On Parliament’s Passing of the Mutilated Leadership and Integrity Bill

It has been two years since the constitution was promulgated; and it seems that every step of the implementation process has been fraught with controversy, from the creation of constitutional commissions, to the appointment of constitutional officers and the passage of constitutionally mandated legislation. The latest in the long line fiascos to do with constitutional implementation is the mutilation of, the Leadership and Integrity Bill, the legislation intend to make Chapter 6 of the constitution operational.

In a post on the Cabinet’s mutilation of the Leadership and integrity Bill (read here) I stated that it would be interesting to see whether the Legislature would step up and oppose the bill’s mutilation, or whether parliament would let the Cabinet’s amendments to bill stand. Amendments that, in the words of the Commission on Implementation of the Constitution (CIC), turned the Leadership and Integrity Bill into a, “statement of intent with no real mechanisms for realising the intent.”

It turns out that the Legislature chose the latter. Not only did Parliament pass the Cabinet’s vastly weakened version of the Leadership and Integrity Bill; the Legislature made changes to the bill that make it even more difficult to exclude those vying leadership on grounds of questionable integrity. The most damaging changes/exclusions to the bill are the: exemption of those running for elective positions (Member of Parliament, Senator, Governor, President etc) from vetting by state agencies i.e. National Security Intelligence Service, Kenya Revenue Authority, Higher Education Loans Board or the National Police Service. Exempting state officers from having to declare their wealth. Removal of the prohibition on state officers from participating in tendering for the supply of and services to the government. And last but not least removal of the requirement that the Ethics and Corruption Commission publish and publicises candidates that have pending criminal cases. The implication of these changes/exemptions on the vetting of leaders is mind-boggling.

Parliament’s Constitutional Implementation Oversight Committee (CIOC) and the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee have justified the changes to the Bill arguing the difficulty of vetting candidates running for elective posts based on “subjective criteria”. “When it comes to subjective issues, it is difficult to vet. It is not done anywhere else in the world. Let the voters decide, so that there’s as much transparency as possible,” Abdikadir Mohammed, Chair of the CIOC is quoted as stating. However contrary to this reasoning I would argue that issues of integrity, financial probity, whether or not potential leaders have met their tax obligations, or have outstanding student loans, or pending criminal cases are not subjective but rather objective criteria on which leaders should be vetted.

The inability of Parliament to respond to the mood of the people is debilitating. Ignoring the will of people and sidelining the advice of the CIC, Parliament has once again managed to pass a law that chiefly serves the interest of those sitting in House. Some would argue that this is no surprise given that a robust leadership and integrity law with stringent vetting requirements and mechanisms would raise dangerous questions about corruption, past and present, and the leadership worthiness of many of those in the current house.

With regards to the status of the Bill and the next steps, the President is still to assent. Having been let down by the Executive (the Cabinet at least) and the Legislature, we wait to see whether or not the President will assent to an obviously flawed law or whether he will withhold his assent.

Posted by Mzalendo Editor on Aug. 31, 2012

Categories:  No tags