Currently browsing 'Members of Parliament'

Let’s Be Real Education Matters in Policy Making

Posted by on 11th March 2016

Categories: Members of Parliament

Most of us have only guessed at it but it turns out educated legislators actually perform better than less educated ones. While compiling Parliament’s annual scorecard, we realized that education played an important role in the quality of debate argued by an individual on the floor of the House

For instance, the top five best performers in the National Assembly in the year 2015 all have a postgraduate degree. Indeed this is also true of the Senate where most members are educated; the quality of debate is above average.

The link between academic background and fruitful contributions in Parliament comes out more because one’s education indirectly influences their capacity to handle their Parliamentary responsibilities – representation, oversight, budgeting and legislation. As such, MPs with lower educational qualifications may not be able to lead parliamentary committees or handle responsibilities that require heavy borrowing from their academic background. The MP may also be unable to present the constituency needs due to intimidation or lack of capacity.

It’s getting clearer that law makers who performed rather poorly have questionable academic backgrounds and it appears a number of them either bought those qualifications or simply go through the process to acquire the papers for political expediency hence the lack of substance in their contributions. Perhaps the electorate may need to be wary of individuals who acquire degrees or diplomas in a short record or in institutions that are not reputable.

Nonetheless, every market has its mad man and in our report, we identified three well educated legislators among those who contributed nothing for the 12 months that they were in Parliament.

This oddity could mean that these elected leaders have very little interest in their elected positions and won their seat by virtue of their party popularity in their constituencies only. Perhaps they were lured to Parliament by the connections and power it brings rather than the need to serve their constituents.

In 2013, The Economist revealed that Kenyan MPs are amongst the highest paid law makers in the world compared to the country’s Gross Domestic Product. That 27 MPs have been receiving salary including sitting allowances for contributing absolutely nothing for 12 months is audacity of a new kind.

Even more surprising was the fact that five MPs had not uttered a single word since the life of the 11th Parliament begun in 2013. Either these MPs represent regions that are flourishing and their constituents are satisfied or they are clueless about the expectations their constituents have of them.

How do you watch your colleagues debate bills, bring amendments or oppose them while you sit in silence for three years? That their conscience does not prick them is even more disturbing.

Is it time Kenyans gave life to the Right of Recall clause to keep Parliamentarians in check? These findings should be a wakeup call to our lawmakers; we are watching them keenly and hope that the electorate will act decisively when the time comes.

On MPs Decision to Fight for their Right to Sh2 Billion Take Home Package

Posted by on 12th October 2012

Categories: Members of Parliament

Just yesterday to the collective relief of the nation the President refused to assent to a Finance Bill that would have allowed the Parliamentarians to take home 9.3 million kshs each at the end of their current term.

However,  if we (the public) thought that was the end of the story, it may have been a case of misplaced optimism. MPs are not taking the President’s refusal to assent to the Finance Bill lying down, and have vowed to fight for their rights (one wonders if they will be taking strike action). Nominated MP Rachel Shebesh has been quoted as stating that Members of Parliament, “are not going to be ashamed of fighting for our rights, our rights are enshrined, just like the rights of commissioners and other public officers.”

Yes MPs have rights, just as other Kenyans have rights, and these rights are enshrined in law. However, it should be noted that MP Rachel Shebesh fails to mention the exact right that is being violated by the President’s refusal to assent to a 2 billion shilling send off package for MPs. Also our MPs being some of the highest paid members of parliament in the world it’s hard identify how the denial of 2 billion gratuity violates any MPs rights, especially when that right is being exercised at the expense of 40 million other Kenyans.

Other Members of Parliament have used the amount that commissioners in independent commissions earn as justification for their send off package. Bura MP, Abdi Nuh, is quoted as stating,“MPs have been condemned for taking home Sh3 million or Sh9 million at times…how much is the chairman of the CIC and other commissioners paid in terms of gratuity and what is the basis of that calculation?”

This argument is disingenuous as the MPs could have protested the salaries of commissioners upon the establishment of the commission also how much commissioners of independent commissions earn is hardly justification for a 2 billion shilling gratuity package for MPs. Two wrongs do not make a right if MPs have a problem with the salaries of commissioners this should be raised with the Salaries and Remuneration Commission, whose duty it is to review and set salaries of all state officers.

