Is the Cabinet vetting much ado about nothing?

By LILIAN ALUANGA-DELVAUX

KENYA: This week’s vetting of Cabinet nominees has rekindled debate on objectivity of the process and integrity laws watered down by the previous Parliament.

Sixteen nominees faced the Parliamentary Committee on Appointments to defend their suitability. But even as they did, questions still linger on whether the country has a substantive vetting law in place.

Also raising eyebrows is the inclusion of the Speaker of the National Assembly in the committee, given he is expected to act as an arbiter, should differences in opinion arise in Parliament over a process he was part of.

“The only institution subjected to an actual integrity test was the Judiciary, where we saw the Chief Justice and then Deputy and High Court judges  undergo thorough scrutiny. This is largely because the Judicial Service Commission set high standards for the test,” says University of Nairobi’s Prof Karuti Kanyinga.

The lecturer at the Institute for Development Studies, says this gained the Judiciary public confidence, particularly when former Deputy CJ Nancy Barasa, was subjected to the same integrity threshold in determining whether she was suitable to continue holding office.  Haki Focus Executive Director Harun Ndubi says while Parliament should not entirely be left out of the vetting process, it should only handle the ‘political aspect’ of it.

He also points to the fact while the Speaker is allowed to sit on the committee as an ex-officio member, there may be need to consciously avoid such instances so that when issues come before him for deliberation, he can do so objectively.

“To realise substantive vetting, we need a separate non-political organ with representatives from other constitutional commissions to vet the nominees,” says Ndubi.

The lawyer argues vetting, in the current context, is more of a political process and a formality.

Parliament has in the past been accused of having subjected principal issues to political confluence at the expense of objectively scrutinising nominees to various positions.

One of the most contested appointments was that of Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko, which saw the House split.

A report by the Constitutional Implementation Oversight Committee had recommended that corruption allegations made against Tobiko be investigated before his appointment.

At some point, some MPs even threatened to reject the nominations of Chief Justice Willy Mutunga and Baraza if Tobiko was dropped.  Earlier, the nomination of Cecil Miller to head what was then the Interim Independent Electoral Commission was rejected by Parliament on allegations that he beat his wife.

Then there have been instances where a ruling by the courts pointed to the need for a review of vetting mechanisms for holders of public office. For instance although Parliament approved the nomination of Mumo Matemu as chair to the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission, his appointment was blocked by the High Court pending hearing of a civil suit.

“We have seen Parliament proposing that the Salaries and Remuneration Commission be disbanded simply because it reduced MPs’ salaries. One is left to question such judgment, and whether the legislators can be trusted to objectively vet nominees, especially since they have been proposed by leaders of their political parties,” says Ndubi.

A comprehensive vetting law, according to International Centre for Policy and Conflict Executive Director Ndung’u Wainaina would have several aspects that must be addressed in detail.