the positive attributes of a stable democracy.

And perhaps all should employ an approach similar to that used by successful public policy advocates. And so for some, a change of tack may be in order.

Secondly, the Constitution provides adequately for the removal of IEBC commissioners. Such provisions are to be found in Article 251, Chapter 15 (Commissions & Independent Offices).

Here, the Constitution prescribes the specific steps that must be taken to remove a member of any independent commission. These steps are virtually identical to the process that was used to remove Nancy Baraza, the former deputy CJ.

Indeed, this same process is now being used to determine the fate of Supreme Court judge Philip Tunoi. It is a process that has been tried, tested and given results.

And relying on constitutional means to restore constitutional order has financial benefits as well. We need not contemplate paying commissioners hundreds of millions of shillings, as some sort of golden handshake.

If a tribunal finds that any has abused his office, they are sent packing. And not just home, but to court and even jail as well.

So if we truly seek to entrench democracy and the rule of law, then we ought to stand guided by law. And so perhaps we ought to adopt an objective that transcends the 2017 elections.

Thirdly, regarding the removal of IEBC commissioners, the Constitution places this responsibility on our legislature. Yes, on the very same political class that keeps calling for changes.

And it matters little how the language of this call for change is framed; disbandment, overhaul or reconstitution. The fact of the matter is that the political class has both the responsibility and the authority to take action.

And so this conversation must now move to the floor of the House.

For as long as this debate is confined to dining tables and local pubs, it remains nothing more than babble.

As long as it continues to find best expression in church altars, it is but pulpit pronouncement. And if it fails to move beyond press statements, it is about as useful to ordinary wananchi as idle gossip, as a certain professor once quipped.

And so perhaps, we need to transit from noble intention and even public proclamation towards substantive action.