As the vetting of cabinet nominees begins, a growing number of Kenyans are taking a keen interest in public appointments, driven by a desire for good governance. The National Assembly issued a call for submissions on the suitability of nominees, and Kenyans responded in large numbers. However, the Speaker’s announcement that only 186 out of over 1,300 submissions met the legal threshold left many surprised and frustrated.
The legal threshold referred to here is to be found in the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act, 2011.See
This Act was established to bring transparency and accountability to public office appointments in Kenya, outlining the process for parliamentary approval, including nomination notification, vetting, public hearings, and final decisions. It also exists at the county level under the County Assembly (Public Approval) Act. https://www.baringoassembly.go.ke/index.php/devolved-acts?download=189:public-appointments-county-assemblies-approval-act-no5-of-2017
Some key provisions of the Act include:
- Notification of Nomination: The appointing authority must inform Parliament in writing of any nomination requiring approval.
- Approval Hearings: A parliamentary committee conducts open hearings to assess nominees’ qualifications, integrity, and background.
- Criteria for Vetting: A detailed questionnaire helps evaluate the nominee’s suitability.
- Timelines: The committee has 14 days to report on the nomination; inaction results in automatic approval.
- Rejection and Resubmission: If a nomination is rejected, the appointing authority must propose a new candidate.
- Powers of the Committee: The committee has High Court-like powers to summon witnesses and take evidence.
Of great importance to the discourse at hand is the form and content of submission made by the Public. The Act mandates that public submissions be made in writing and under oath. Proponents argue that these stringent requirements uphold high standards by filtering out poorly founded or malicious objections, ensuring that only serious and credible concerns are considered.
However, this rigorous approach can also act as a barrier, potentially excluding legitimate concerns. The Act’s emphasis on formal criteria over substance raises questions about inclusivity and citizen participation in the democratic process. This situation highlights the need for greater civic education to ensure the public understands the Act’s provisions and the importance of following them.
While the Act aims to ensure integrity and efficiency in public appointments, its current implementation may risk overlooking critical information. The balance between rigorous standards and flexibility must be reassessed to ensure that the vetting process truly contributes to selecting competent and trustworthy public officials.
As interest in governance grows, so will the number of submissions and memoranda in public processes. Don’t let technicalities silence your voice on critical governance issues. For expert assistance in drafting and submitting memoranda that meet the required thresholds, reach out today at info@acelitigator.com.
