Kenyans seek one centre of power: report

More than 1.7 million Kenyans, in their scrutiny of the draft constitution said they wanted one centre of power to avoid instability.

However, they were unable to make up their minds on the kind of chief executive they preferred — president or prime minister.

They were of the opinion that the hybrid system of government proposed in the draft constitution by the Committee of Experts (CoE) was ambiguous and unworkable and was likely to lead to clashes between the president and the PM.

This is according to a CoE report capturing Kenyans’ views on the draft constitution during 30 days of public hearings.

According to the report, the public wanted a clear definition of the powers and functions of the two offices, with the chief executive elected directly by the people.

They overwhelmingly supported a bicameral Parliament with the Senate and a Lower House. Even though Kenyans wanted minority and special interest groups represented in the House, they frowned upon a National Assembly with many MPs — to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.

Members of both Houses, they recommended, should be directly elected. Wananchi (citizens) said they wanted devolution, which they perceived as an arrangement that would end inequality in resource distribution. They were, however, divided on the levels of government; three or two.

They faulted the 74 counties and eight regions proposed in the draft and said that they must take into consideration population, geographical features and economic status of every area.

Memoranda from many expert groups indicated concern that the harmonised draft did not provide mechanisms through which the performance of devolved governments could be monitored and supervised.

Failed to deliver

This, it was suggested, would be necessary to supplement capacity, or to intervene where a government failed to deliver. Provisions on transition contained in the draft attracted less commentary than the other chapters that had been found to be contentious.

Concerns raised over transitional provisions relating to devolution were in respect of ensuring that functions were not devolved all at once, but rather in a phased approach.

Views on the transitional provisions on the Judiciary mostly followed three trends: those that mistakenly claimed the Judiciary was to resign in its entirety upon the promulgation of a new constitution, those who saw the provisions as unfair and suggested that the same judges who currently serve should be sworn into office under the new constitution and continue to serve without being subjected to any transitional process, and those who felt that all the judges currently in office should be sent home to ensure “a clean slate.”

The committee also received concerns about the need to clarify the role of the constitutional court vis-à-vis other courts. Some members of the public were of the view that a constitutional court was unnecessary and that the committee had “gone out of its mandate” by creating one in the draft.

There were also concerns by the Judiciary that their financial independence had not been adequately addressed. Other concerns addressed the fact that the provisions in the draft required that they be vetted by Parliament, which they felt would politicise the appointment process.