Home | Africa | Devolution team cries foul over changes to law

Devolution team cries foul over changes to law

By Staff 08/02/2012 19:30:00

Font size:

FILE | NATION Mutakha Kangu (right), Miguna Miguna (centre) and Mugambi Imanyara during a meeting on devolution at Leisure Lodge in Diani last year.

By ALPHONCE SHIUNDU ashiundu@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Wednesday, February 8 2012 at 22:30

In Summary

New Bill gives president direct authority over the county governors

Some members of the task force that wrote legislation on the devolved government structure on Wednesday came out against a new draft that seems to give the State president direct authority over county governors.

This provision in the County Governments Bill removes a clause in the original draft Devolved Government Bill, which had stated that the President assign functions to governors “Subject to the Constitution”.

In the published Bill, it says in Section 31(2)(b): “The governor shall perform such State functions within the county as the President may determine.”

However, the original draft handed over to the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution (CIC) read in Section 35(1)(i): “Subject to the Constitution, the governor shall perform such state functions within the county as the President may determine.”

Contacted on Wednesday, CIC chairman Charles Nyachae promised to respond once he had checked the trail of the Bill since it landed on his desk from Local Government minister Musalia Mudavadi.

“I need more time to look at the clauses before I can fully respond to your question,” he said.

However, two members of the Task Force that was chaired by Moi University law lecturer Mutakha Kangu, blamed unnamed forces within the government for changing the clause to give the president direct powers over governors.

Speaking at a meeting with the Kenya Parliamentary Journalists Association in Nairobi’s Stanley Hotel, Mr Kipchumba Murkomen and Mr Paddy Onyango said the changes were out to ensure that the governor took orders from the President, and that the provincial administration stays intact in the new dispensation.

“There’s a real likelihood that those not interested in change are out to subvert the implementation of the Constitution,” said Mr Onyango.

They said they went around the country, gathered the views of the people and put in a proposal that the governor could only take orders from the President in line with the Constitution.

“It was not intended in the Constitution that the governor should be directed by the President. The two governments (national and county) are distinct and interdependent. If it passes the way it is, it will be unconstitutional,” said Mr Murkomen.

He argued that the Constitution pushed for the county and national governments to “conduct their mutual relations based on consultation and cooperation”.

Mr Murkomen, said there was also an addition to limit the levels of devolution in county governments to ensure that the Provincial Administration — district commissioners, district officers, chief, assistant chiefs — remain in place.

“It may look good because you can say that you’re saving, but there’s a grave mischief behind it. Those in power do not want the county governments to take over management of issues down there immediately. But management should not be a one-man show. Even if the chief has to stay, he should govern with recognised structures of council of elders,” added Mr Murkomen, a political scientist.

Share on: