President William Ruto will, in the coming days, appoint cabinet secretaries and principal secretaries who, upon vetting, will help him deliver the promises he made to Kenyans.
Being called to serve in these positions is a huge honour. It equally comes with a high level of integrity and accountability.
The 2010 Constitution has set a very high bar of integrity for those who wish to serve in public service. This is because senior officers who serve in government are automatically the custodian of national resources.
However, in previous years, the spirit of Chapter Six of the Constitution has lacked in key appointments.
Notably, men and women who lacked requisite academic qualifications and others with questionable characters were accommodated in the cabinet.
These unqualified candidates sailed through the parliamentary vetting process due to the tyranny of numbers.
The vetting tradition founded in Article 132 (2) (for the national level) and Article 179 (2) (b) (for the county level of the Constitution) was borrowed from the presidential system of the United States where the President’s powers to make appointments is limited and he is precluded from riding roughshod over other arms of the government, hence, the Appointment Clause (Article II Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution).
The appointment clauses where the appointment procedures are founded are exercised on a tight scale of balance. A slight misapplication by the members of Parliament could lead to a situation where the legislature lords it over the executive.
Alternatively, a misapplication by the executive contravenes the doctrine of separation of powers.
Therefore, with the powers to vet public office nominees bestowed upon Parliament, it is expected that the result of an appointment process should produce individuals ripe for public duty; individuals with the right dichotomy of character and individuals who above all else have put the nation before self.
Yet why is it that individuals legally approved by Parliament are dogged with scandals on abuse and misappropriation of public resources? How is it that individuals with such questionable characters pass unnoticed in Parliament?
The Public Appointment (National Assembly) Approval Act outlines issues for consideration by Parliament in relation to any nomination. These include procedure, constitutional requirements relating to the office in question, and the suitability of the nominee – ability, experience and qualities that meet the needs of the body to which nomination is being made.
However, Parliament is either by design or accident not equipped to really scrutinise a nominee to the extent that legal requirements such as Chapter Six of the Constitution are met.
Institutions such as the DCI and KRA play critical roles in the verification of a nominee’s criminal and tax records but it appears that the executives are in fact vetting their own nominees.
Parliament's determination of the suitability of a nominee is, thus, primarily determined by reports from government institutions.
This is not to say that the arms of government should work in isolation; far from it! This however begs the question; what is the quality of the vetting if Parliament relies upon the executive to provide background checks on their own nominees?
While the Constitution has envisaged proper checks and balances on appointments, Parliament has fallen short of providing legislation to meet these constitutional demands.
Parliament in its reliance on the executive to provide background checks needs to define the verifiability test and what should meet its threshold and compel the EACC, KRA, Ministry of Education and DCI to provide detailed background reports on a nominee.
Lastly, MPs should, irrespective of their political affiliation and persuasion, be firm this time round and design systems that will enable them to apply their wisdom and technical capacities to ensure only competent individuals are allowed to serve Kenyans.
Edited by Kiilu Damaris