In fighting the President’s refusal to assent to the Finance Bill Parliament has two constitutional options: to amend the Bill in light of the President’s reservations, or to pass the Bill a second time without any amendments. If Parliament amends the Bill to accommodate the President’s reservations, the Speaker shall resubmit it to the President for assent. However if Parliament chooses to ignore the President’s reservations and chooses to pass the Bill without amendments the decision will have to be supported by the votes of at least two-thirds of members of the National Assembly i.e. 148 MPs.

Despite, the existence of these constitutional options, MPs seem to be taking a more offbeat if not unprecedented approach to addressing the President’s refusal to assent to the Finance Bill. MPs have stated their intention to hold up the enactment of the Finance Bill if the President does not assent to the Bill in its current form. Never mind the negative implications that this will have on the country, the government and parliament itself…so once again Parliament’s actions raise the issue of whether the interest of 222 MPs will trump the interests of 40 million Kenyans.

Just in time legislation?

Posted by on 26th August 2011

Categories: Kenya Constitution Members of Parliament

By Mzalendo Contributor – Moreen Majiwa (@mmajiwa)

It probably will not come to this i.e. parliament missing the constitutional deadline, 27th August,
for the enactment of 12 bills. Apart from proper planning that would have allowed the bills to
be passed in timely fashion, it would seem that the August House is making the best of a bad
situation and taking measures to ensure that all the bills passed on time.

Parliament will be sitting for longer hours. MPs have voted to skip certain steps in the legislative
process thus allowing the bills to be fast-tracked. Some bills deemed as non-urgent have
been removed from the implementation schedule. The bills that have been dropped are the
Independent Policing Oversight Authority Bill, The National Police Service Commission Bill and
the Foreign National Management Service Bill you can of course the judge of the importance of
these bills particularly the ones involving police reform.

Then of course there is the resolve to have the bills passed on time is illustrated by the statement
made by MP Abdikadir Mohammed, the Head of the CIOC, who said ‘It may not be the National
Assembly’s fault that the bills arrived late; but it will be the National Assembly’s fault if the bills are
not passed within the deadlines. An extension of the deadlines will be an admission of failure on
the part of parliament,”  though some would posit that the failure has already occurred.

But just in case the bills are not passed in time it would be useful to know what the options are.
The first option and most obvious option involves an extension invoking Article 261 (1) Parliament
can extend the deadlines for up to a year. However this would required the vote of at least two
thirds of the MPs plus the Speaker of the National Assembly would have to certify existence
of exceptional circumstances justify the extension. Of course there is no definition of what
qualifies as exceptional circumstances, so it’s hard to predict what would qualify as exceptional
circumstances in this instance.

Then there is the more controversial second option, a member of the public, civil society; actually
anyone could under Article 261 (5) petition the High Court over the missed deadlines. The Court
would then ‘make a declaratory order on the matter; and transmit an order directing Parliament
and the AG to take steps to ensure that the required legislation is enacted, within the period
specified in the order, and to report the progress to the Chief Justice’. And if Parliament failed to
act within the time give the Chief Justice would then advise the President to dissolve Parliament.

So it seems that the choice is between which is the lesser of two evils i.e. a rushed legislative
process that sees the requisite bills passed before the deadline or an extension (of course the
citizenry could petition the High Court but dissolution seems unlikely). From the political speak,
however, it appears choice has been made the bills will be passed on time.

Of course there are several pitfalls in rushing the bills through parliament, there is the chance
that the bills will not be properly scrutinized, certain provisions could be sneaked in the rushed
legislative process that could have detrimental consequences, there certainly will be little to no
public participation in a rushed legislative process. A rushed legislative process allows for the
type of political slight of hand whose ramifications of which will be revealed only once the process
is over. Public participation will be reduced to a reactionary one once the bills have already
become law.

Whatever the case lets hope this situation is not a precedent to how constitutional bills will be passed in the future especially as we have another slew of bills whose deadline is 18 months
after promulgation.

Attention Kenyan taxpayers, your MPs keep fooling you.

Posted by on 18th August 2011

Categories: Citizen Engagement Members of Parliament

By Mzalendo Contributor – Moreen Majiwa (@mmajiwa)

It would seem, if newspaper reports are to be believed, that the MPs who refuse to pay taxes have reached an agreement with Treasury on how to go about paying their taxes. The agreement could see the MPs, who had previously refused to pay taxes, pay taxes on their full salaries and then get compensated by the treasury for paying the said taxes.

