A petition has been filed seeking to nullify the appointment of the 19 new Cabinet Secretaries who were sworn into office on August 8, 2024. The petition, filed by the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and Wanjiru Gikonyo, raises critical concerns about the legality and integrity of the vetting process.
The petitioners argue that the appointment process was marred by several procedural and legal flaws, making the new appointments unconstitutional. They have cited four main grounds for their challenge, including lack of parliamentary accountability, inadequate public participation, and failure to address integrity concerns.
Grounds for the Petition
The petition claims that the vetting process, conducted by the National Assembly, failed to meet constitutional and legal standards. According to the petitioners, the vetting did not adequately assess the candidates’ backgrounds, qualifications, and suitability for their respective roles. This, they argue, led to the appointment of individuals who may not be fit for their positions.
One of the key issues highlighted is the lack of effective public participation in the vetting process. The petitioners assert that public input is crucial for effective vetting, allowing citizens to raise concerns or provide feedback about the nominees. The failure to engage the public adequately, they argue, undermines the transparency and accountability of the process.
The petition also references a recent report by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) that raised concerns about the integrity of some of the nominees. The petitioners allege that the vetting process did not adequately address these concerns, resulting in the clearance of individuals with potential conflicts of interest or questionable ethics.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The petition seeks several judicial remedies. It calls for a declaration that the appointments of the 19 Cabinet Secretaries are illegal and unconstitutional. Additionally, the petitioners are requesting the court to direct President Ruto to initiate a fresh appointment process in compliance with constitutional requirements and the rule of law.
The petition also targets the National Assembly, arguing that it acted in contravention of the Constitution by failing to ensure proper public participation in the vetting process. The petitioners are seeking an order for mandamus to compel the President to adhere to legal procedures in making Cabinet appointments.
Responses and Implications
The National Assembly, the Attorney General, and the appointed Cabinet Secretaries are listed as respondents in the case. The Law Society of Kenya and Transparency International Kenya are named as interested parties. As the case progresses, it will be closely watched for its implications on governance and the adherence to constitutional norms in Kenya.
The outcome of this petition could have significant consequences for the administration of President Ruto and the broader framework of accountability and transparency in Kenya’s government. If successful, it could lead to a re-evaluation of the Cabinet appointments and potentially a revision of the vetting procedures to ensure they align with constitutional requirements.
The case underscores ongoing concerns about governance and the effectiveness of institutional checks and balances in Kenya. As legal proceedings unfold, the public and political analysts will be keenly observing how the judiciary addresses these serious allegations and whether it will prompt reforms in the appointment processes of high-level government positions.
