President William Ruto’s plans to create additional
positions including the office of the Leader of Opposition has been thrown into disarray.
This is after a parliamentary committee rejected President Ruto’s proposal for a constitutional amendment to anchor the office to ensure equity and fairness in the country’s dispensation.
The National Assembly’s Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs rejected the proposal to create the office of the Leader of Opposition, saying the move would offend the country’s presidential system of government.
However, the committee gave the proposal for the creation of the Office of the Prime Minister a greenlight but proposed that it be renamed the Office of the Prime Cabinet Secretary.
The committee, which reviewed
President Ruto’s December 2022 memorandum to Parliament to establish the
office, said the establishment would go against the country’s current presidential
system.
“The system of governance is presidential. Article 108 of the Constitution provides for party chiefs in the National Assembly to include the leader of the minority party, who is essentially the leader of the opposition in the House,’’ the committee recommends in its report.
The committee chaired by Tharaka MP George Murugara said ‘’introducing the office of leader of opposition profoundly alters the functions of Parliament.’’
After the 2022 presidential victory, Ruto vouched for the creation of the office of the Leader of Opposition, arguing it would cure the winner-take-all-all system in which the runner-up is condemned to political oblivion for five years.
In actualizing the move, President Ruto had December 2022
written to the National Assembly asking the house to establish a legal
framework to anchor the office of the Leader of Opposition and two deputies.
According to Ruto, the office would ensure inclusivity and cohesion after a General Election and prevent instability caused by the winner-take-all system.
The President memorandum was then subjected to public participation
by the Nadco committee which was formed by Ruto and former Prime Minister Raila
Odinga following a political standoff after the last General Election.
The committee which was co-chaired by Wiper boss Kalonzo
Musyoka and National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah recommended the
creation of the office of the leader of opposition.
The Justice and Legal Affairs Committee which reviewed Bills drafted by the Nadco committee, argued that the creation of such an office would require a referendum.
“It was the committee’s view that such a proposal be subjected
to a plebiscite as there is no clear institutional framework for the office of
the Leader of Opposition,’’ the report, which was tabled in the National Assembly
says.
The committee argued that there are a lot of concerns as it
is not clear whether the office would be a public or state office.
It is also not clear if the office would fall under the
executive arm or the legislature arm of government, the committee observed.
“The Constitution does not envisage a member of the
executive sitting in Parliament as implied in the proposed Nadco report as this
will result in a change in the system of government, a decision only reserved
for the people,’’ the committee observed.
During the Nadco committee hearings, Azimio la Umoja One
Kenya had argued that the office would be domiciled in Parliament like in the Westminster
parliamentary system in the United Kingdom.
Azimio had argued that since the creation of the office
would require a referendum, then it would be necessary to change the current presidential
system to a parliamentary system.
On the position of the Prime Minister, as proposed by the Nadco report, the committee recommended that the office be renamed “Prime Cabinet Secretary.’’
“The term “minister “used in the proposal does not exist in the constitution and should, therefore be substituted with Cabinet Secretary. The office should be domiciled in Article 152 of the constitution,’’ reads the committee’s report.
However, committee members Otiende Amollo (Rarienda) and John Makali (Kanduyi) dissented from the recommendation.
“There is no need for the proposed office of the prime minister. The mischief the proposal seeks to cure is not established. Furthermore, the office of the prime minister does not fit the existing governance structure,’’ the report reads.
The two argued that the prime minister’s office would lead
to a conflict with the office of the deputy president and result in a bloated
wage bill.
The House is expected to debate the report.
It can approve the report with or without amendments with superior powers to overrule the committee where necessary.