According to the papers ‘a deal was agreed at two separate meetings at the Treasury on Tuesday and Wednesday attended by top treasury officials and two representatives of parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, representing MPs who refuse to pay as demanded by the new constitution. In the deal the Treasury will give MPs an ex-gratia to compensate them for paying tax on all their income’

Who will foot the bill for this deal?  he taxpayer that’s who! So in effect the Kenyan tax payer will be paying taxes that will be used to compensate their elected representative for the taxes he or she has paid on their salary, which by the way is also paid by the Kenyan taxpayer?!

And as if it is not enough for the Treasury and MPs to strike an agreement that effectively indemnifies members for paying taxes in accordance with the constitution. The agreement is also reported to include the implementation of the recommendations of the Akiwumi Tribunal on Parliamentary Terms that would see the salaries of MPs increased to Kshs 1.1 million each.

That some members of the parliament refuse to pay taxes despite clear constitutional provisions that state that they should do so and that the very same members of parliament continually attempt to negotiate their way out of paying the taxes seems to me like a slap in the face of both democracy and rule of law. What happened to democratic principles like representative government, and rule by the people? What does it mean for our democracy when 222 people (less the members that have paid their taxes, or who agree to pay) show blatant disregard for the wishes of the majority? And what does it mean for the rule of law when the people we elect to make and uphold law, are the very same ones to openly defy it?

What Foreign Travel by Parliamentary Committees Costs Taxpayers

Posted by on 21st July 2011

Categories: Members of Parliament News

By Mzalendo Contributor – Moreen Majiwa (@mmajiwa)

Did you know that each parliamentary committee receives approximately 60 million ksh for foreign travel?

If each committee receives foreign travel budgetary allocation of 60 million shillings and there are approximately 27 parliamentary committees (excluding ad hoc committees) that make a total of that makes approximately 1.6 billion ksh for foreign travel alone in plane tickets, accommodation, per diems etc.

How does this break down in terms of allocation per individual MP? Well, each committee has approximately 11 members (except the house business committee which has 27 members) and each committee receives a total of 60 million kshs, this breaks down to an annual foreign travel allocation of almost 5.5 million kshs per MP and of course that allocation per MP doubles if the MP sits on more than one committee (list of parliamentary committees and who sits on them).

Another problematic issue is that all the committees receive the same monetary allocation for foreign travel regardless of whether the mandate of committee requires extensive travel or not.  No distinction is made between mandates and need to travel, this means that committees that deals with let say catering or the library, which you would expect would travel less, would receive the exact travel same allocation as the Defence and Foreign Relations Committee, which by virtue of its mandate would be expected to travel more.

According press reports this fiscal year 2011/2012 alone,  the allocation for foreign travel by committees has trebled to 491 million kshs from 162 million kshs in 2010/2011. The clerks office received an allocation of 35 million kshs, for foreign travel, the speaker’s office 9 million kshs, and the parliamentary service commission has been allocated 30 million kshs.  In addition,  the Parliamentary Service Commission recently increased MPs foreign travel allowance by 20 per cent, after MPs complained about the high cost of travel.

Unfortunately, there is no way to confirm what all this money is spent on, whether it is effectively spent etc. As long as there is government expenditure on foreign travel it is important for there to be proper accountability mechanisms that tracking all aspects of expenditure on foreign (and domestic travel) i.e. travel to from work, travel on parliamentary business, foreign travel, committee travel. These should be made public so that taxpayers can assess if foreign travel is value for taxpayer shillings or a mode of self- enrichment for MPs.

MP taxation

Posted by on 27th June 2011

Categories: Members of Parliament MP Participation

By Mzalendo Contributor – Moreen Majiwa (@mmajiwa)

The Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) announced that in accordance with the constitution MPs will now be required to pay taxes on their income i.e. just like every other income earning Kenyan.  Moreover KRA wants the MPs taxes back-dated to August 2010, the month in which the constitution promulgated, and has threatened to penalise any member of parliament who fails to pay taxes.

The move is a win for the Kenyan public who have campaigned numerous times for the members of parliament, that they have elected to pay taxes.  However, the implementation of the constitutional requirement that MPs pay taxes has sparked opposition from the members of parliament, in effect dismissing the wishes of the electorate. What happened to sovereignty of the people?

