KAIKAI's KICKER The Mockery of the Parliamentary vetting process

Twenty-seven individuals nominated by President William Ruto for appointment as High Commissioners, Ambassadors, and Consular Representatives are currently undergoing the parliamentary approval process in line with the requirements of the Constitution. 

These 27 nominees are appearing before the National Assembly Departmental Committee on Defence, Intelligence, and Foreign Relations for what we commonly call 'vetting.'

The word 'vetting' is used in quotes because often, its meaning and the actual parliamentary approval process stand worlds apart.

'Vetting' anticipates a process of carefully examining something or somebody to reach a well-informed decision. 

It involves thorough scrutiny, rigorous investigations, and exhaustive analysis before a decision is made – in the case of parliamentary approvals, this would concern nominees intended for substantive appointment by the President.

In parliamentary, and should I add, 'congressional,' democracies, the process of parliamentary approval is a consequential and thoroughly adult affair. 

It is considered nothing short of the very fluid inside the elbow joint by which the powers of the second arm of government are exercised. 

A committee as substantively and powerfully named as the Defence, Intelligence, and Foreign Relations Committee is a dreadful prospect for any nominee, let alone those with skeletons in their closets.

So, the National Assembly approval process is facing yet another test, and I fear it would end the usual same way. Out of the 27 nominees to positions of High Commissioners, Ambassadors, and Consular Diplomats, three of them have been flagged by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission as unsuitable for appointment. 

One appointee for High Commissioner faces criminal charges relating to a National Housing Corporation (NHC) housing project and is under further investigations by the EACC. 

Another nominee is under investigation for recruitment irregularities in a county government, and the third nominee is under investigation for alleged embezzlement of car and mortgage funds in a county.

As required by parliamentary processes on vetting of appointments, the adverse information about the three nominees has been provided in writing to the departmental committee vetting all the 27 nominees. 

Yet, going by precedents set by the current parliament, such information usually counts for little, and all the 27 nominees will be appointed exactly as nominated.

Yet the mockery of the parliamentary approval process must be found sad and unfortunate as it stands as a loud statement of the little progress made to achieve the progressive heights intended by the Constitution of Kenya 2010. 

The vetting process exposes not just a weak and captured parliament but a generation of politicians out of touch and out of depth with the concept of institutionalism. The current parliament has repeatedly been dismissed by critics as a lapdog parliament that could as well operate from the lush lawns of the State House. 

Critics call it a hapless house captured by the executive, and repeatedly, this parliament has not disappointed its critics. The National Assembly, in particular, finds itself trapped in the old mindset of a windvane parliament flapping gently in the wind along the dictates of the president and the party.

So expect no surprises – every nominee stands appointed. In Kenya, vetting is just an English word, and the most you can make of it as a country for now is to build your vocabulary.

That is my Kicker.