Share this with others!
A House committee report tabled after Cabinet Secretary nominees’ vetting exercise last week says only 187 of the more than 1,300 affidavits submitted supported President Ruto’s picks for CS positions.
A support base of not more than 10 per cent of the voice of the people raises serious concerns about the credibility of the Cabinet that has already been sworn into office.
The nominees were sworn in on Thursday at State House amid growing questions from the public, which even manifested in a round of Gen Z demonstrations, albeit on a low scale, against the Ruto administration.
A majority of the affidavits, over 800, questioned the suitability of the nominees to hold office especially after President Ruto had said the dismissal of his entire Cabinet came after “reflection, listening to Kenyans, and after a holistic appraisal.”
“I will immediately engage in extensive consultations across different sectors and political formations, with the aim of setting up a broad-based government that will assist me in accelerating and expediting the necessary, urgent, and irreversible implementation of radical programmes to deal with the burden of debt, raising domestic resources, expanding job opportunities, eliminating wastage and unnecessary duplication of government agencies,” Ruto said.
He had bowed to pressure after nationwide protests that created the biggest crisis of his two-year presidency.
However, as the committee report indicates, it emerges that the promised consultation did not reach far enough. It failed to consider the people’s voices raised in majority of the affidavits.
Many Kenyans, through the affidavits, opposed the reappointment of ten Cabinet Secretaries, including Salim Mvurya, Soipan Tuya, Kipchumba Mukomen, Justin Muturi, Alice Wahome, Alfred Mutua, and Rebecca Miano, who had been dismissed at the height of the Gen Z demonstrations.
Ninety-seven affidavits protested the appointment of Hassan Joho, Opiyo Wandayi, Wycliffe Oparanya, and John Mbadi, citing their leadership roles in an opposition party (ODM) which they argued was a threat to democracy.
To prove their claims, the writers of the affidavits, which have not been made public despite Parliament calling for public participation, questioned why Oparanya was being appointed at a time he was facing investigations by EACC.
“Oparanya is currently the subject of criminal investigations and prosecutions by EACC during his tenure as governor, with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions concurring with the recommendations that the nominee should be charged with an offense,” the Parliamentary report says.
The committee says it investigated the claims relating to corruption and forwarded the report to the ODPP along with charges, which included abuse of office, conspiracy to commit offence of corruption and money laundering