MP Olago Alouch, Kisumu Town West, has said if the negotiations with the KRA fail MPs could affect proposals in the Akiwumi report, which would allow MPs to increase their basic salary to Kshs1.2 million if adopted.

However there are a few constitutional hurdles that would invalidate this option:

First, the new constitution removes from MPs the power to set or review their salary or benefits and puts that decision on the hands of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission [Article 230 (4) (a)].   This means MPs can no longer raise their salaries unilaterally as in the old dispensation. The commission is independent so parliament’s ability to influence it is limited.  Increasing their salary through the adoption of a report would probably be unconstitutional given that this is no longer under the mandate of parliament.

Second, the Article 210 (3) states no law may exclude or authorize the exclusion of a State officer from payment of tax. This is pretty clear any law that allows state officers not to pay tax is in contravention with the constitution, and would be invalidated by virtue of this contravention.

It would seem in bad faith for the MPs to act increase their salaries so that increase would offset the cost of the taxes. Let them join the rest of hardworking Kenyans and lets make sure our katiba mpya is adhered to.

On the Okemo / Gichuru UK case

Posted by on 3rd June 2011

Categories: Corruption Members of Parliament

By Mzalendo Contributor – Moreen Majiwa

One can only imagine what a roller coaster month its been for Nambale MP Chrysanthus ‘Chris’ Okemo and former KPLC head Samuel Gichuru.  On April 20, 2011 the Chief Justice of the Island of Jersey issued warrants of arrest against the two on charges of fraud and money laundering. The two were required to appear before the court in Jersey on May 5th 2011.  From the events that have transpired since, it safe to assume that neither appeared.

On Monday 23rd May 2011 Henry Bellingham the UK Minister for Africa met with Attorney General Amos Wako and requested the AG execute the warrants.  On the same day the AG handed the warrants of the arrest to recently reinstated Director of Public Prosecutions, Keriako Tobiko, to determine whether there is a case for extradition.   The MP Chris Okemo and Samuel Gichuru have been listed on Interpol’s online databases for having a red notices requesting the location and arrest of the two. (Red notices allow warrants to be circulated worldwide with the request wanted persons be arrested with a view to extradition.)

The DPP has stated , concerning the extradition,  that ‘the request to extradite the two Kenyans will be processed in accordance with our (Kenya’s) extradition laws and procedure and strictly in accordance with the due process of the law’ and the AG has said that he will only extradite the two if the DPP finds that the two have a case to answer in law.

Legally the two main requirements for extradition are an extradition treaty and that dual criminality exist. Dual criminality requires that in order for an extradition to be successful the crime in question must be a crime not only in the requesting country but also in the country where the person being extradited is residing at the time of the extradition request. The DPP will now look at the documents turned over to him and assess in law whether there is a case to answer.

The ball is firmly in the DPPs court as far as making the determination is concerned. It is worth noting that his reinstatement sparked controversy regarding his record of  prosecuting cases against leaders. It will be interesting to see what determination he will make given the fact extradition law and policy is vague and ill defined. Whatever decision the DPP makes the political implications will be powerful. What signals would Kenya be sending about its fight against corruption if it refused to extradite the two? Similarly would Kenya be giving mixed signals about the application of justice to the rich and powerful, and to poor? Remember the rendition of Kenyan suspects to Uganda.

Also, what are the implications for leadership? MP Chris Okemos is currently the chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee, and sits on the Parliamentary Service Commission considering the issue of warrants and the constitutional requirements concerning leadership and integrity will he resign these positions?

Depending on how the matter develops there may be implications for asset recovery, repatriation of misappropriated funds that are in accounts abroad and how wealth declaration by leaders is conducted.

Needless to say we are watching.

Salaries and Remuneration Bill

Posted by on 18th April 2011

Categories: Kenya Constitution Members of Parliament

By Mzalendo Contributor – Moreen Majiwa (@mmajiwa)

There’s a joke that goes that goes the only time Parliament is ever full is when the
members are voting on their salaries. Whether or not the joke has any basis in truth it may
soon lose its relevance.

Section 230(1) of the constitution creates a Salaries and Remuneration Commission.
Section 25 of the transitional and consequential clauses in 6th Schedule of Constitution
requires that the Commission be constituted within nine months of the constitution’s
promulgation i.e. May 27th 2011.

