Kenyans wonder why the rush in the speed taken by legislation arm of government on the impeachment motion.

The role of the judiciary in guiding parliamentary procedures has been a critical feature of Kenya's democratic process. The recent court ruling on Friday, October 4, 2024, that directed Parliament to give the electorate an opportunity to air their views on the motion of impeachment against the Deputy President, is a reflection of this oversight role. However, the rushed timeline for public participation, with the process concluding on Saturday, October 5, 2024, by 5 PM, raises serious questions about the sincerity and transparency of Parliament’s actions in such an important matter.

Judiciary's Role in Democratic Governance

The Kenyan Constitution guarantees the public's right to participate in governance, including matters of impeachment. The court's ruling in this case was aligned with Article 118 of the Constitution, which mandates Parliament to conduct its business in an open manner and facilitate public participation. By directing Parliament to consider the views of the electorate before deciding on the impeachment of the Deputy President, the court was reinforcing the critical principle of accountability and inclusivity in political decision-making.

The court’s intervention was necessary because such decisions affect not only the leadership at the highest levels but also the citizenry. The Deputy President’s impeachment is a matter of great national importance, and the public’s voice is essential in determining whether such a drastic step is necessary. However, the manner in which Parliament responded to the court ruling suggests an attempt to sidestep this constitutional obligation.

The Problem with the Short Timeline

The major flaw in Parliament’s response lies in the impractical timeline provided for public participation. A court ruling on Friday at noon, with the deadline for public views set at 5 PM on Saturday, is clearly insufficient for meaningful engagement. Public participation is not a mere formality; it is a process that requires time for the electorate to be informed, deliberate, and make their voices heard. Such a short window effectively shuts out the majority of citizens, especially those in rural areas who may not have immediate access to information or digital platforms to submit their views.

This kind of hurried process is deeply problematic. It undermines the very purpose of public participation and gives the impression that Parliament is merely ticking boxes to satisfy legal requirements without truly valuing the input of the electorate. The gravity of impeaching a Deputy President requires much more careful consideration and engagement than what was offered here. A rushed process raises suspicions of political maneuvering and manipulation.

Why the Rush?

The timing and urgency with which this matter was handled suggest that political motives are at play. Why would Parliament act with such speed on this matter of impeachment, while other pressing national issues, such as the coffee bill and agricultural reforms, languish without the same urgency? The coffee bill, for instance, has far-reaching implications for the livelihoods of millions of Kenyans. It has been under deliberation for months, if not years, and yet it has not seen the same level of attention as the impeachment motion.

This raises the question: Why does impeachment take precedence over other pressing issues affecting the nation? The answer likely lies in the high-stakes political battles within the executive. The relationship between the President and the Deputy President has been fraught with tension, and this impeachment appears to be a culmination of that power struggle. The speed with which Parliament acted hints at a desire to settle political scores rather than genuinely considering the best interests of the country.

Political Marriages of Convenience

The strained relationship between the President and Deputy President points to a broader issue in Kenyan politics—political marriages of convenience. In many instances, coalitions are formed not out of shared ideology or vision for the country but as a means of securing power. Once in office, however, these alliances often fall apart as the individual ambitions of leaders come into conflict. The Deputy President’s impeachment is likely a symptom of this broader issue, where political partnerships break down and give way to accusations, betrayal, and power struggles.

Kenya’s political history is replete with such examples. Deputy Presidents (or Vice Presidents in the past) have frequently found themselves at odds with the sitting President, leading to public fallouts and, in some cases, impeachments or forced resignations. This cycle of political instability weakens governance and undermines the trust that citizens have in their leaders. It also diverts attention from critical policy issues and stifles economic development.

Need for Legislative Reform

To address this recurring problem, it may be time for Parliament to consider enacting legislation that binds the President and Deputy President together for the entire term, barring extreme circumstances that warrant impeachment. Such legislation would ensure that the executive operates as a cohesive unit and prevent political infighting from spilling into the public domain. This could also prevent the current situation, where impeachment is used as a tool for settling political scores rather than for addressing genuine instances of misconduct or abuse of power.

Binding the two top leaders together for the duration of their term would also encourage better vetting processes during elections. Political parties and coalitions would be forced to think carefully about the compatibility of their candidates and whether they can work together in the long term. This would help curb the formation of alliances based solely on the short-term goal of winning an election, only for them to fall apart soon after.

Parliament’s Responsibility

Parliamentarians are held in high esteem by the public. They are elected to represent the people’s interests and to uphold the Constitution. However, the way in which they handled this impeachment process suggests that they are not living up to that responsibility. By rushing the process and limiting public participation, they have failed to act transparently and in the best interests of the electorate.

As representatives of the people, Parliament should be prioritizing the issues that affect the daily lives of Kenyans, such as the coffee bill and other critical economic reforms. These issues deserve the same level of urgency and attention as the impeachment process, if not more. Parliament’s focus should be on creating laws that improve the lives of citizens, not on getting embroiled in political gamesmanship.

The court ruling directing Parliament to engage the public in the impeachment process was a necessary intervention to safeguard the principles of accountability and public participation. However, Parliament’s rushed timeline and lack of meaningful engagement with the electorate undermine these principles. The urgency with which the impeachment process was handled, compared to the delay in addressing other critical national issues, suggests that political interests are being prioritized over the needs of the people.

Moving forward, there is a need for legislative reform to address the recurring issue of political alliances falling apart mid-term. Binding the President and Deputy President together for the entire term would help to stabilize the executive and prevent the kind of power struggles that lead to impeachment. Ultimately, Parliament must remember its responsibility to the people and act in a manner that reflects the trust and esteem in which it is held.