ETHURO'S CABINET BILL MUST BE DEBATED FOR THE COUNTRY'S GOOD

THE STANDARD
NAIROBI, KENYA
April 10, 2009
EDITORIAL

Ekwee Ethuro is certainly onto something with a private member’s Bill to spell out higher standards for admission to the Cabinet and rules for doling out responsibilities.

The Turkana Central MP plans to republish the Offices of Minister Bill, which was time-barred upon expiry of Parliament’s last session, and present proposals to enable the House guide the creation of ministries under Section 16 of the Constitution. And, furthermore, to set criteria the President and the House shall use for appointment of ministers.

However, Ethuro’s well-meaning criteria — unless fleshed out with a pragmatic eye for possible political mischief — could quickly become a greater threat to good governance in Cabinet than the politically expedient presence of a non-degree holder.

The merit of some of the ideas is evident: Capping the number of ministries the President may create at 24, while leaving room for him and Parliament to determine the right number and type,for instance, tips a hat to both the desire for a leaner Government and the need for checks and bal ances, without needlessly tying the President’s hands. (A schedule of 21 ministries is provided, but is not meant to be binding).

By presuming the presence of a Vice-President, Prime Minister and two Deputy PMs, however, even though the Bill is not to take effect until the life of the Parliament following the one in which it is passed, Ethuro may be needlessly pre-empting the constitutional review. It should suffice to say the Bill covers all positions in Cabinet, save the President.

Degree of disrepute

Limiting the period in which one minister may hold two dockets to 90 days ensures that Government business does not suffer due to political lethargy. It is not clear, however, whether this provision effectively prevents dockets being left vacant indefinitely as happened with the vice-presidency for about a year under the country’s second president.

Setting out a code of conduct for ministers in law, as opposed to the traditional urgings through the Cabinet Office Handbook on Governing Responsibility or the generic Public Officer Ethics Act 2003, is also a good idea.

It is in an attempt to set qualifications for appointment that Ethuro touches on, but fails to resolve a crucial dilemma: How to deal with politicians fighting off allegations of corruption or other improper conduct. As Gichugu MP Martha Karua has in the past pointed out, the Grand Coalition Government, with its 42-member Cabinet, includes three individuals with corruption-related cases pending before the courts.

Others have, through other improper conduct, attained a degree of disrepute in the public’s eyes. And in past Cabinets, functional illiteracy was no bar to the appointment of politically useful individuals. Determining which criteria are relevant and whether they are objective as provided for in the Bill should make the proposed law’s progress through Parliament interesting to watch.

Section 4 of the Bill requires a minister, apart from being an MP, to also hold a university degree or its equivalent and "be a person of integrity".

The vagueness of that last criterion has prompted the local chapter of the International Commission of Jurists to suggest amending it to "high moral integrity" and including a provision disqualifying any MP from appointment to Cabinet if found guilty of an electoral or corruption offence.

Early thinking

Making the criteria more specific in this way avoids subjective interpretations of high moral integrity. But it still would not lock out those merely on trial for such offences. If any effort is made to address this, care must be taken not to create a tool that leaders can use to lock out rivals. ICJ-Kenya also sees this as an opportunity to clear up the ambiguity over the position of Secretary

to the Cabinet by clearly spelling out in law the functions and mandate of the office. This, again, is another matter that will certainly be dealt with in constitutional review. Given the Bill’s transitional clauses, we are not entirely convinced this is necessary, but early thinking on reducing politics in governance may do no harm.