Coming after deadly protests that provoked a national dialogue on rebooting the country’s systems, one hoped the vetting of proposed Cabinet Secretaries would be a different ballgame.
Parliament, it was hoped, would rejig its vetting processes to reflect the new realities, and MPs who were chased out of the House through a secret tunnel by angry protesters, would take this assignment more seriously than they ever have.
As President William Ruto’s chief advisors, and with every key decision or policy having received their collective nod, they bore responsibility for everything that had happened in the country. You could even bet that the nominees themselves spent many hours preparing themselves for a grand inquisition.
But when Prof Kithure Kindiki, the returnee nominee CS for Interior and Coordination of National Government, blazed the vetting trail on a chilly Thursday morning, it was largely business as usual: same old ditties, same beaten inquisition methods, plain declarations, and boring statements.
His former colleagues, Alice Wahome (Lands) and Soipan Tuya (Defence), equally had an easy time before the committee, fielding questions which presupposed their approval and basically asserting their entitlement to sit in the Cabinet.
Condensed into four days, including the entire weekend, the interviews appeared rushed. The questioning was unsophisticated for the highest office in the land, with little or no follow-ups at all, and the nominees getting away with so much.
In some instances, members of the committee assisted the nominees to answer their own questions. In several instances, nominees openly perjured themselves by stating they had never been mentioned in any integrity-related investigations or inquiries despite their past questionable dealings being in public record.
“I watched the vetting session – very superficial questioning! More of clarifications than real vetting,” former presidential candidate Prof James Ole Kiyiapi posted on X:
“The question the vetting committee is not asking is: In 25 years of your prime life you made Sh250 million, how did you make Sh100 million in 18 months when you were on a salary of Sh2 million per month and was not engaged in any other business?” Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi posed.
The vetting room was full of journalists, and vetting was televised on live TV and streaming sites. It was hoped that newspapers coming out the following morning, and which are platforms of historical record, would aptly capture these omissions.
While The Standard and People Daily made attempts to call out the farce, Daily Nation and The Star flopped in a major way. “No sparks as Sh2.5b nominees face test”, The Standard main story read, while declaring in the kicker that “there were no fireworks as MPs – who faced the wrath of Gen-Zs…”
The People Daily on the other hand was even blunter: “House team put on trial in CS vetting”. But Daily Nation, the market leader, completely looked the other way.
First, despite the matter of reconstituting the Cabinet being the biggest news of the day, the Daily Nation’s main story was on the crisis of Sh32 billion unsold tea in Mombasa tea auction. Second, although the vetting story was the second lead story, the paper narrowed the whole matter to: “How Ruto ministers minted millions in 21 months.”
The Daily Nation went on to endorse the vetting, that the nominees “faced a tough test before the House Committee.”
The Star sidestepped the vetting, going with “Ruto, Raila plan major changes to constitution,” with a picture story of the nominee’s mug shots and the caption: “Stinking rich nominees vetted by lawmakers.”
Both dailies were beaten to it a day later by the new weekly, The Eastleigh Voice, which screamed; “Cabinet vetting farce.”
“While the public expected in-depth follow-up questions, members of the Committee on Appointments let the nominees go without addressing serious matters, turning it into a rubber-stamping exercise.”
The newspapers that got it correct on the superficial vetting- The Standard, People Daily and The Eastleigh Voice – raised substantial areas of improvement for the committee, and captured the mood of the nation.
It was hoped the weekend papers, which take time to reflect on national issues, and offer in-depth coverage, would delve deeper into the vetting. Sadly, there was not a single analysis in either Sunday Nation or Sunday Standard.
The opportunity is not lost, however. Hopefully once the exercise is over, we can see critical reviews.
