In the complex landscape of political governance, where principles of accountability, integrity and the preservation of democratic values are paramount, it is imperative to scrutinise the potential ramifications of allowing former governors to seek election to the Senate after serving their full term.
The Senate, designed to represent the interests of counties and their governments, plays a vital role in safeguarding the integrity of our nation's democracy. However, concerns have arisen regarding the integrity of former governors and the possible conflicts of interest they may bring to the Senate.
This article delves into the intricate web of these concerns and presents a compelling argument for why former governors should not transition into senatorial roles.
Integrity and conflict of interest
One of the primary concerns surrounding the election of former governors to the Senate is the question of integrity and potential conflicts of interest. Counties are the building blocks of our nation's governance structure, and their proper functioning is vital for the well-being of citizens.
Former governors, having helmed these counties, may find themselves in a precarious position when tasked with overseeing county governments as senators.
During their tenure as governors, these individuals had direct control over county resources, budgets and expenditures. The risk of interference, or even outright manipulation, in the Senate's oversight role over county governments is a legitimate concern. The temptation to engage in massive cover-ups whenever questions are raised regarding expenditure during their tenure becomes a real threat to transparency and accountability.
Preserving the constitution's objectives
Our constitution sets out clear objectives, one of which is the oversight of county government expenditures by Parliament. This oversight function is crucial in maintaining transparency and safeguarding the interests of citizens. Allowing former governors to transition into senatorial roles raises the spectre of abuse of the constitution, undermining the very essence of these objectives.
Constitutional considerations
Article 38(3)(c) of the Constitution grants every adult citizen the right to be a candidate for public office, but this right is not absolute. There are existing limitations, detailed in Article 99(2) and 193(2) of the Constitution, which disqualify individuals from being elected as MPs and county assemblies under certain circumstances.
The legislative proposal to bar former governors from vying for election as MPs or members of county assemblies for five years after serving as county governors raises important questions.
While it aims to allow ongoing accountability processes to conclude before seeking other elective offices, it falls short of addressing a broader issue. If the outcome of these processes affects suitability for other public offices, such as state offices, why should former governors only be barred from certain positions?
The Senate's unique role
The proposal also raises questions about the Senate's unique role in overseeing county governments. Unlike the National Assembly, the Senate directly exercises oversight over counties by examining audit reports and holding county governments accountable for their actions.
It is justifiable to limit former county chiefs from running for senatorial positions and the position of member of county assembly due to their involvement in oversight of county governments. However, this limitation may not be as justifiable for the National Assembly.
Referendum or parliamentary initiative?
Article 255 of the Constitution outlines the matters that require approval by referendum. While the proposed amendment does affect the right to be a candidate for certain public offices, it is not one that requires a referendum, as it falls within the scope of Article 38(3) and Article 24 on the limitation of fundamental rights. Instead, it can be enacted through a parliamentary initiative, requiring approval by at least two-thirds of both Houses.
Balanced approach
To conclude, the proposal to bar former governors from seeking election to the Senate raises valid concerns about integrity, conflicts of interest, and the preservation of constitutional objectives. However, it is essential to strike a balanced approach that respects the rights of individuals while safeguarding the principles of transparency and accountability.
Former governors should be disqualified from running for senatorial positions and the position of member of county assembly, as these roles directly oversee county governments. Nevertheless, it would be unjust to impose such limitations on other public offices, especially state offices, without clear justification.
Ultimately, our goal should be to maintain the highest standards of governance while upholding the principles of democracy and justice. It is vital that we address these concerns through well-reasoned legislation, ensuring that the transition from governorship to senatorial roles is both ethical and in the best interests of our nation's counties and citizens.
The author is a nominated member of the Senate and advocate of the High Court of Kenya
