Three ministers score ‘F’ on draft

By Okech Kendo

Good teachers know why some candidates fail basic exams. They also know why others pass.

If the Harmonised Draft Constitution were an examination, then three ministers would be straight grade ‘F’ candidates.

The ‘F’ ministers have questions, which they have set and marked for themselves, working on wrong instructions.

The examiners, the Committee of Experts, did not ask anyone to vote on the rough copy of the constitution, which still needs refining through defined steps before submission as a referendum draft.

When CoE launched the first draft of its expertise last week, the team asked citizens of all social standing to read and understand it, and then present their views. These would inform subsequent drafts. All candidates had 30 days within which to submit views on what they want changed. The exam deadline is still 22 days away.

But John Michuki, who should enjoy sagacity that sometimes come with age, has condemned the draft, subjecting the rough copy of the constitution to a ‘No’ vote. He has done so in a way likely to pollute the minds of those who count him among their leaders.

Michuki says he shall vote ‘No’ for the draft because some people want elective positions through the back door. But the draft is not about individuals who can conspire to acquire or retain power.

Majority MPs

Nowhere does the Harmonised Draft give MPs power to select a Prime Minister from among them. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with majority MPs. Those MPs are voices of the people, who have given them the popular vote.

Disinformation, like this, springs from failure to read the draft with a reformist mind. Michuki sees the current Prime Minister and the incumbent President as the ones referred to in the Harmonised Draft. It is also possible he could know what others do not know about the current one centre of power.

The Mau conservation saga is a good example of individuals shirking responsibility, while enjoying executive power. They don’t want to take responsibility for Cabinet and Government decisions.

Minister Beth Mugo is another ‘F’ candidate. She detests ‘two centres’ of power. But it is not clear where she got this. The draft gives different levels of power to various institutions.

Parliament, for example, has a slice of traditional presidential powers, like vetting executive appointments. The senate and county legislatures have different levels of power. The Prime Minister also shares some of those executive powers.

Then there are independent commissions with defined powers. Execution of these powers is defined, and each institution has a checkmate.

When ‘F’ candidate Mugo talks of two centres of power, she is misleading wananchi. There are no two centres of power; there are many centres of power. You may know where Mugo is coming from, but her perception of the future is hazy. Her worldview is limited to two offices: This Prime Minister and this President.

The meaning of her distortion is in the subtext. By sticking to one centre of power, she means her and others who think like her still want one centre of patronage. One centre of power serves the greed of the power elite, as the needs of wananchi are trashed.

Mugo claims two centres of power will invite anarchy, like she says it did in the DR Congo. But Mugo forgets Kenyans fought in 2007 because of one centre of power.

Mugo knows it is illegal to take an oath of office after 6pm, but the Chief Justice presided over one on December 30, 2007, to legitimise executive mendacity. The Chief Justice is the President’s appointee. By breaking the law he knew he was fortified by Executive impunity.

Then Police Commissioner unleashed State mayhem on protestors because he knew he was protecting the interests of the one who pays the piper: the one centre of power. Other heads of security agencies behaved in like way because they knew which side of their bread is buttered.

Equity, which underpins the Harmonised Draft, means nothing to power. This time, you the people, must refuse to be led down the wrong path.

Another ‘F’ candidate is Njeru Githae who claims devolution is dangerous because it means people would be confined to their regions. There is dispersal of power, not expulsion of populations.

When a minister who is also a lawyer misleads the public on an official document, then one must begin to think less of him.

The writer is The Standard’s Managing Editor, Production and Quality

[email protected]