Parliament should not summon Cabinet Secretaries

The Constitution of Kenya separates the powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Inasmuch as Parliament has an oversight role over the Executive, the august House does not have the legal mandate to direct the Executive on how to run the Government.

If allowed to interfere with each other's mandates, the mess might descend into supremacy contests between the various arms of Government.

In the old parliamentary system, ministers were appointed from among MPs. That served its usefulness then. However, under the current presidential system that came with the 2010 Constitution, there is a clear separation and other than the change of name from ministers to Cabinet secretaries, those appointed to these dockets are not MPs.

It is a feature clearly spelt out in the Constitution of Kenyan that the three arms of government each have their distinct and largely exclusive domain. Parliament has a legally unchallengeable right to make whatever laws it deems right. The Executive carries on the administration of the country in accordance with the powers conferred on it by law. The courts interpret the laws and see that they are obeyed.

But it seems the MPs are preoccupied with obtruding into everyone's life. The Standard Editorial last week that condemned what clearly is a power grab wondered whether the MPs imagine that their jobs was to make everyone's else job difficult. I agree.

Recently, the National Assembly changed the parliamentary standing orders to allow the General Oversight Committee of the house chaired by Speaker Justine Muturi to summon Cabinet Secretaries to appear before Parliament to answer questions from MPs.

The concept and the intentions appear noble. However, the underlying intentions could be ulterior. The fear of everyone is that once the MPs get the opportunity to grill Cabinet Secretaries, the Executive branch of the government then becomes vulnerable. The President expressed his displeasure at MPs summoning his Cabinet Secretaries.

The president has a point. And especially in regards to the Constitution. This demand is contrary to the law. The reversal of the new Standing Orders late last week was timely. It would have put many actors in an awkward situation.

The President is not trying to hide or avoid accountability of the Cabinet.

The political class, which I belong to, has been accused of all manner of ills. There is a strong feeling that the venality of the political class is to blame for endemic corruption and simmering tribal animosity.

There have been claims of extortion rings in Parliament and cash-for-questions, especially where big corporations and powerful individuals are affected. In the past, the summons became a cash cow for committee members of the august House. There have even been cases of intimidation and blackmail. Those summoned are even forced to give favours to the MPs in the form of lucrative tenders and employment for their constituents.

There is no doubt that the drafters of the current Constitution sought complete departure from this dark past. In its place was envisaged an open and transparent system where all arms of Government worked in peace and where none felt superior to the other.

In the same vein, the President needs to intervene and stop the Senate from summoning governors because the same pattern can be replicated. The governors read mischief, especially as regards their summoning before Senate Committees.

Governors are elected officials just like Senators. The question is, who should the governors be answerable to, the Senate or the electorate?

But other than the fear that members of both Houses of Parliament could turn the summons into cash cows for themselves, the bigger problem is the time wasted if every committee lines up members of the Executive for questioning.

The answer to this is set out in the Constitution. Whenever MPs need to get answers from the Cabinet, they need to pass through the Leaders of Majority for both Houses where the Cabinet Secretary concerned can channel answers to queries raised in written form.

This is more practical because a Cabinet secretary could end up living in Parliament if exposed to the very many committee members. This applies to governors as well.

Being the chief executive officers of their counties, it might prove difficult to have them subjected to endless questioning and recal to the senate any time small issues arise in their counties. Besides, such summons are duplication of roles since County Assemblies also summon the governors or their executives to answer questions on financial impropriety and other audit issues.

Those standing on the way of the reform process rippling through our institutions risk being washed ashore. There is simply no room for that.

The proposal to summon CSs isn't going to work for anyone, not even for the parliamentarians.