Gaffes that cost Uhuru’s presidency confidence

NAIROBI: The Presidency has in the recent past issued statements and made decisions that have cast this important institution in bad light.

The recent presidential directive that all the 10,000 police recruits report for training forthwith against an existing court order brought to the fore the all-important question of the kind of legal advice President Uhuru Kenyatta receives from his well-paid advisors.

The president made this order fully conscious of the court order that cancelled the recruitment owing to massive corruption during the exercise.

The executive order by the president, for which he pledged to take full responsibility, came against the back drop of the gruesome Garissa University attack, which the president largely attributed to inadequacy of police officers.

While the president meant well with the order, it was apparent that the directive was going to put the executive and the judiciary on a fresh collision course, posing the questions: was the president well advised?

Or did he ignore wise counsel?

The rescinding of the directive is a clear indication that the Presidency did not consult with the relevant institutions including the National Police Service Commission, the office of the Inspector General and the Independent Police Oversight Authority.

Apparently, had the Presidency followed due process, this current confusion and mop up efforts by the Attorney General and the Inspector General would have been forestalled.

However, this whole fiasco is a damning indictment on the Attorney General, the principal legal advisor to the Government and Abdikadir Mohamed, the president's advisor on legal and constitutional affairs.

It is the belief of many that before the president goes on air to give a statement on any issue of national importance, he must have engaged in rigorous consultations with his key advisors just to make sure whatever comes from the his office is constitutionally foolproof.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that this is not the case as the president keeps making decisions with questionable constitutional legality that do not go down well with a vast majority of Kenyans.

It must be noted that this is not the first time the executive is making such goofs.

In December 2014, Mr Kenyatta signed the controversial Security Laws (Amendment) Bill 2014 into law in spite of the pressure from many Kenyans and civil society for him not to do so.

Critics argued that apart from the fact that the bill contained contentious clauses that needed to be reviewed; the chaotic passage of the bill in the Parliament provided enough grounds for the president to reject it.

Instead he surprised the nation by signing it to law hence igniting a court battle that saw eight clauses of the bill suspended.

The weakening of the Inspector of Police's independence as a result of this controversial law became clear with the president's directive for the IG to ensure that the 10,000 - whose enrolment was pending - reported for training promptly.

But for the infamous Security Laws (Amendment) Act 2014, Article 245(4c) of the Constitution would not have allowed the president to do so.

After assenting the bill into law, the legal advisors of the presidency were on the receiving end on whether they rightly advised him on this crucial matter.

In the wake of the heinous Mpeketoni attack, Mr Kenyatta was quick to blame political networks in the region for the attack in spite of Al-Shabaab having claimed responsibility.

This statement elicited massive backlash from the public with scores wondering why the president was quick to blame the attack on politics without intensive investigation.

The question then was: If indeed the President was fully furnished with impeccable intelligence linking certain politicians to the attack, why was it that no one was taken to court to face criminal charges?

Owing to these executive miss-steps, the public is increasingly losing confidence in this important arm of the Government.

For instance, it will be an uphill task for the Presidency to restore confidence in the 10,000 young men and women, who had gone to great trouble preparing to report to the training colleges as ordered, only for the directive to be rescinded at the last minute.

Moving forward, the Presidency must put its house in order.

It is imperative to note that the president's advisors including the AG are paid to offer good counsel to the president and his Government in the interest of the nation.

It is clear that they need to up their game and save the president from these costly gaffes, or perhaps he should listen to his advisors when they offer him wise counsel.