Ekuru Aukot’s Punguza Mizigo Bill, which seeks to change the Constitution of Kenya by a referendum, has started its journey through the various stages of approval. The Bill has reasonable and even desirable proposals.
The Bill’s proposal to increase county revenue allocation to 35 per cent of the national budget will generate much support. Although counties have proved to be as corrupt as the national government, there is no doubt that the money left over after the theft has improved lives.
Formerly marginalised counties like Mandera now enjoy an array of infrastructure, from hospitals to roads, which they had been denied since independence.
The Aukot Bill also proposes a drastic reduction of members of parliament by abolishing the current 290 constituencies and adopting the 47 counties as constituency units.
Kenyans are some of the most overrepresented people in the world, but the bloated parliament has not increased the quality of representation, and has only contributed to an unsustainable public wage bill.
The Bill further proposes that people mentioned adversely in commissions of inquiry be barred from holding public office, and that those found to be corrupt by courts of law be jailed for life.
These two proposals seek to heal one of the most crippling diseases afflicting the Kenyan nation-state – impunity. It is inconceivable that people mentioned in public inquiries such as Goldenberg and the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission continue to hold venerated positions in society. Even more aggravating to the national spirit, those charged in courts of law with corruption have the audacity to aspire to the presidency.
A major proposal in the Bill is turning the 1,450 wards into the primary units of administration and development. Accordingly, the Constituency Development Fund will be converted into ward funds. In principle, this is a sound proposal. The problem is that ward representatives have proved just as adept at theft as governors. In many instances, members of county assemblies have proved intellectually and ideologically incapable of playing an oversight role. Their idea of oversight is arm-twisting the governors into agreeing to all kinds of allowances, perks and foreign travel. They have been known to cut lucrative deals with tendering companies.
The Aukot Bill is silent on how making the wards the primary units of administration and development would enhance efficiency and increase the quality of oversight.
There are other interesting proposals such as a one seven-year term for the president, the abolition of the position of deputy governor, capping of salaries for public and state officials, and having officials in state commissions serve on a part-time basis.
The themes of the Punguza Mizigo Bill are reduction of wastage, inclusivity, development at the grassroots, and accountability. But, as pointed out, some of the proposed changes aiming to achieve these values are either ineffective or would need further reconfiguration. In some instances, the effect of proposed changes would contradict their aims. For example, the Bill proposes that should the governor’s seat fall vacant, an election should be held. Why not have the speaker of the county assembly take over or any of the county executives in order to save money?
The Constitution 2010 is a document that took years to create. The national convention that worked on the Bomas draft had representation from all regions, sectors and political parties. Delegates debated, amended and adopted proposals made by experts working on different areas of the draft.
It was the most democratic experiment Kenya, and few other countries in the world had ever engaged in. Precisely because of this systematic and all-inclusive democratic approach, the resulting document was not only well-crafted, it enjoyed universal ownership and support.
The proposals made in the Punguza Mizigo Bill make major changes to the Constitution. Any proposal that seeks to make fundamental changes to the Constitution cannot, if it is to have universal ownership and support, avoid a democratic method. The process of constitutional amendment must be carried out in the same way as the Bomas draft – through a national delegates’ conference.
No doubt, Ekuru Aukot’s Bill is the most well thought-out and sincere attempt to change the Constitution. But avoiding a national convention or delegates conference would reduce the process to a partisan game; with this or that group coming up with their Bills, each seeking to have a referendum.
Changing the constitution is not akin to changing a party manifesto. Therefore, Aukot’s Bill would serve us better if it were tabled at a delegates’ conference.
Tee Ngugi is a Nairobi-based political commentator
