Tower of Babel: A tale of rogue Kenyan legislators

Even before the dust raised by the recent claims of blatant bribery in the National Assembly over the sugar scandal has settled, members of the August House are again in the eye of a fresh storm.

The Sunday Nation has unmasked a syndicate of how members of the National Assembly use ‘impeachment’ threats to extort money from Cabinet Secretaries and other state officers.

The burning question is whether the August House has become a Tower of Babel?

According to article 145 and 150 of the Constitution, only the President and his deputy may be removed from office through impeachment proceedings.

EXTORT VICTIM

On the other hand, article 152 (6) provides that a Cabinet Secretary (CS) may be removed from office only through a motion of removal — not an impeachment.

The two are distinctly different. An impeachment has a higher threshold and must involve the Senate at the tail end.

Why MPs have failed to draw the line between the two is not clear. Of late, the National Assembly has been awash with “impeachment motions” against CSs.

The Sunday Nation has established that every time a CS or a parastatal head is threatened, two lists are drawn; those against and those in support.

The lists exist to extort the victim, to have the matter dropped or get the support of members to shoot down the motion.

BAD MANNERS

“I remember one time I was brought these lists but I told them to go away," a CS, who did not want to go on record for fear of reprisals, said.

"If such threats exist for MPs to extort openly, then the Speaker should be more vigilant because it is bad manners. Where do we mint money to give them and for what work done?" he posed.

According to Mr Barasa Nyukuri, a governance expert, the sanctioning of CSs and others is a noble endeavour in the pursuit of accountability on behalf of ordinary Kenyans. However, he says, this has been abused.

“What we are seeing is not the intended purpose as it has become a veiled threat to extort CSs. This is an abuse of their oversight and representation roles as well as the parliamentary powers and privileges,” Mr Nyukuri said. “It must be stopped because it reduces the whole concept to child’s play, if not frivolous.”

APPROVE BUDGETS

Article 125 gives a committee of Parliament similar powers as that of the High Court.

This is what legislators wield to box their targets into a corner and the fact that the National Assembly makes and approves budgets for government agencies complicates an already bad situation.

The latest victim is National Treasury CS Henry Rotich. Kimilili MP Didmus Barasa wants Mr Rotich removed because of the ‘poisonous’ sugar scandal.

“I am determined to have the CS removed from office based on the evidence I have,” Mr Barasa, a first term MP, said.

However, National Assembly Majority Leader Aden Duale said he is not against any move to remove a CS, but insists the right procedure must be followed.

CHARACTERS ASSASSINATION

“A member does not need to walk around parliamentary corridors, bar, cafeteria and the media centre threatening to impeach a CS; what is required is for one to follow the procedure,” Mr Duale said.

In 2015, National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi made a ruling that raised the stakes of removing state officers — the President, Deputy President and CSs — from office.

Mr Muturi’s ruling was meant to cushion State officers from vexatious removal attempts as well as character assassination.

The Speaker noted the petitioner must identify the grounds for removal and have them backed with evidence before presenting the case to the Speaker.

For the case of a CS, once the Speaker is satisfied with the evidence adduced, he clears the member to proceed with the collection of signatures.

ABSOLUTE POWER

In this case, the member requires at least 88 signatures. The signatures will then be taken to the Speaker, who will direct the Clerk of the National Assembly to verify their authenticity.

If satisfied, the Speaker will direct the legal department to transform the petitioner’s request into a motion of removal from office.

The motion must be supported by at least a third of the 349 members or 117 MPs for a select committee that shall be chaired by the Speaker to be formed to investigate the accused CS.

If the committee finds merit in the accusations against the CS and upon listening to him or her, the House will require 50 per cent plus one to approve the removal of the CS.

This is called absolute power of the House and the President will have no option but to remove the minister.

UNCLEAR ANSWERS

But MPs have always used the word ‘impeachment’ wrongly, either to scare their targets or do not understand the import of Mr Muturi’s ruling.

Former Devolution CS Ann Waiguru (now Kirinyaga governor), former Agriculture CS Felix Koskei (now a commissioner with the Public Service Commission) and serving CSs Sicily Kariuki (Health), Dr Fred Matiang’i (Interior) and James Macharia (Transport and Infrastructure) among others have been victims of ‘impeachment’ motions.

The plot also extends to committees of Parliament; when legislators summon CSs, their principal secretaries (PSs), heads of parastatals and directors on a matter of public interest.

For instance, in the recent case of the poisonous sugar imported into the country, the committee that investigated the matter did not clearly answer the issues raised by Samburu West MP Naisula Lesuuda despite summoning the relevant CSs, PSs and others.

SUMMARILY REJECTED

The fears that Parliament has become a Tower of Babel were manifested when the MPs voted to throw out the sugar report.

Their mixed roles of oversight and defence of the implicated CSs created more confusion. “In the end, what we saw was a noisy and messy House as the culprits in the poisonous sugar ran away smiling,” Mr Barasa said.

There is also a case where a presidential nominee was told to fork out Sh20 million to have his name approved by the committee for appointment. When the nominee refused, he was summarily rejected.