So far the Salaries and Remuneration Bill, that establishes the Commission has been
drafted and is ready for debate by the National Assembly if the Bill sails through
parliament in the next one and half months, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission
may be the first constitutional commission established with the mandated deadline.

The Commission will be responsible for determining the salaries of the President,
Cabinet Ministers, members of parliament, members of county assemblies, county
governors, members of commissions and principal secretaries. The commission will
also establish the salaries of judges and magistrates, which will prevent executive
or Parliament from undermining judges by threatening to reduce their salaries. The
Commission will also give guidance on the remuneration of other public officials and
employees in all government departments.

Part of the Commission’s functions will be to inquire into and determine the salaries and
remuneration to be paid out of public funds to State officers and other public officers as
well as keep under review all matters relating to the salaries and remuneration of public
officers. The Commission will also be required to gives periodical reports of its activities
as well as statistical information relevant to its functions.  Hopefully this will be the
beginning of increased transparency and accountability in with regards to salaries and
remuneration paid out of taxpayers’ money.

Though the Bill has not been yet enacted, nor the Commission constituted both represent
answers to the public’s demand for an independent institution that is responsible for
determining salaries of State officers; particularly for MPs who have
previously been in charge determining their own salaries and increments.

When Inflammatory Statements are Made…

Posted by on 1st April 2011

Categories: 2007 Elections Members of Parliament News

By Mzalendo Contributor – Moreen Majiwa


After I saw this http://youtu.be/G0WfPq8okno clip of the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Uhuru Kenyatta at a rally in Murang’a.

I frantically looked for the translation, the tag line on the tweet asked “has Mzalendo Kibunja seen this?” so I knew that it may possibly fall within the ambit of hate speech. I found the translation as well as denouncement of the remarks here.

The denouncement, is full correct in calling the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minster/Minister of Finance irresponsible, inflammatory, inter-ethnically and intra-ethnically divisive, dangerous and detrimental to the cohesion that Kenyans have been working towards since 2007.

Yet, despite the inflammatory nature of the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks the National Cohesion and Integration Commission is yet to react, and the politicians that were present at the rally are yet to say anything about his statements.  All in all there has been has been very little action.

The lack of action reminds me of a column in the Sunday Nation where the writer argued, ‘The leaders of the bigger ethnic communities simply will not seriously fight tribalism because it is through the voting power of the ethnic mass – not through ideology – that an elite individuals hopes to enter Parliament and State House.”

A politician is he who always inflates his tribe’s ego while, at the same time, keeping that tribe profoundly ignorant of its real needs. It is thus the for the purpose of the vote – not of ethnic development – that he manages to rally the ‘tribe’ behind him.

So the leader and elite of one big community see the leader and elite of another big ‘tribe’ as the enemy. Hence the necessity for the ethnic leader to encourage his deification by the ethnic mass if he is to ensure the ethnic vote. Thus the Kenyan liberator must first liberate every ethnic mass from the bewitching demagoguery of its elite’

Thankfully the voting public has the power through their vote to show disapproval for statements made let us it.

But we still ask shouldn’t Mzalendo Kibunja be responding to this rather than chasing his tail on social media sites?

Hansard Highlights Week of February 1 2011

Posted by on 28th March 2011

Categories: Hansard Analysis Members of Parliament MP Participation

This is a new regular feature where we will review past editions of the Hansard to highlight debates that are of particular national importance (and to show that we know that MPs do work from time to time).

I. We all know that KACC has forwarded several cases to the AG’s office for prosecution. But exactly how many files were delivered to the AG and when does he plan to prosecute them?

DETAILS OF CORRUPTION CASES FORWARDED TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL BY KACC

Mr. Kombo: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to ask the Attorney-General the following Question by Private Notice.

(a) Could the Attorney-General provide details of corruption cases that the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC) has investigated and forwarded to the Attorney- General for direction since the appointment of the current Director?

(b) How many of these cases has the Attorney-General approved for prosecution, rejected and/or returned to the Commission and why?

The Attorney-General (Mr. Wako): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to reply. Since the appointment of the current Director of the KACC in July 2010, a total of 53 files were forwarded to the Attorney-General for direction.

