Kenya: Amend the National Accord and Reconciliation Bill Today!

By Mutahi Ngunyi

THIS IS A LETTER TO MPs. AS you begin debating the two "peace" Bills tomorrow, consider some thoughts.

For starters, the important thing in the peace deal is not the letter of the agreement; it is the spirit. Which is why you should not dismiss the "Muthaura project" and the leaflet circulated in Parliament on Wednesday last week.

In the spirit of the "peace deal", you must remember that this was never a struggle between a right and a wrong. It was a struggle between two rights. The "Muthaura forces" are right, although they are sheepish about their claims.

Similarly, and fundamentally too, ODM is right! And this is why you must not be rushed. In fact, you have no choice but to amend the National Accord and Reconciliation Bill. Reasons?

First I want to address ODM legislators. Good people, you are being cheated. My hunch is that PNU will support the Accord, and botch the amendment entrenching it in the Constitution. Not because the "Muthaura forces" are sneaky, but because the Accord is untenable in its present formulation.

If you pass the Accord before the constitutional amendment, nothing could stop the President appointing the grand coalition Cabinet the following day. And the country would break into a party.

IN THIS MOOD OF BLIND CELEBRAtion, the Constitutional Amendment Bill would be put to the vote. At this point, the "Muthaura forces" would ensure it does not garner the two-thirds majority.

In fact, instead of the 148 MPs required to pass a constitutional amendment, they would raise something like 145 MPs. The other MPs will either be absent or will abstain from voting. And with this, PNU will have won. They will have created the position of Prime Minister through an Act of Parliament as opposed to a constitutional amendment.

Would you blame President Kibaki for this? The answer is a resounding No! This would be blamed on the renegade MPs from PNU.

In the meantime, you would be in government with Mr Raila Odinga as Prime Minister. Would you abandon your positions and return the country to violence because the power deal was not constitutionalised? Maybe not. But if you accept the deal through an Act of Parliament, you would be cooked! Let me explain why.

If you accept the deal using the Act, PNU can decide to withdraw from the coalition at some point. This would annul the Act, disband the position of prime minister, and send all your ministers packing.

But can PNU do this? Definitely. If the country returns to normalcy and the bandit forces in the Rift Valley and Mt Elgon are neutralised, PNU can gamble on this. More so if the coalition government is problematic. And this is why you must accept nothing short of a constitutional amendment. In fact, you must insist on amending the Constitution first and enacting the National Accord and Reconciliation Bill later. Otherwise, you will be at the mercy of PNU.

Now I want to flip the argument and argue that a constitutional amendment is fatal for PNU legislators.

First, I must disagree with you regarding the creation of two centres of power. I submit that you will be the biggest beneficiaries of the position of prime minister in future. When Mr Odinga is president with 50 per cent executive powers, Ms Karua can be premier enjoying 50 per cent powers. And when Ms Karua is president, Mr William Ruto can be premier.

At any given moment, you can either occupy the position of president or prime minister with 50 per cent powers. Why would you fight such an arrangement unless you are myopic?

Second, if you plan to sabotage the Constitutional Amendment Bill, you would have a point. PNU has the numbers, but can never control Parliament. This is why, with 4.5 million votes, Mr Kibaki could only manage 45 MPs, plus some 20 or so from the fringe parties.

With 4.3 million votes, ODM had over 90 straight MPs. What does this tell us? If the prime minister is to be chosen by Parliament, PNU would stand no chance in future. This is so because some of our constituencies have as many as 100,000 voters, while others have as few as 4,000. Yet the two extremes produce one MP. And if it takes more voters to elect a PNU MP, than an ODM MP, ODM would occupy the PM position forever.

In other words, you must not rush the constitutional amendments. If you entrench this position in the Constitution, you must also go for proportionate representation in which your number of MPs is increased to match your population size. The two must be mutually exclusive and constitutionalised. Short of this, you could lose both the presidency and the premier position to ODM in future.

NOW, IF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDment is bad for PNU and the National Accord and Reconciliation Act is bad for ODM, what must you do?

This takes me back to my original submission: you have to amend the Accord. You have to introduce Section 9 to the Act or amend Sections 6 or 8. The amendment should state clearly that, in the event one coalition member pulls out and the Act is annulled, we should go for fresh elections.

