The nomination of Ali Hassan Joho for the Cabinet Secretary of Mining and Blue Economy has ignited significant controversy, with multiple petitions filed in Parliament seeking his disqualification. These petitions are based on concerns over Joho’s academic qualifications and his past associations with alleged drug trafficking activities.
Lawyer Charles Okari has led one of the petitions, demanding transparency regarding Joho’s academic credentials. In his formal request to Samuel Njoroge, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Okari has invoked Article 35 (1) (a) of the Constitution and Section 7 (c) of the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act 2011. Okari’s letter calls for the disclosure of Joho’s Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) certificate or an equivalent qualification, along with any other academic credentials presented for his nomination. This petition underscores the importance of verifying that nominees meet the educational standards required for their proposed roles.
The vetting process for President William Ruto’s 20 Cabinet nominees is scheduled to begin tomorrow and will continue until Sunday. During this period, the Committee on Appointments will review each nominee’s qualifications and present a report to the Parliament. Joho’s nomination is expected to be a key focus of this process, given the raised concerns.
Adding another layer to the controversy, the People’s Movement for Human Rights, through its director Karanja Murai, has submitted a memorandum seeking to disqualify Joho based on his past record. In 2010, then-US Ambassador Michael Ranneberger disclosed that Joho was among Kenyan politicians targeted in a US drugs probe. The US Embassy had flagged Joho, along with former MPs Harun Mwau, Gideon Mbuvi, and William Kabogo, as individuals suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. This information was further validated by the Kenyan government after receiving the list from the US Embassy and its presentation in Parliament by the late Internal Security Minister George Saitoti.
Murai’s memorandum highlights that Joho was linked to narcotics trade, arguing that his past raises serious questions about his adherence to the Leadership and Integrity Act. This historical scrutiny adds significant weight to the arguments against his appointment.
Further complicating Joho’s nomination, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has disowned four of its nominees, including Joho, and instructed its members to withhold support from them. This internal party conflict reflects broader concerns and divisions regarding the nomination process and the individuals involved.
As the vetting process progresses, the petitions against Joho’s appointment represent a broader debate about the integrity and qualifications of public officials. With over 500 memoranda challenging various nominations, the scrutiny faced by Joho is a microcosm of the larger discussions surrounding transparency and accountability in Kenya’s public appointments.
The Committee on Appointments will need to address these concerns comprehensively to ensure that the final recommendations uphold the standards of integrity and competence expected of Cabinet officials.
