In recent months, political players and commentators have challenged Deputy President William Ruto to resign on account of the seemingly deteriorating relationship between him and his boss, the President.
These calls raise a political and constitutional issue. In this reflection, I will focus on the constitutional issue, which I believe has not been given attention in the debate.
The Deputy President is a constitutional office holder.
Unlike in the old dispensation, once a presidential candidate nominates someone for Deputy President post under Article 148(1) of the 2010 Constitution and they are elected, that person can only be removed from office according to the provisions of the supreme law. Not at the will of the President.
It is instructive to remember that the Deputy President nominee, like the presidential candidate, is subjected to an election on the same ticket.
Article 148(3) provides: “The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall declare the candidate nominated by the person who is elected as President to be elected as the Deputy President.”
The Deputy President is elected by the people of Kenya alongside the President. While the President makes the initial nomination of a running mate, s/he cannot be said to appoint the Deputy President.
Article 130 (1) of the Constitution envisages a deputy president who is an integral part of the Executive.
“The National Executive of the Republic comprises the President, the Deputy President and the rest of the Cabinet.”
Those urging the Deputy President to resign ostensibly do so on the basis of the perceived political falling-out with the President.
No one has said the Deputy President has in any way and at any stage, violated his oath of office, or fallen short of the functions set out in Article 147 of the Constitution.
Indeed, Deputy President Ruto has publicly stated on many occasions that he has at all times performed any task or role assigned to him by the President as contemplated in Articles 147(1), (2) and (3).
It surely cannot have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution that in a situation where the President chooses not to give the Deputy President the opportunity and leeway to perform the Article 147 functions, then the DP be held responsible, leading to the calls for resignation.
I hold that the focus of Kenyans should be on the constitutional role and functions of the Deputy President, and if it is evident that he has defaulted on any of those then, calls for his resignation would be legitimate.
In that situation, provisions of Article 150 for the removal of the Deputy President would kick in.
If, as is evidently the case, there is no proof of the Deputy President having defaulted in his constitutional functions, then any perceived failure by the Executive would, in my view, be attributable to the entire executive as defined in Article 130(1) -the President, the Deputy President and the rest of the Cabinet.
Those calling for Ruto's resignation on account of perceived differences with the President do so from a pre-2010 Constitution mentality. They forget that as stated above, he is elected directly by the people, alongside the President. Article 148 (3) couldn’t be clearer.
The calls are a disingenuous attempt to sidestep the Constitution and an affront both to the supreme law and the electorate.
Charles Nyachae is the former Constitutional Implementation Committee chairman
