Cabinet nominees from left: Kithure Kindiki (Interior), Alice Wahome (Lands) Aden Duale (Defence), Davis Chirchir (Roads), Rebecca Miano (Attorney-General) Soipan Tuiya (Environment and Forestry).
President William Ruto’s nominees for Cabinet positions face a tough and rigorous vetting by MPs desperate to redeem themselves after the passage of the unpopular Finance Bill 2024.
Fearing the wrath of angry youths, the lawmakers, who are resuming their sittings on Tuesday, will be keen to appease the public after protesters stormed Parliament last month to express their displeasure after the House passed the controversial Bill. The Weekly Review has learnt that National Assembly is already gearing up for the exercise with elaborate plans being put in place to ensure that the nominees are taken to task over their suitability and competence.
According to the plan, the new faces in the Cabinet will be tasked to demonstrate practical solutions to the various problems that their respective ministries will implement to help the government achieve its plans.
All eyes are now on the Appointments Committee chaired by National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, on whose hands the demands that it makes amends after suffering accusations of being a rubber-stamp of the executive.
MPs do not want to be seen as the weakest link in approving persons with integrity questions or incapable of delivering for fear of facing the wrath of protesters again. The vetting comes at a time when the MPs are facing a hostile Gen Zs who have vowed to recall all those who voted for the Finance Bill.
In order to make the exercise as open as possible, there are plans to relax restrictions and conditions placed on the memorandums that will be brought to Parliament through the Clerks’ office to the various nominees. Section 6 (9) of the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act, 2021 provides that “any person may prior to the approval hearings and by written statement on oath, provide the clerk with evidence contesting the suitability of a candidate to hold the office to which the candidate has been nominated.
Article 118 of the Constitution provides that Parliament shall facilitate public participation and involvement in the legislative business and other business of parliament and its committees.
Section 6 (4) of the Act further provides that the Clerk shall notify the public of the time and place of holding an approval hearing at least seven days prior to the hearings. According to the plan, those that will be re-appointed in the new cabinet are also set for tough questions over their tenure in the dissolved cabinet.
Six old faces
In the half Cabinet named by President Ruto on Friday, six old faces made a comeback and will face the vetting team again. They include Kithure Kindiki (Interior and National Administration), Adan Duale (Defence), Alice Wahome (Lands, public works and housing), Davis Chirchir (Roads and Transport), Soipan Tuiya (Environment and Forestry) and Rebecca Miano (Attorney-General)
Recent cases of police abductions and brutality meted on protesters, use of excessive force to quell anti-government demonstrators and deployment of police to Haiti are likely to haunt Prof Kindiki during the vetting. For Duale, he faces the headache of questions on the deployment of military in the streets during the protests and questionable manner in which it was approved by Parliament.
Chirchir faces the baggage of his former docket of high costs of fuel, the frequent blackouts that have never been experienced in the country. He will also carry the burden of the predecessor in explaining why the government increased the road maintenance levy despite a rejection during public participation. Ms Wahome will likely face questions on the housing project, Dr Ruto’s legacy-driven project, and which has faced questions on the contributions made by Kenyans to an unpopular levy and the progress of the projects already begun. Out of the five, only Chirchir and Ms Miano have been nominated into new dockets.
Among the questions that awaits them is what they will do differently that they had no opportunity to do in the previous cabinet, if they make it to the same docket, the nominees will be tasked to provide evidence of what they have achieved in the last 19 months they were in office. The wealth of those that will be re-appointed will also be under microscopic scrutiny as details of any increase of their net worth will have to be explained in detail.
According to the report of the committee that vetted Dr Ruto’s first Cabinet in October 2022, Duale was then worth Sh851 million, which includes sheep, goats, 231 camels and other assets. Prof Kindiki Sh544 million derived from proceeds from legal practice, businesses, local and international consultancies and Chirchir Sh482 million from salary, farming and rental income.
Ms Wahome was worth Sh21.4 million consisting of salary as MP, law firm and rental income while Ms Tuiya was then worth Sh156 million derived from salary and allowances, immovable property, motor vehicles, shares in saccos and dairy farming.
Public Appointments
Minority Whip Junet Mohamed, who sits in the appointments committee, told the Sunday Nation that parliament will do a thorough job this time and represent the interest of the people. “We will do a thorough vetting this time. Those that will be re-appointed, will have to tell us what they have done,” Mohamed said. “They will be judged against their incumbency, we will put all their records there,” he added. Section 6, 7, and 8 of the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act, 2011 provides that “an approval hearing shall focus on a candidates’ academic credentials, professional training and experience, personal integrity and background.
Further, the Act provides that the issues for consideration by the relevant House of Parliament in relation to any nomination shall be the procedure used to arrive at the nominee, any constitutional or statutory requirements relating to the office in question and whether the nominees’ abilities, experience and qualities meet the needs of the body to which the nomination is being made.
Constitutional lawyer Bob Mkangi says he anticipate a tight vetting this time in the wake of the increased public awareness and scrutiny. “This time everyone will be vetting the new CSs, Kenyans will be monitoring every move the committee makes and will dig deeper in the background of the nominees. The MPs while vetting should consider the interest of the people because they had already been sent a message through occupying parliament,” Mkangi said.
He maintained that those that served in the just dissolved cabinet will have to be vetted afresh. “They will have to undergo vetting because it is considered as fresh vetting because they had already served in the previous cabinet for a period of time and Kenyans would like to re-examine their suitability,” Mkangi said.
“Their fresh vetting is anchored on the requirement that any nomination by the President for the position of the Cabinet Secretary must be vetted, remember there is no cabinet at the moment, hence those that will come back are considered fresh faces,” Mkangi added.
Key amendments
MPs in the 12th Parliament failed to consider key amendments to the Parliamentary Approval Act 2011 that would have seen CSs undergo a tough vetting exercise, a move that is likely to give new CSs a sigh of relief. Among the proposals that were to be considered included having representatives from AECC, Helb, KRA, DCI physically present during the vetting to also ask questions, this was however shelved as some MPs argued that it shows parliament has ceded its power to other agencies.
Currently, Parliament through the Clerk Samwel Njoroge normally writes to Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), Higher Education Loans Board (HELB) and the Office of the Political Parties (ORPP) requesting reports of the nominees with respect to ethics and integrity, tax compliance, criminal records, higher education loan repayments and political party affiliations.
On the questionnaire bit, the MPs wanted it amended so that the question 28 which asks the nominee whether he has been charged in a court to include a clause where a nominee can be rejected or approved with reservation until the conclusion of the pending case.
The MPs also wanted the question on net worth to be itemised instead of the current situation where the nominee provides a total sum. The requirement of a degree was also conversed; this came up during the vetting of former Sports CS Rashid Echesa whose academic level was questioned. All these were however not considered and the only change the House made was increasing the number of vetting days from 14 to days.
