Like Yelsin, Kibaki has no respect for parliament’s sovereignty

Published on 13/07/2008

By Ahmednasir Abdulahi

In 1993, Russia’s former President Boris Yelsin ordered tank and artillery assault on his country’s Duma and about 140 people died. A victorious Yelsin overwhelmed parliament, quickly dissolved it and ordered fresh elections. The Duma attracted the late Yelsin’s wrath when it refused to yield to his demands.

Kibaki and Yelsin have many similarities. Both assumed power at fairly old age. They have similar health conditions brought about by similar behavioural conditions. They are both not known for strong democratic conviction. In assuming power, both were presented with golden opportunities brought about by certain historic conditionality. Both regimes are defined by grand corruption and stealing of public funds.

On Thursday, Kibaki, in appointing a friendly committee headed by retired Justice Majid Cockar to investigate the fraudulent sale of the Grand Regency Hotel, assaulted the sovereignty of Parliament with equal might as Yelsin, but without a single bullet being fired. Kibaki’s manipulative skill would have impressed Yelsin! Just like Yelsin, Kibaki is unhappy with the audacity of parliament to pass a vote of no confidence against his blue-eyed boy, Amos Kimunya.

The appointment of the Cockar committee in so far as the investigations touch on the conduct of Kimunya is in fragrant breach of the Constitution. It provides if any more testimony is required; of this regime’s profane abuse of constitution and its distaste for decency. The Cockar committee can investigate the sale of the hotel and role played by the other players mentioned. But Kimunya is an entirely different proposition. Cockar and his committee cannot and should not touch Kimunya, despite being the fulcrum around which the hotel saga rotates.

The reasons, despite the President and his advisers’ pretences, are rather simple. In democratic governance, there is cardinal concept of separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. The exercise of power by the three arms of government within their respective areas of jurisdiction provides what is called institutional checks and balances. This separation of power provides the necessary condition for the rule of law, and epitomise essence of the democratic government itself.

Parliament in its sovereign wisdom has taken Kimunya through a process duly recognised in democratic systems. He was censured and a vote of no confidence passed.

The process of censure and vote of no confidence is a tool used by Parliament either to flex its muscle vis-‡-vis the Executive or show its displeasure with regard to a certain conduct of the Executive. A charge was drawn against Kimunya in the form of a motion. The same was precise and set out in clear terms what the former minister was accused of. Ikolomani MP Boniface Khalwale assisted by Budalang’i MP Ababu Namwamba led the prosecution of the charges. Many members tendered corroborative evidence in support. The Deputy Speaker then allowed Kimunya to put up his defence. Kimunya advanced a spirited defence. Unfortunately, there were no witnesses to corroborate his assertions. That not one MP put forward a persuasive defence in favour of the minister showed how true and persuasive the charges were.

Faced with this quandary, Kimunya engaged in some shameful theatrics. When his shocking declaration that he will rather die than resign failed to shock Kenyans, Kibaki had to work overdrive to address the suicidal signals coming from Kipipiri.

The idea of appointing a friendly probe team with a predetermined verdict was muted and the usual homeboys assembled. It is right at this juncture that both the President and Kimunya make the wrong turn.

They must appreciate that in so far as the conduct of the minister in relation to Grand Regency is concerned, his condemnation by his peers in Parliament is eternal and no other organ can ever exonerate him.

The conduct of the President to appoint a committee of his liking to investigate an issue the full House made a decision on, constitutes unacceptable assault on the sovereign supremacy of Parliament.

Kibaki’s habitual appointment of government-friendly commissioners whenever his associates are caught up in scandalous affairs is documented. Just like the disgraceful finding of the commission charged to investigate the Armenian mercenary saga, do we need to appoint another commission when Parliament has addressed the issue and its committee is receiving final hearings? For Kibaki, the answer is yes. Cockar’s sole task is to give him a tailor made answer, the known truth notwithstanding.