The National Assembly has said it has legal mandate to vet and approve the 51 principal secretary's nominated by President William Ruto.
In their objection to a case filed in the employment court challenging the list, the National Assembly argues that they have the duty to vet the nominees and it should not be in court.
In the case, an activist Fredrick Bikeri challenged the list arguing that the list does not reflect gender, regional and ethnic balance as well as inclusivity of the marginalised.
“The petition is illegal as it is inviting the court not to approve the PS nominees for appointment when it is clear that the duty to vet and approve is a preserve of the National Assembly,” court documents read.
The National Assembly says Bikeri has an opportunity and a right to present his complaint before the relevant committee of the National Assembly.
According to court papers, appointment and removal from positions of the Principal Secretaries is not a labour and employment issue, but a special constitutional innovation.
“Appointment of the PS does not involve any of the parties or raise any employment and labour relations issues envisioned in the employment laws,” court papers read.
They argued that the application in court is premature and is therefore meant to interfere with the independence of the National Assembly.
The court’s jurisdiction is limited to constitutional issues that arise in the context of disputes on employment and labour relations.
The court is yet to issue conservatory orders in the matters as the National Assembly began vetting the nominees on Monday.
Bikeri also argues that the action of the President to nominate people who are seemingly close to him and excluding others does not reflect his essence as a symbol of national unity.
He singled out Nyamira county, which he claims had not been given any slot in the nominations terming the move discriminatory.
“The impugned list of nominees leads to ethnic marginalisation, which is unfair labour practices contrary to Article 41 of the constitution as read together with section 5 of the employment Act 2007,” the court papers read.
