The decision by President William Ruto to re-nominate six of the 21 Cabinet Secretaries he had dismissed on July 11 has sparked a heated national debate on the legality and suitability of the move.
The debate has divided legal experts and civil society organizations, with some equating the dismissal to impeachment and others arguing that it was merely a matter of performance and accountability.
The six re-nominated individuals include Kithure Kindiki (Interior), Alice Wahome (Lands), Soipan Tuya (Environment and Climate Change), Aden Duale (Defense), Rebecca Miano (nominated as Attorney General), and Davis Chirchir (nominated for the Road and Transport Ministry).
Legal experts and civil rights groups have expressed their concerns over the reappointment of these individuals.
Prominent lawyer, Ahmed Nasir, argued that the dismissal of the Cabinet Secretaries “implied a grave omission or commission” and that their “conduct and performance in office” warranted their dismissal, which cannot be easily erased or addressed.
However, another lawyer, Jane Smith, disputed this view, stating that the lawyers’ arguments were “ill-informed” and that the dismissal should not be equated to impeachment, which would require a disciplinary process or a court martial.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), Inuka Kenya, Transparency International, and the Institute for Social Accountability (TISA) have also expressed their opposition to the reappointment of the six individuals.
They argue that the dismissal was an admission of the government’s failure and that the reappointment is “unconstitutional” as the nominees do not meet the requirements of Chapter Six of the Kenyan Constitution.
“It looks like the president may have been buying time to allow pressure of the moment to ease,” said Wanjiku Gikonyo, a Board Member of the KHRC.
She called for a thorough vetting process, including a lifestyle audit, before the reappointment of the six individuals.
The debate continues, with legal minds and civil society organizations questioning the legality and suitability of the president’s decision.
The outcome of this controversy will undoubtedly have significant implications for the new administration and its commitment to accountability and good governance.