This would secure ODM's 50 per cent power-sharing deal and provide PNU enough time to think through the constitutional implications of a PM position.

Otherwise if the Accord is passed and the constitutional amendment fails, ODM will be the loser. And if both the Accord and the Constitutional Amendments are passed, PNU will lose big. What do you think?

Mr Ngunyi is a political scientist with The Consulting House, a policy and security innovation think-tank working in the Great Lakes Region and West Africa.the article was first carried in Kenya’s Daily Nation Newspaper.

Kenya:The unending struggle for a new constitution

The struggle for a new constitution dispensation is as old as independent Kenya. Attempts by Kenya’s first Vice-President Jaramogi Oginga Odinga (Raila’s father) to have the current constitution reviewed in early 1960’s were fiercely opposed by the powers that be. Instead, the ruling elite ganged-up and created a one-party state prompting the emergence of a powerful presidency– a monarch of sorts.

In 1992, then President Daniel Moi agreed to the repeal of Section 2(A) of the constitution, legally re-introducing multi-party politics in the country. But this was hardly preceded by change as Kenyans had anticipated; instead Moi took the chance to manipulate politics of the day in his favor to extend his stay in power. In 1997, following protracted calls for review that were punctuated by countrywide mass demonstrations, MPs including Kanu legislators formed Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group (IPPG) whose agenda was to create a level-playing ground ahead of the General Elections. President Kibaki led the opposition to the negotiation table in his capacity as the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Following the 1997 election, the Kanu Government finally agreed to a full review of the constitution though sharp differences later on emerged on the composition of the review team and who between the state, parliament and the people should drive the review process.

Finally, all political parties settled on a “people-driven” constitution that saw Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) hold public hearing all the 210 constituencies and compiled a report as per the views of the people.

A National Constitutional Conference (NCC) was held at Bomas in Karen/Langata area between April 28, 2003 and June 6, 2005. During the conference serious differences emerged touching on several Chapters of the draft top among theme being the Executive, Devolution, Land and Religious Courts. The adopted version by the delegates at the Bomas Conference was challenged in a court of law and declared “unconstitutional” since the process leading to its adoption was likewise “unconstitutional”. In the end, the country ended up with two documents, the original draft (quashed by High Court) popularly known as Bomas draft and the revised version (by parliament) referred to us the Wako Draft (was drafted by a team of experts led by AG Amos Wako).

The Executive

The Bomas draft, commonly associated with Raila Odinga and ODM, vests the executive authority of the Republic at the national level in the President, the Deputy President, the Prime Minister and Ministers. The President should remain as the Head of State, Commander-in-Chief of the Defense Forces and the Chairperson of the National Security Council. The President, however, would be elected through a popular vote and such a candidate would have to receive more than 50 percent of the votes cast and a run-off must be held in three weeks time if none of those running manages more than a 50 percent vote. The president can only serve for a maximum of two terms of five years each. The Deputy President shall be the principle assistant to the president and shall act as the president in the event the Head of State is incapacitated or out of the country.

The Wako draft, favored by Kibaki’s PNU side, gives the president immense powers to “make and terminate appointments” and constitute and abolish offices of the Republic. This was seen by many as an attempt by the Government side to create room for Kibaki, who by then was facing a backlash from within his own party members, to create ministries and public offices with a view to reward his allies and in the end stem discontent. In the Wako draft rejected by the people, the President enjoys powers to appoint and dismiss the Cabinet “at will” (including the PM) without consulting parliament.

On the Premiership, the Bomas draft that Raila wants adopted in its entirety, the PM is the Head of Government whose work shall be to coordinate the work of ministries, prepare legislation, Preside over Cabinet meetings and is answerable to parliament.

The Wako draft instead reduces the PM to a mere Leader of Government Business in parliament, a role currently played the VP. In this arrangement, the PM would be directly accountable to the President rather than parliament.

Bomas draft proposes that the PM is the MP who is the leader of the largest political party, or a coalition of parties represented in parliament, or if such a leader is unable to command the confidence of the House, the MP who is the leader of the second largest political party, or a coalition of parties represented in parliament.

