A rogue Parliament or public watchdog?

Parliament is determined to exert its role as the public watchdog despite outrage from in and outside government that Members have been exercising their role unreasonably.

But the MPs have unapologetically declared they are operating within their constitutional mandate of oversight and legislation as they ruffle the feathers of the the Judiciary, media, civil society and even the Executive.

And the legislators say they are far from done.

Some independent commissions and some government officers recently appointed to public office without vetting by the House are expected to be next in line to face the MPs.

The Sunday Nation has learnt that there is a push to have the Communication Commission of Kenya disbanded altogether. The fight against the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) and the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution is also still on.

MPs have targeted the SRC over their salaries and perks which they feel should be higher and the CIC for holding divergent views from those arrived at by the House.The House will also vet the appointment of Mr John Mututho as chairman of the National Authority for the Campaign against Alcohol and Drug Abuse (Nacada) that which was revoked following demands from a section of MPs.

Questions have also been raised on the appointment of former Permanent Secretary Joseph Kinyua to the powerful position of Chief of Staff and Head of Public Service with demands for his vetting as well.

Despite the concern their recent actions have caused, Speakers Ekwe Ethuro (Senate) and Justin Muturi (National Assembly) maintain that Parliament is only exercising its constitutional mandate.

Mr Muturi, while responding on Friday to a complaint by President Uhuru Kenyatta, said MPs were only doing their job.

“We want to see Members of Parliament performing their role. The Executive is accountable to the House, and so we are looking into how best we can work to enable both arms function without friction in a seamless way,” he said.

Last week, President Kenyatta complained that Parliament was demanding too much time from members of his Cabinet and that they hardly had time to attend to their dockets.

Attorney-General Githu Muigai has been forced to ask for a workable schedule from the House to enable him attend to other official duties, but his request was dismissed by Mr Muturi.

The Speaker said he would not tolerate any excuses and that anyone invited to appear before House committees must do so.

PECKING ORDER

Mr Muturi is on record saying that the Executive must understand its place in relation to the Legislature. He has previously stated that the pecking order of the exercise of the delegated sovereign power puts Parliament before other arms of government.

“This House has the exclusive function of exercising oversight over all ministries, departments, State organs and State officers in charge of these institutions. I must insist that any hindrance to the carrying out of this function can only be construed to be an attempt to obstruct the National Assembly from exercising one of its cardinal functions,” he warned.

And speaking at the University of Nairobi on Friday, Mr Ethuro said there will be no slowing down when it comes to checking on other institutions. He said the current system of government is such that the Executive can only account to Parliament through committees.

“The Executive is complaining of too many meetings with Parliament, I don’t think we can ask for too much when it comes to matters of oversight,” he said.

“I don’t think the President should be worried about his cabinet secretaries being invited. This is a new system, and there’s a reason we went this way so let us practice this until we find it impossible to go on with it,” he said.

Mr Muturi said the National Assembly will summon before its committees anyone, including governors, and that all must comply.“We must appreciate the role of Parliament. It could be a bit unclear because of the new structure of government, but everybody must play their part to make the Constitution succeed. If not, they should be ready for sanctions as this House finds appropriate,” he warned.

Such was the fate that met the six members of the Judicial Service Commission who now could face investigation by a tribunal after Parliament last week endorsed a report of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee.

That the commissioners failed to honour an invitation to appear before the committee played a big role in the final report that recommended their removal.

The Speaker went on to remind the other arms of government of provisions of Article 95 (5) of the Constitution. It mandates the National Assembly to review the conduct of State officers and initiate the process of removing them from office. It goes further to say in 5 (b) that the National Assembly shall also exercise oversight over State organs.

However, there is concern about whether the members of the National Assembly are being honest and practical in their dealings with other arms of government and civil society in discharging their duties.

Critics say MPs seem to be on the warpath with anyone who attempts to show their clout. Some are even comparing the Assembly to a slaughterhouse.There is also concern that MPs appear to be more determined to prove they have the upper hand in terms of control than anything else.

Law lecturer Osogo Ambani, commenting on recent events, said while Parliament may be operating within its constitutional powers, MPs must be seen to be acting in good faith.

“The problem is when there are no values and so we witness things like corruption, tribal agenda and the politicisation of issues,” he said.
The public, closely watching, is also casting aspersions on the approach exhibited in a number of deliberations as seen through comments on social media.

PERSONAL DIFFERENCES

Early last month, the nomination of Constituency Development Fund Board chairperson Jennifer Barasa to the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) was opposed by a section of MPs who demanded her substitution.

The reasons advanced for that move were, however, not related to her professional qualifications or performance, rather to personal differences with some of the MPs. The argument was that she is disrespectful to them.

At the forefront was Ijara MP Abass Ahmed who had previously worked at the CDF Board. He told his colleagues Ms Barasa had called MPs greedy and lazy and that it was surprising that she had applied for the job.

“Madam Barasa does not deserve to even be an intern in this institution, forget about being a commissioner,” the member concluded.

Also opposing her appointment, Tiaty MP Asman Kamama equated Ms Barasa to Ms Sarah Serem, SRC chair.

“I want to inform my colleagues that when you are choosing a member who is going to be in charge of your welfare, please make sure you are meticulous and you know what you are doing because we did this sometime back when we approved the appointment of Ms Serem who came here lobbying, and she ended up being MPs’ greatest enemy,” he said.

“On this one, don’t make a mistake. If you support this lady, you will regret it.” he warned.

Mr Kamama said Ms Barasa had treated MPs like kindergarteners at an induction workshop at Safari Park, further accusing her of frustrating MPs in constituency funds management.

“I want you to oppose with all your hearts and all your zeal, and let our brothers from Cord bring another person and please don’t allow this lady to come here,” the member urged. It was, clearly, a case of personal differences and perhaps even hearsay, and some MPs were bold enough to note that aloud.

Mr Ambani said whatever Parliament does, it must be seen to be within the law and any excesses must be checked.

“People are not used to having their power checked or taken away, obviously. Therefore, there will be some war, the kind that we have been witnessing,” he said.

He pointed out that the public can always move to court to challenge any decisions of Parliament they feel are unconstitutional. In the same breath, he said, the President can always exercise his veto powers by refusing to assent into law any Bills sent to him that could be contentious and unconstitutional.