Mr. Kombo: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I had a chance to peruse through the documents and to my pleasant surprise— In the past there has been a ping pong game between the KACC and the Attorney-General. They have been accusing each other of not doing this and that.  However, it would appear that since Prof. Lumumba became the Director of KACC, he has been agreeing on many cases with the Attorney-General. So, with regard to the Report that we have, they have agreed almost 100 per cent.

Mr. Njuguna: Mr. Speaker, Sir, emanating from the report given by the Attorney- General, you will note that about 53 cases were referred to his office for prosecution. Could he inform this House what deliberate steps he is taking to make sure that all these cases will be prosecuted even before his retirement this year?

Mr. Wako: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I hope the Member is asking for a further extension before I retire, so that I can deal with all these cases. The fact of the matter is that one cannot prosecute all the cases by the time he retires.  I am the last Attorney-General who is also the prosecutor. Since 27th August, 2010, I am wearing two huts, namely, for the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is why I recently called for the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions, so that there is a proper appointment under the Constitution of an Attorney-General who will only be the principal legal advisor to the Government. I am sure that the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will be appointed, will continue the good work that the Chief Public Prosecutor, Tobiko Keriako, has done. I can inform this House that I was with the Committee of Experts and as soon as I realized that the Director of Public Prosecutions will become a constitutional office, we immediately began re-organizing that office.  It is now really organized just awaiting the appointment. I am sure we will continue with the prosecution of corruption cases with rigor and gusto.

Mr. Kombo: Mr. Speaker, Sir, to successfully prosecute corruption cases is not an easy job. Part of the problem that we have had is that the KACC investigates while the office of the Attorney-General prosecutes. The people who have all the facts are at the KACC. Now that the Attorney-General is actually retiring, could he consider giving more powers to the Commission, so that it can prosecute? Prosecutorial powers should be given to the Commission because it is the one that investigates cases and is the only one that can best prosecute.

Mr. Wako: Mr. Speaker, Sir, my opinion on this matter is that now that we are going to have a Director of Public Prosecutions, a constitutional office, devoted to nothing else but prosecutions, he should continue to prosecute corruption cases…it is too dangerous for one institution to be charged with investigative powers plus prosecutorial powers.  This applies more to these type of cases. Unless you have checks and balances between the investigator and the prosecutor, some people will be taken to court with very little evidence just because the investigator has the power to prosecute. If the powers are separate, the investigator will be focused on obtaining sufficient evidence to allow that other person to come to the same conclusion and prosecute.  So, in the interest of justice, I am still of the opinion that in corruption and serious criminal cases, the distinction between the investigator and the prosecutor should be there. What is important is that the two should work in tandem. While respecting their independent functions, they should work in unison.

II. Now that the ‘shuttle diplomacy’ is seems to be crumbling before our eyes it’s a good time to assess exactly how much money has been spent on it and maybe time for proponents of it to cut their losses, or rather the tax payers losses?

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON VICE-PRESIDENT’S “SHUTTLE DIPLOMACY”

Dr. Khalwale: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following Question by Private Notice.

(a) Could the Minister clarify whether the mission by the Vice-President to lobby African States to support Kenya’s bid to pull out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reflects the official Government position on the issue?

(b) How much money has the Government spent on the Vice-President’s “shuttle diplomacy” so far?

The Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Onyonka): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to reply.I wish to inform this House that the mission that was undertaken by His Excellency the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs of “shuttle diplomacy” across the African Continent was not with an objective of lobbying the African countries to support the deferral of the International Criminal Court (ICC) intended prosecutions for one year.  The “shuttle diplomacy” was with a view of bringing the process of justice for the election crimes back home, so that the suspects can be tried locally since we believe that even the ICC Tribunal appreciates the fact that a local tribunal is better than taking our people to be tried in Europe.  The ICC Prosecutor, Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo, on 17th December, 2010, named six suspects whom he was requesting the ICC to issue summons to secure their attendance at the court. However, the Kenyan Government is not a failed State.

With the passage of our new Constitution, the Government felt that there was a necessary need for us to negotiate and have a moral position whereby the African Union, the Inter- Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the East African Community would have to support our country to solve the problem of the post-election violence peacefully by providing justice and at the same time making sure that we have reconciliation in our country. The grant of a deferral would, therefore, allow for sufficient time to revamp the key judicial institutions and other Government infrastructure.

