I read the opinion column by Kamotho Waiganjo published on May 3, 2015 (The Standard on Sunday) titled “Let’s dialogue before we go the referendum route”.
He conceded that every Constitution “requires constant re-looking and reconsideration” and in respect of the 2010 Constitution, the writer noted that its contradictions were already being resolved by the Judiciary “through several momentous court decisions.”
The long and short of it is that he accepted the position taken by Okoa Kenya that some issues required “re-looking and reconsideration”. He also demonstrated an understanding of the position taken by Okoa Kenya that the drive to amend the Constitution by popular initiative had been a recourse of last resort.
He stated that “substantial blame goes to the Jubilee government for having rejected the proposal of CORD to dialogue on reforms”. He went further to say had Jubilee accepted dialogue, “we would probably be considering a consensual amendments package or even reforms that avoid constitutional amendments”.
As is usual with the writer, his article was balanced, I’ll dare say even fair, though he does seem to have a healthy distrust for CORD and Okoa Kenya.
However, in the days that followed, Waiganjo must have had an epiphany as he came back the following Sunday, May 10, 2015 (The Standard on Sunday), with another opinion titled “Okoa Kenya’s proposed law change unworkable”.
In all respects, this second opinion was a contrite atonement of the previous Sunday’s article and accommodation he had extended to Okoa Kenya. The writer began by dismissing the Bill, saying there had been little discussion on its substantive content.
I must say it is the writer who has been out of touch. LSK, of which he is a member, held a highly publicised symposium last September where proponents of Okoa Kenya and Pesa Mashinani appeared and addressed members of the society over their proposals for amendment of the Constitution. If I remember well, Mr Charles Nyachae, the writer’s chairman at CIC, was present.
On this ground alone, the writer’s statement regarding debate on the Okoa Kenya proposals is unjustified and unfair. He then addressed two major proposals in the Bill— elections and revenue division. On elections, he began by saying reforms proposed would be better secured through an amendment of Elections Act. Okoa Kenya’s position is that the true intention of the Constitution was being subverted.
Indeed, the Elections Act was intended to secure the constitutional guarantees for free and fair elections. That it did not do so means that either something is wrong with the guarantees in the Constitution or that the Act is not effective.
Whichever it is, amending the Elections Act is not the solution. The writer then dismisses the Okoa Kenya proposal that IEBC must achieve 80 per cent registration of all eligible voters. He says this cannot be achieved since voting is not compulsory. It is on record that IEBC was able to achieve an over 100 per cent registration of eligible voter in some places in the last elections. Unless some people are genetically predisposed not to vote, there is no reason why this cannot be replicated in all areas. If what is needed is public sensitisation, then let IEBC do it.
On the requirement that all voter identification must be electronic, the writer says that technology often fails, and not always for sinister reasons. In the same way, days for voting in elections can also be extended, and not always for sinister reasons. Lastly, the writer rejects the formation of a “stakeholder” IEBC and in fact calls the idea “outlandish”. I don’t know what is outlandish about this as there are many electoral management bodies elsewhere that are representative of the interests of all interested parties.
This, of course, the writer knows. He just elected to be deceptive about it. The electoral bodies in countries like Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Madagascar, Mauritius and Mozambique have representation of both the ruling and opposition parties. On revenue division, the writer’s greatest criticism regards Okoa Kenya’s proposed 45 per cent allocation of national revenue to county governments.
He says if this is done, the national government will not have enough money to function. If my memory serves me right, the national government has been on record bragging that it had allocated money to counties way above 15 per cent currently provided for in the Constitution.
