It’s not in Parliament’s interest to appear intolerant

It is unfortunate that the National Assembly, the institution Kenyans have trusted to honour and protect the country’s Constitution is now bent on breaking it whenever its naked self-interest is brought into question.

It is obvious that Parliament’s decision to close the Media Centre and limit the journalists’ ability to cover the House business, earlier this week, was the result of the media carrying out its responsibility of keeping the public informed of  what the various stakeholders are saying about the MPs clamour for higher pay and allowances. The closure of the centre, built using donor funds, amounts to an attempt to gag the Press.

This is obvious when it is remembered that establishment of the Media Centre in 2009 was to demystify the House and promote transparency.

Establishment of the Media Centre was part of the National Assembly’s own Strategic Plan 2008-2018 and also supports House broadcasting of its proceedings which introduced live audio and TV broadcasting from the main chamber. And it can be persuasively argued that lack of transparency is what has led to most of the ills that have devilled this country before and after independence.

This, no doubt informed the framers of the Constitution who ensured that Article 118(1) clearly states: “Parliament shall:- (a) conduct its business in an open manner; and its sittings and those of its committees shall be open to the public; and (b) facilitate public participation and involvement in the legislative and other business of Parliament and its committees.”

Indeed, the Constitution goes even further in Article 118(2) to state: “Parliament may not exclude the public, or any media, from any sitting unless in exceptional circumstances the relevant Speaker has determined that there are justifiable reasons for the exclusion.” By the time of going to Press, the Speaker had not revealed the justifiable reasons that could have led to the decision.

And that is why the decision to close the Media Centre should not be allowed to stand because doing so would send the wrong signal to the other two arms of government — the Executive and the Judiciary — that they too can ride rough-shod on any constitutional provisions that they don’t like.

 And that would open the window for all the other institutions and individuals to follow suit. That way, a total disregard for the rule of law by the rest of society would not be far behind.

History has shown that the Executive needs very little persuasion to ignore or act outside the Constitution. Surely,  it is not too much to ask that cooler heads prevail and that Parliament realises that allowing the media free access is in its own best interest. Acting otherwise, is tantamount to undermining is own moral authority, the only tool it has for keeping the other arms of government in check.

Opacity negates the principle of Vox populi, vox Dei (The voice of the people [is] the voice of God).  As MPs claim to be the people’s representatives, but so is the Media. It is not for nothing that, in all major democracies, the media is regarded as the Fourth Estate after the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary. The road the 11th Parliament is travelling is one well travelled by dictatorships the world over.

However, if as the Speaker told the House that the media exclusion was not out of the ordinary and had to do with workspace constraints, then it might be time to call a temporary truce and take him at his word. For now, anyway.