Ensure equity in public appointments

A few days ago a very harsh indictment was passed on the Kenyan government through a report by the Public Service Commission, which revealed that only four tribes, out of 42, control half of all government jobs.

This is against the backdrop of a constitutional requirement that the composition of the government of Kenya or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the face of our nation.

There is need to promote national unity to ensure no particular tribe or tribes dominate the others in public appointments, Government or any of its agencies.

Of course the Government does not exist in a vacuum. It is subject to influence, which although may come from external sources, maybe of considerable importance. But this should not cloud our thinking about how Government ought to be set up.

Notable among the various environmental influences is the recruitment exercise. Although some officials tend to deny this, political affiliation, seniority, experience, social or family ties and ethnic origins are some factors that influence entry into public sector jobs.

Considerations such as ability, probable behaviour in office and relationship to the Government in power, are among other major criteria for securing appointment.

Of all these, the influence of the Government in power is the most decisive and the selection process itself does not provide opportunities for representation of popular attitudes. Evidently, it would be unrealistic to expect that political considerations would not weigh in the minds of an appointing body.

Kenya remains a stratified society composed of persons of diverse socio-economic backgrounds and interests. Our country is characterised by inequality in access to power and economic resources.

That is why the Opposition under the banner of 'Okoa Kenya' and the Governors Council with their 'Pesa Mashinani', are attempting to tilt the power balance. They both want to devolve it to the counties in order to meet revenue and resource needs of counties.

But even in the proposed alternative structure, governors seem to have planned their economic strategies and policies around ethnic and regional concerns.

This is why, the geo-political character of the Kenyan society has worked against the country's interest in most instances. In situations such as the one where we find ourselves in, any attempt to decipher and understand how our public service recruits its employees is difficult.

In an attempt to tackle the problem of profound distrust and jealousy among the various geopolitical zones in the country, the use of quota system as a mechanism for ensuring 'balanced development of all units' was formally entrenched in the constitution.

 

The implication of this is that quota system will ensure that every region in the country is represented in all national institutions, and thereby preventing “monopolistic exercise of power by any single element or group”.

Perhaps the question we should be asking as a country is: What are the consequences of lopsided appointments in the public sector?

I am reminded of a court decision in Nigeria regarding a famous case titled Abacha versus The State. The appellant, the son of a former Head of State was the third accused on a four-count indictment, which included conspiracy to commit murder.

He was charged jointly with others and alone for being an accessory after a murder. The trial judge in a considered ruling declined the application to quash the indictment.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision of the trial court and this necessitated a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

In spite of old evidence, other calls for explanation or statements about the role of two other accused persons who all appeared to point to Abacha's role in the murder, and admissions made by the appellant himself in his statements to the police, where he readily admitted that he gave the two other accused persons ten thousand dollars each to flee the country and escape justice, he got away with murder.

The Supreme Court by a majority of four to one allowed the appeal and ruled that the appellant must not face trial.

The majority decision had the effect of giving capricious interpretation to principles laid down by the Supreme Court in other matters.

The four Justices who ruled in favour of the appellant were all from the northern part of the country, from where the appellant hailed, while the dissenting voice was that of a Justice from Southwest of Nigeria, the same geographical area as the victim.

Incidences like these cannot be attributed to mere happen-stance and have a lot to do with how appointments are made and the geopolitical nature of a nation.

While confronted by the issue of inequality in public service, an explanation cropped up that some communities are bereft of academic qualifications.

Of course that is not true. Every tribe in Kenya has sons and daughters who are learned enough to take up public jobs.

The Government must treat all tribes in this country equally and give equal opportunity to every Kenyan in line with constitutional requirements.