Time ripe to legislate on Vetting

The manner in which MPs handled the nomination of Amb. Dr. Monica Juma as the Secretary to the Cabinet calls for a vetting law. This is not the only case in point but since the Uhuru government was sworn in, the vetting exercises have been wanting. It would be okay if her rejection was based on substantive reasoning, but nothing is further from the truth.

During the vetting, the committee clearly established the following:

  1. Dr. Juma has the requisite qualifications and vast experience in public service to make her suitable for the position;
  2. She has meticulously risen through the ranks in academia and professionally;
  3. She has never been implicated in any corruption scandal in her official capacity;
  4. She exhibited impressive knowledge of topical issues including public policy and security.

These remarks make one wonder why they rejected her. In fact, considering those remarks, she ably met and surpassed the set standards in the Public Officers Ethics Act 2003, the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act 2014, Leadership and Integrity Act 2012 and Chapter six of the Constitution.

Part 9 (1) of the Public Officers Ethics Act expects a public officer to carry out their duties in a way that maintains public confidence in the integrity of his office; treat the public and his fellow public officers with courtesy and respect; seek to improve the standards of performance and level of professionalism in his organization; and discharge any professional responsibilities in a professional manner among other requirements.

To discredit her, MPs cited a letter she had written to the Clerk and Speaker of Parliament requesting MPs to stop pushing for favors and continually visiting her office. The letter clearly stated that the police service is stretched and all areas will be treated fairly and without favor.

The letter was very professional, something the MPs decided to interpret as in bad faith. MPs decision in this case is unfortunate as it implies that merit can be subordinated to myopic egoistic interests. Truth be told, most legislators cannot pass the stringent requirements in chapter six of the Constitution undergirding public officers’ behavior.

More importantly, this process makes a case for vetting law. Many public officers vetted since March 2013 have had questionable pasts and the true considerations of legislators in approving or rejecting a candidate remain very subjective.

A vetting law would stipulate:

  1. How the process should be undertaken,
  2. Entrench the requirements for each candidate,
  3. Set a threshold to pass; and,
  4. Include any recourse mechanisms that the appointing authority or nominee can take if they feel dissatisfied with the process.

Mortals are reactionary hence this vetting should push Parliament and the Attorney General’s Office to hasten the drafting and passing of the necessary legislation. Clear guidelines for future public appointment interviews should be put in place to ensure merit prevails rather than political expediency.

Posted by Mzalendo Editor on June 12, 2015

Categories:  No tags

0 COMMENTS

POST YOUR COMMENT

You must login to comment


There are no comments.