However, the Wako draft leaves loopholes for mischief: the president proposes an MP for appointment to the National Assembly for appointment as PM. On receiving the proposal, the Speaker summons parliament for a vote to confirm the appointment. If supported by a half of the Members the names passes, but if it fails, the president can make a second proposal. In the vent the two proposed names don’t sail through; the president shall be at liberty to appoint any MP as the PM. The ODM lieutenants agued that such an arrangement could easily be open to abuse as the president could deliberately propose unpopular candidates so that they can be rejected, giving him leeway to appoint a PM of his choice without reference to parliament.

Devolution

While the Bomas proposed four levels of Government (National, Regional District and Locational), the Wako draft proposed just one level – the District. Bomas draft proposed 14 regional government (whose work would be to coordinate the implementation of projects in all districts within that region), 70 district Governments and the Nairobi Metropolitan Area (with 4 boroughs). The Bomas draft fixed the number of districts out of fear that parliament may take advantage of any constitutional flaws to create many districts out of political expediency rather than economic and social need. The Wako draft also gave the president mandate to create new districts. The ODM side feared the clause may create room for manipulation, especially if the incumbent creates more districts in areas where he has solid political support.

While Bomas proposed the limits in the interference in the functioning of devolved units by way of creation of the Senate (Upper House), the Wako draft proposed the formation (by an Act of parliament) of Forum for District Governance. ODM opposed this arrangement equating it to District Focus for Rural Development established in 1980s by the Moi regime to economically uplift marginalized communities, but ended up enriching areas perceived to be politically-correct and impoverishing opposition strongholds. The basis of argument was and continues to be “devolution versus delegation”.

Land

The two documents and the parties from either side agreed on the formation of a National Land Commission (NLC) but sharply differed on leasehold. Both drafts proposed a 99-year leasehold but the parties failed to agree on the limit of land a person can own or lease. The ruling elite was opposed to any such limits as many, if not all, have huge chunks of land some almost equal to an entire district. A past survey showed that the families of Kenya’s two former Presidents, Kenyatta and Moi, owned land equivalent in size to the entire Nyanza Province. The issue of who between national Government and the community should own wildlife, game sanctuaries, land, forests, and water-catchment areas was another point of departure. The Maasai community living in Narok county council argued that an arrangement based on Wako draft would rob them any meaningful source of revenue once the famed Amboseli National Park was placed under the National Government. Currently, the park is under Olkejuando County Council and is said to be the richest council in Kenya (yet the poorest in terms of social-economic development).

Religious Courts

Both the Bomas and Wako drafts entrenched the Kadhi’s courts in the constitution. Its mandate, as proposed, is to determine questions of Islamic Law relating to personal status, marriage, divorce, inheritance and succession. However, the latter went further and proposed the creation of Christian, Hindu and “other religious” courts whose authority is on people professing the same faith on matters of personal status, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and succession. Though some churches like Catholics, Anglicans and Methodists among others, analysts argued, have a written theology and a confirmable body of canon law, many small denominations lacks such principles. The debate on Kadhi’s court became a matter of national debate prompting many Christians to vote against the proposed draft on the assumption that it was giving room for the introduction of sharia law in Muslim-dominated regions like Coast and North-Eastern province.

Just as yesterday, the four clauses remain the main bone of contention dividing the country down middle and unless they are effectively addressed in manner that satisfies the majority Kenyans, a new constitution dispensation could remain just a mere mirage.

Ends…

Endless Commissions of Inquiry/Tribunals in Kenya

1. JM Kariuki inquiry on the brutal assassination of charismatic Nyandarua North MP
2. Ouko inquest into the death of Cabinet minister Robert Ouko
3. Akiwumi Judicial Commission of Inquiry on tribal clashes
4. Tribunal on the purge on Judiciary
5. Busia Airplane crash
6. Goldenberg (scandal) commission
7. Ndung’u Land commission
8. Kiluki commission on the Artur brothers
9. Krieger commission on the 2007 post-election violence

If there is one thing that Kenya prides about is the culture of impunity. From the Kenyatta regime to the current Kibaki administration, numerous commissions, tribunals and task forces have been constituted, albeit with state blessings, to unravel some mystery into past moments of dark events. None of the reports by any of the commissions, however, has been acted on. The country has disappointing history of commissions of inquiry.

