The spotlight remains on MPs after they failed to approve new Salaries and Remuneration Commissioners, despite the report on their vetting being scheduled twice.
On two occasions, the debate on the report concerning the commissioners was listed on the order paper for consideration but was postponed until the House began its long Christmas recess.
The Nation understands that murmurs among MPs about the proposed team, coupled with threats to reject the nominees, have caused delays in considering the report.
Sources in Parliament disclosed that lawmakers raised concerns about the credentials of the proposed commissioners and the regional balance - particularly regarding the post of chairperson - even after a House committee had given its approval. The first chairperson of the commission was Sarah Serem, the outgoing chairperson is Lyn Mengich, and the current proposed chairperson is Sammy Chepkwony. All three are from the same region.
MPs have also reportedly raised questions about the suitability of other individuals nominated as commissioners.
“The key concern among members is whether these nominees can address the ballooning wage bill or if they’ve merely been selected to tick the boxes of representation from various bodies,” a parliamentary source speaking in confidence said.
In addition to Sammy Chepkwony, nominated as chairperson, the proposed commissioners include:
Major General (Rtd) Martin Kizito, nominated to represent the Defence Council, Mohamed Aden Abdi, representing county governments as nominated by the Senate, Jane Njage, nominated by the Teachers Service Commission (TSC), Leonid Ashiundi, representing the Association of Professional Societies in East Africa, Gilder Odera, representing the Federation of Kenya Employers (FKE), and Geoffrey Omondi, representing the Central Organisation of Trade Unions (Cotu).
It remains unclear whether MPs have since been persuaded to adopt the report, though a special session has been scheduled for December 19 to consider, among other items, the Labour Committee’s report.
The 28-day period allocated for the consideration of nominees expires on Christmas Day. Meanwhile, MPs are currently in Mombasa for the East African Legislative Assembly Games, which conclude on December 18.
The delay in considering the nominees has raised questions within Parliament as to whether, upon the expiry of the 28-day period, the House will be deemed to have given its approval under the provisions of the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act, 2011.
Section 9 of the Act states: “If, after the expiry of the period for consideration, Parliament has neither approved nor rejected the appointment of a nominee, the nominee shall be deemed to have been approved.”
The Chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, George Murugara, assured there was no cause for concern, asserting that the names would be approved during the special sitting.
“The deadline can only expire when we are in session; that is the law. If the report has been submitted, we will approve the nominees at the 19 December sitting,” Mr Murugara told the Nation.
Under Section 7 of the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act, 2011, MPs must scrutinise nominees by evaluating the process through which they were selected, alongside any constitutional or statutory requirements pertaining to the positions.
The Act further stipulates that the suitability of nominees for the proposed appointments must be assessed based on their skills, experience, and alignment with the needs of the body to which they have been nominated.
Sections 6 to 10 of the Act mandate that approval hearings focus on candidates’ academic qualifications, professional training and experience, personal integrity, and background. The postponement of the consideration of candidates was reportedly aimed at diffusing tensions among members.
Despite these concerns, the Working Committee, which vetted the nominees, endorsed their appointments, noting that they met the relevant criteria.
“The committee found that all nominees satisfied the integrity threshold, demonstrated knowledge of topical, administrative, and technical issues relevant to the positions, and possessed the requisite academic qualifications and professional experience to be approved for appointment,” the committee report stated.
The law reiterates that approval hearings must evaluate nominees’ qualifications, professional training, personal integrity, and relevant experience.