Further, prosecution of post-election crimes at home would facilitate the trial of all post-election violence suspects, and not just those who are bearing the highest responsibility. Conducting those trials locally would send a very strong message both internally and externally, so that Kenya would no longer accept impunity.  So, even when the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs was doing the “shuttle diplomacy” within African, his agenda was not to demand that Kenya pulls out of the ICC. The agenda was to ask that the ICC allows us to look for a local mechanism, which would then make it possible for all the victims and all the perpetrators of the crime to face each other.

The information I have from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is that the amount of money that the Kenya Government spent for the “shuttle diplomacy” within the last two weeks is Kshs3,659,728. This amount does not include the small amount of money that the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs and the officers he carried along with him have spent from his Ministry. This is a budget which has been given to me by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which includes expenses incurred by officers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who were with the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr. Olago: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Arising from hon. Khalwale’s point of order and the answer given by the Assistant Minister, it is clear that the answer to part “b” of the Question is not complete in the sense that it does not encompass the amount of money that the Government has spent. He seems to be concentrating on what his Ministry has spent.

Mr. Onyonka: Mr. Speaker, Sir, unfortunately, the answer is “yes”, because we were unable to get the Accounting Officer in the Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Home Affairs to give us the full amount. So, the figure I have given is what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has spent.

Dr. Khalwale: Mr. Speaker, Sir, given that the Assistant Minister has admitted that his answer is incomplete, could I request the Chair that we give him until Tuesday, so that we can get a comprehensive answer to this very important issue touching on accountability? The reason for raising this point of order is that if we are going to accept only the expenditure that was incurred by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the taxpayer will not know how much was spent from the Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Home Affairs, how much was spent from the Office of the President and how much was spent from Parliament.The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs was having, in some of those trips of his, accompaniments of up to ten people. Those people did not come from the Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Office of the President, alone. Some of them come from Parliament. Therefore, the taxpayer would like to know about the expenses incurred by those other persons who accompanied him.

III. The debate below highlights the need get the real statistics on how many extra judicial killings have taken place since the promulgation of the constitution?

STATISTICS ON POLICE SHOOTINGS SINCE AUGUST 2010

Ms. Karua asked the Minister of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security:-

(a) Whether he could state how many people have been shot dead by police in the country since 4th August, 2010, giving the names and places they were shot and the circumstances;

(b) Whether he could also provide the identities of the officers involved and indicate the disciplinary action taken against them; and,

(c) What measures he is taking to ensure that the trend is curbed.

The Assistant Minister, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security (Mr. Ojode): Mr. Speaker, Sir, as you are aware, I answered this Question yesterday. But we agreed that the format should be changed to relate to what was asked by my friend, hon. Karua.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to reply. Since August 2010, 18 people have been shot dead by police officers. The following are the victims and circumstances under which they were shot dead.

Ms. Karua: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Have you noticed that the Assistant Minister has been answering his own question and not my Question? In part (a) of my Question, I have asked the Assistant Minister to tell us how many people have been shot dead by police officers in the country since 4th August, 2010, when we voted in the new Constitution…He has given me the names of the people who have been shot dead in circumstances that pointed to criminal intent on part of the police. So, he has modified my Question because he knows that police officers have shot dead more than 100 people since then. He has modified the Question, so that there can just be below 20 people.

Mr. Ojode: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have given a very good answer to the Question. I cannot give answers on which I cannot make any substantiation. Apparently, from August last year to date, my police officers have not killed as many as 100 suspects as is being alleged by the Questioner.

Mr. Ojode: Mr. Speaker, Sir, indeed, the story is true. Those of us who have not experienced those kinds of carjacking and criminal activities are the people who are not supporting the services of the police. I would like to urge my colleagues: Let us not demoralize police officers. Let us all support the work of police officers.  The reason why I am saying that is because police officers are being bashed every now and then. The day you will be carjacked is when you will realize that police officers are doing a good job. But I will not hesitate to tell the police to do their work. I would like to request my colleagues that, as the police officers are doing their job, let us support them. Let us not demoralize them!

The other thing is that we are undertaking reforms. Yes, we will get rid of trigger happy police officers to clean the Police Force. We want a Police Force to mind about the welfare of innocent Kenyans. Otherwise, my appeal is that let us support the police officers to do their work.