BBI team should listen to all Kenyans, consider their views

President Uhuru Kenyatta during the launch of the BBI report last year. [File, Standard]

The subject of inclusivity under the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) has largely been reduced to who gets what at the national executive level.

Major political discussions now revolve around the strategies that the political class are establishing on how to share or exclusively control Executive power.

Yet, inclusivity should be discussed and reviewed from the lowest levels of governance, all through to the county and national government levels.

Inclusivity is about Kenyans from all walks of life being involved and substantially represented in the affairs of governance from the village levels.

When the BBI report was launched at Bomas of Kenya, all Kenyans were eager to read the report and know the next steps. I was among those who regarded the BBI process and the report as one that would re-ignite and perhaps fulfil the dreams, hopes and aspirations that we have held since independence.

Various groups appeared before the BBI task force and presented memoranda and petitions in all parts of the country.

Some of these views were aired on national media stations and in newspapers. It was disappointing that the 156-page BBI report did not capture the views presented by Kenyans accurately.

Rather, the report reflected what the taskforce summarised and termed as the voices and views of Kenyans.

In the second round of the BBI process, which is mainly on public participation, we expect the views of Kenyans to be specifically recorded, summarised and made public at the end of the process.

Where strong views, such as the need for creation of an extra county for marginalised or minority groups, are given, it would be prudent for the BBI task force to specifically record such views and present them.

The BBI task force does not have the authority to sieve through the opinions of Kenyans and choose which ones to record and present and which ones to ignore.

It beats logic and defeats the essence of the entire exercise that billions of taxpayers’ cash would be used to facilitate the BBI process, and in the end the views presented by Kenyans are ignored.

I propose two alternative options for the BBI. First, during the discharge of their fresh mandate, let the BBI team collect views according to how they are presented by Kenyans.

If it is true that there are 44 tribes in Kenya, it is not difficult to summarise the views of these tribes. Second, the BBI team can collect views based on the regions represented by the various groups they meet.

They have the option of capturing and summarising the views given by residents of each of the 290 constituencies.  

Erick Naibei, Nairobi