In my column of April 8, 2023 titled 50 CAS Positions for Ruto’s Cronies is Indefensible, I argued that President William Ruto’s appointment of assistant ministers was not only unconstitutional but also served a personal rather than a national purpose. Uhuru Kenyatta started this odious precedent by going against the 2010 Constitution and reviving the position of assistant minister.
The Constitution stipulates a minimum of 14 and a maximum of 22 Cabinet members. Putting a cap on the number was not a whimsical decision, it was meant to end abuse of executive prerogative in making appointments to Cabinet.
Before this constitutional injunction, presidents could appoint as many ministers and assistant ministers as they wished. The appointments had nothing to do with public good; they were rewards to cronies and sycophants. Some appointees were functionally illiterate; others were plagued by questions of integrity, and others were comically incompetent.
To ensure that those appointed to Cabinet were competent and people of unblemished personal integrity, the 2010 Constitution requires vetting by parliament.
But parliament, itself plagued by questions of integrity, has shown no intention of weeding out rogues. Thus, despite constitutional safeguards, the executive and parliament collude to defeat the letter and spirit of the constitution.
On July 3, 2023, the High Court ruled that the 50 chief administrative secretaries' positions created by President Ruto were unconstitutional. From a constitutional standpoint, therefore, the CAS “gravy train” has been derailed. We know the executive ignores court rulings, and it might choose to do so in this instance. But it is now clear to everyone what the constitutional position on the matter is.
The tragedy of Kenya, and Africa is our crisis of leadership. Since independence, leaders, hiding behind the façade of nationalism, national security concerns or demagoguery about efficiency, have undermined constitutional and legal protections in order, as Ali Mazrui once wrote, to personalise political authority and turn themselves into monarchs.
The difference between the Asian Tigers and Kenya is that their leaders, though at times authoritarian, were driven by the all-consuming desire to rescue their countries from the indignities of poverty. They felt ashamed of carrying a begging bowl from one Western capital to the next. They, therefore, set themselves and their Cabinets impossible standards.
They did not invest in their stomachs and those of their cronies, but in education, technology and agriculture. They travelled abroad only when the trips had a strategic function. When they did travel, their delegations were comprised of the best brains in the country, not joy seekers. They did not appoint incompetent and compromised people to perform non-existent functions.
On the contrary, they ruthlessly sanctioned incompetent and compromised officials. To them, government was not a gravy train; its only function was to end the humiliating conditions of underdevelopment.
Tee Ngugi is a Nairobi-based political commentator.
