Speaker gets threats ahead of key ruling

Kenya’s attention will on Thursday afternoon be riveted on Speaker of the National Assembly Kenneth Marende as he makes a ruling on President Kibaki’s nominees to four key positions under the new Constitution.

The Speaker confirmed on Wednesday that he had received veiled threats intended to pressure him to rule in a certain direction or face the risk of a vote of no confidence.

Following the threats, lawyers wrote to the two principals protesting over plans by some MPs to censure the Speaker if he rules against the nominations.

Through the International Commission of Jurists, the lawyers said: “We have been informed that the Speaker has been threatened with impeachment should his ruling not be in accordance with the expectations of one side of the political divide.”

The actions by MPs are an attack on the independence of the Legislature and constitute a threat to the political stability of the country, ICJ said.

“As President and Prime Minister of Kenya, you are in a strong position to prevail on your respective followers to exercise restraint for the sake of Kenya, which remains bigger than all of us,” the letter signed by ICJ executive director George Kegoro, said.

Mr Marende confirmed ICJ fears, saying: “I’ve not received threats directly but through third parties. In my view those would be veiled threats.”

He is set to decide on the fate of Justice Alnashir Visram, law professor Githu Muigai, Mr Kioko Kilukumi and William Kirwa, who the president has nominated as Chief Justice, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions and Controller of Budget respectively.

If he rules the nominations lawful, the names will be forwarded to the Finance Trade and Planning, and Justice and Constitutional Legal Affairs committees for vetting before presentation to the MPs.

He could also rule the nominations illegal and demand their withdrawal from the House.

The nominations have provoked a storm that threatens to split the Grand Coalition Government after Prime Minister Raila Odinga insisted he was not consulted over them.

Differences over the issue sparked a heated debate in Parliament on Tuesday, pitting MPs and ministers loyal to President Kibaki’s PNU against their counterparts from Mr Odinga’s ODM.

The House heard disclosures of behind-the-scenes happenings as Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka and Mr Odinga gave differing accounts of what transpired in discussions between the two principals before President Kibaki released the list.

The PNU side — confident it had the numbers to push through the list after teaming up with ODM rebels led by suspended minister William Ruto — was disappointed when Mr Marende said he would rule on the admissibility of President Kibaki’s nominees before initiating the process that would lead to a vote.

That is the decision the Speaker must make on Thursday, touching not just on the fate of the nominations, but on the power struggle within the Grand Coalition.

It will be the second time the Speaker makes a crucial ruling sparked by infighting between the coalition principals.

There are three schools of thought on the legal status of last Friday’s nominations.

PNU holds that the President made sufficient consultations with the PM as required by the National Accord and the relevant parts of the Constitution.

ODM insists the President made unilateral nominations against the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the power-sharing accord requiring consultation with the PM in all key decisions, and therefore the list was illegally drawn up and should withdrawn.

The third school of thought held by ICJ is the President and the PM should not be the ones to nominate the new Chief Justice, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions and the Controller of Budget.