Again issues to do with how to treat official information, considering that is produced by public officials in the course of duty at the taxpayers’ expense, have always been subject of heated debate. The Kenyan law remains highly insufficient. Even in circumstances where claims of secrecy are justifiable, only the President and the Ministry of Justice have access to such reports in their un-edited version. Normally, the president receives such reports at State House with only the Presidential Press Service (PPS) present, and then embarks on the “study” of its contents at his own pleasure though he is under no legal obligation to do anything else. He can choose to keep it for himself and let the media and the public to speculate.

Goldenberg commission

It was set up by President Kibaki in 2003 immediately after his landslide victory. Kibaki-led opposition coalition, Narc, had campaigned on the platform anti-corruption and good governance. The commission was set up to unravel the truth about the Goldenberg Scandal, Kenya's biggest corruption scam in which the country lost up to USD600 million through questionable exports of gold and diamonds between 1990 and 1993. Business Tycoon Kamlesh Mansukural Damji Pattni, now a city pastor was the scandal’s chief architect through his dubious firm Goldenberg International Company (GIC) Limited.

But even as the proceedings at KICC were going on, the commission’s operations were almost scuttled abruptly following the suspension of its Vice-Chairman, Daniel Aganyanya, who was among the victims of an investigation into malpractice in the judiciary.

The contents of its exact finding remain unknown. One of the scam’s chief architects, Prof George Saitoti is a top figure in the Kibaki administration and one of his likely successors at State House. Pattni has just secured amnesty after he agreed to hand-over Grand Regency Hotel, one of the precious assets he built from the proceeds of the scam.

Purge on the Judiciary

The famous “purge on the judiciary” a.k.a “radically surgery on the judiciary” was hailed as landmark but the subsequent judicial commissions/tribunals were bogus in operations and ended achieving little as some of the suspended judges were later on re-instated. A record 23 High Court judges had been suspended following a damning dossier from Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC) indicating that corruption was rampant in the Kenyan legal system, with almost half of the country's judges and close to a third of its magistrates said to be corrupt. The judges were given the option to either resign and leave quietly or be investigated by tribunals. By then, KACC had stated in its report that it had evidence to the effect that corrupt judges took bribes from litigants to rule in their favor, delayed ruling on cases in return for bribes, had engaged in business outside the judiciary and were living beyond their known means.

The two tribunals were mandated to investigate six of the country's nine judges in the Court of Appeals and 17 judges out of the 36 in the High Court. The tribunal investigating the High Court judges was chaired by influential Kenyan constitutional lawyer Lee Muthoga, while the panel investigating the Court of Appeal judges was headed by prominent Ghanaian Judge Akilano Akiwumi. Muthoga is prominent lawyer in the region, a past chairman of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and is currently an alternate Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) based in Arusha, Tanzania. Akiwumi on the other hand is a veteran Ghanaian lawyer now sitting at the COMESA Court of Justice (CCJ) in Lusaka, Zambia.

JM Kariuki inquiry on the brutal assassination of charismatic Nyandarua North MP

Josiah Mwangi Kariuki, popularly known as “JM” is said to be one of the most charismatic political leaders in Kenya’s history and was seen by many as the most obvious successor to Kenyatta following the exit of an equally charismatic Cabinet minister Tom Joseph Mboya through an assassination by the State. JM was nationally popular due to his unwavering stand on issues touching on the poor such as equal distribution of land. He was Kenyatta’s private secretary between 1963 and 1969 before the two differed over key Government policies. He is mostly remembered for his statement: “Kenya has become a nation of 10 millionaires and 10 million beggars”. This could have, perhaps, have convinced Kenyatta on why the fireband politician should be eliminated.

A Parliamentary Select Committee was immediately established to investigate the circumstances surrounding JM’s murder. None of those who were implicated into the death were ever punished. Today, many analysts say, the committee was used as a means by Kenyatta's government to mitigate a potential revolt during the time when just a little discontent was enough to stir a (military) coup. When the (censored) report was finally released, the anger had subsided and likelihood of revolt much lower.

Ouko inquest into the death of Cabinet minister Robert Ouko

He was Kenya’s (best) foreign minister ever and Kisumu Town MP by the time he met his death. He defended his motherland with zeal and steadfast sense of patriotism. He was increasingly becoming popular, something that did not go well with top State House power brokers in the Moi regime. He was found murdered on the foot of Got Arila hills in his Kisumu backyard days after he was reported to have disappeared from his Koru Home in Muhoroni. The state was uncomfortable with him due to his spirited criticism of rampant corruption within the Government he served. New of his death were received with countrywide demos that almost made the country ungovernable.

