Parliamentarians should take vetting of nominees seriously

Critics opine that Parliament has abandoned its vital oversight role. [Courtesy]

In June 2015, Parliament rejected the nomination of then Principal Secretary of Interior, Dr Monica Juma, for the position of Secretary to the Cabinet because she authored a letter to the Speaker cautioning against the many visits from MPs who were requesting changes of police officers attached to them.

Her concern was that MPs’ overtures were an affront to civil service regulations. Despite terming her experience and academic qualifications as stellar, they found her arrogant and insensitive to “the people of Kenya and their representatives”. Nevertheless, she would move on to sail through nomination as Cabinet Secretary years later.

As part of their oversight role, Parliament is required to conduct vetting on certain public officers, including members of the Cabinet, ambassadors, heads of constitutional commissions and independent offices, and other vital officers such as the Inspector General of the National Police Service.

In 2019, the National Assembly rejected Ambassador Mwende Mwinzi’s nomination as Kenyan Ambassador to South Korea, based on her dual citizenship. However, the High Court finally allowed her to take up the post after determining that she could not practically renounce her American citizenship, which she acquired by birth.

Other instances where nominees have faced challenges in going through parliamentary vetting include petitions by members of the public or specific constitutional commissions. However, the rule is that every person submitting representations against any nominee must do it under oath. This rule has been criticised as unnecessary and defeating the purpose of vetting. It is argued that the committee should be able to admit and investigate all allegations if they appear credible. In addition, the technicality locks out the possibility of anonymised petitions.

EACC has in the past presented dossiers of individuals with corruption cases and other leadership and integrity issues. However, they have seldom succeeded in blocking nominations, especially those on which the regime and Parliament are very keen.

Parliamentary vetting is seen as a mere formality for the most part. Critics opine that Parliament has abandoned its vital oversight role, allowing stooges and yes men to fill State offices instead of qualified people. As a result, Kenyans have witnessed people deemed unsuitable assume office despite prior criminal records, inexperience or lack of academic credentials. At times, nominees are selected via opaque or unprocedural practices.

This phenomenon demoralises civil servants who spend their careers climbing from grade to grade only to be led by inexperienced and unsuitable blue-eyed boys.

This brings us to MP Shakeel Shabbir’s bill seeking to amend the Public Appointments Act to enhance Parliament’s role in State appointments. It specifically aims to circumvent the legal provision that renders failure to approve or reject a nomination within a certain period as automatic approval giving the President leeway to effect appointment without Parliament. Instead, the amendment now requires the appointing authority to reissue or recall the nomination to ensure that evert nominee is vetted.

Second, it seeks to give the appointing authority the right to recall or withdraw a nomination if Parliament has not vetted the nominee. It is noteworthy that this gives the appointing power the right to withdraw at any time, without requiring justification, such as when new information about the nominee or process comes to light. A good law should require the appointing authority to give solid reasons otherwise the process may be abused.