Due to local and international pressure, Moi hired the services of a British detective – John Troon - from New Scotland Yard to investigate Ouko's death. In October 1990 Moi appointed a public inquiry into the case chaired by Justice Evans Gicheru, now Kenya’s Chief Justice. The inquest suggested that Ouko had been compiling a report on corruption on the Kenyan government and how it had affected his attempts to reopen a molasses plant on the outskirts of Kisumu City. Ironically, the plant was later in 2001 used by Moi as an “inducement gift” to lure Raila Odinga into a short-lived political marriage that saw the latter dissolve his party and cross-over to Kanu party as its national Secretary-General.

The inquiry was abruptly terminated by Moi in November 1991, ahead of the 1992 polls. Several government officials, including then larger-than-life Energy minister and Moi’s right-hand man Nicholas Biwott and Internal Security PS Hezekiah Oyugi, were detained for questioning in relation to the murder but released after two weeks for "lack of evidence". A former District Commissioner, Jonah Anguka was tried for Ouko's murder in 1992 and acquitted, with the crime remaining unsolved. Anguka later fled into exile in the United States, fearing for his live. He later published a book, "Absolute Power," denying his involvement in the Ouko Murder.

In March 2003 the newly elected Kibaki-led Government opened a new investigation into Ouko's death through a Parliamentary Select Committee. The inquest, however, turned into total theatric exposing the incompetence of its chairman, Gor Sungu (Immediate former Kisumu Town MP). Attempts to summon former President Moi to give evidence were strongly opposed by his lawyer and now Cabinet minister Mutula Kilonzo. Its findings – now in the custody of the State - are yet to be made public. Moi and Biwott remain close friends of the Kibaki Government.

Akiwumi Judicial Commission of Inquiry on tribal clashes

President Moi appointed the Akiwumi Commission in 1998, and it submitted its findings in March 1999. Ten years later, no one knows the findings, which remain as much a mystery as the true identities of the individuals behind the orgy of violence. Even after numerous letters, correspondences, and meetings at State House with religious leaders and diplomats, Moi never made the report public. Today, a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission is set to take effect following the publishing of a bill intended to give birth to such an institution. Such a commission could be the last remaining option for Kenyans to permanently halt the cycle of violence that normally emerges during the electioneering period.

So damning was the report that it cost the life of Roman Catholic priest Father John Anthony Kaiser. On August 23, 2000, Fr. Kaiser was shot dead. His body was found at 6 am at a junction of the Nakuru-Naivasha Highway. At the time of his shooting and subsequent death, Kaiser was carrying documents – considered too damning (to the Moi regime) for public consumption - he intended to present to the Akiwumi Commission. He was also to testify against the Moi government before the International Criminal Court ICC in The Hague, Netherlands in less than a month’s a time.

Less than a week after Fr. Kaiser's death, 14-year old school girl, Florence Mpayei dropped her rape case against then National Security minister Julius Sunkuli. The priest had used his influence to assist the young lass to access legal justice through Federation of Kenyan Lawyers (FIDA). The two events were later on to haunt and shape political direction of then powerful Cabinet minister years after losing his Kilgoris parliamentary seat. He is considered by many among the State forces behind the assassination of Fr. Kaiser. In spite of a four-year long inquest, the killers of the priest are yet to be identified for prosecution and Sunkuli is still walking free and is among the top contestants for the Kilgoris by-election next month.

Busia plane crash

Less than a month after Kibaki took power, a serious crisis hit his Government. A plane carrying senior members of his new government crashed in Western town of Busia, killing one minister and the two pilots, and leaving three ministers and several members of parliament seriously injured.

The 24-seater Gulfstream aircraft crashed into a house on takeoff from Busia in far western Kenya. The crew was coming from attending a victory party for Moody Awori in his Funyula constituency. Then labor minister, Ahmad Mohammed Khalif, died shortly after being admitted in hospital. Three cabinet ministers, Raphael Tuju (Tourism), and two of Kenya's first women to make the cabinet: the minister of State in the Office of the President, Linah Jebii Kilimo (now an assistant minister), and the Water minister, Martha Karua (now justice minister) were among those seriously injured. By then Kibaki was recuperating in his bed at Nairobi Hospital following a fatal accident few days to the 2002 general election. Lawyer Lee Muthoga was later appointed to chair a commission that would investigate the cause of the crash but whose results were never made public.

Ndung’u land commission

The commission was the work of a veteran Nairobi-based lawyer, Paul Ndung'u. It was formed to look into the unlawful allocation of public land. Its report was handed over to the President in 2004 and ‘released’ in 2005, stirring much controversy as it implicated top Government officials including the country’s topmost families – Kenyatta, Moi and Kibaki – together with their associates.

According to a ‘leaked’ version of the report, the commission had recommended the establishment of a Land Tribunal with powers to cancel fraudulent land title deeds.

On sensing public impatient, the Government through then Lands minister Amos Kimunya released a “mutilated” version of the report on the floor of parliament. But even this occasion, none of the recommendations - as contained in the mutilated version – has ever been implemented.

Kiruki/Muite commission on the Artur brothers

For the first time, the country had two commissions running parallel to each other but with the mandate to perform a similar task. The parliamentary one was chaired by immediate former Kabete MP Paul Muite and current Changamwe MP Ramadhan Kajembe, while the presidential one by former Police Commissioner Shedrach Kiruki.

The two teams attempted to unearth the truth concerning the (mercenary) activities of the two brothers of Armenian origin – Artur Margaryan and Artur Sargaryan – and their alleged links with various Kenyan top personalities and security forces, and the circumstances surrounding their deportation.

Some felt that the Kiruki (Presidential) commission could not be trusted to investigate an issue touching on the President and his family, official or unofficial. Again, Kiruki was by the time serving as a “special” security adviser to Internal Security minister John Michuki who was said to have directly hired the services of the two brothers.

Kriegler commission on the 2007 post-election violence

It is the next addition to a string of commissions whose work is only to slow down the wind of change and in essence silence the popular opinion.

The Kriegler commission was formed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the controversial 2007 general elections and the subsequent chaos that almost sent Kenya into a civil war.

Ends…

The Law governing commissions of inquiry

The Kenyan law provides for the setting up of Commissions of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Cap 102.

Although it has the power to summon witnesses and admonish those who refuse to appear before it, a Commission of Inquiry does not have the powers to jail or pass sentences on any individual.

Although not all Commissions can necessarily be referred to as "Judicial Commissions of Inquiry", the term, "judicial" has sometimes been used because of the nature of proceedings even though the commissions have no powers of conviction and sentencing as is the case with the courts.

The time taken by a Commission of Inquiry to complete its work may also vary depending on the nature of the matter being handled.

Although set up to probe into an issue, parliamentary teams are not Commissions of Inquiry per se. They are composed of Members of Parliament and basically derive their powers from Parliamentary Standing Orders.

While Commissions of Inquiry present their findings to the President, a parliamentary select committee reports to Parliament.

According to the Act governing the operations of Commission of Inquiry, ‘evidence adversely affecting the reputation of an individual shall not be received unless the commissioner is satisfied of its relevance to the inquiry, and that the person/persons are given prior warning of the general nature of the evidence or when this is not done, a general nature of the evidence to be presented is communicated to the person’.

Under Kenyan Law, the Commissions of Inquiry Act Cap 102 provides for the appointment of commissioners to inquire into and report on matters of a public nature referred to them by the President, to prescribe their powers, privileges and duties, and to provide for other matters relating thereto’.

The President is also allowed - as provided by the Act - to appoint an additional commissioner or commissioners in varying designations such as chairman or deputy chair or appoint a new commissioner in case the sitting one dies or is unwilling to act or is, in the opinion of the President, unsuitable to continue serving as a commissioner.

The Commissions of Inquiry Act also empowers a commission to direct that the public not be admitted to all or a specified part of the proceedings. This may be done for the preservation of order, protection of the person, property or reputation of any witness in the inquiry, or anyone referred to during the proceedings.

Not all commissions or probe teams, however, are appointed to inquire into a matter fall under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.

The education sector has had many probe committees and task forces set up over the years in efforts to improve the education system. Examples of commissions set up in the sector which were governed by the Act, include the first post-independence Kenya Education Commission led by Prof. Simeon Ominde, and the Davy Koech-led Commission of Inquiry into the Education System of Kenya, appointed in 1998.

Ends…