|
Post by adongo23456 on Feb 29, 2012 4:05:00 GMT 3
mank,
I can see you are stuck in the past so in all honesty there is no point arguing with you. Definitely you have no solutions or ideas on what needs to be done in February 2012. If you want to rewind the clock to August 2010 to "build a consensus" good luck with that.
The constitution does not need to spoon feed us. We are a nation of living, breathing human beings in tens of millions. If we cannot come up with concrete ways to do things we cannot keep crying about why we have not been spoon fed.
The duties and responsiblities of the national government are clearly listed in the new constitution. I asked you to tell us which of those duties and responsibilities will require tens of thousands of PA staff including PCs, DCs, DOs and Chiefs. You are unable to do so.
From what I have seen and have stated here already we only have security, policing (some of it) disaster management and correctional sevices (some of it) that may require some form of administrative structures and personel managed by the national government. That is why I asked you to tell us what the jobs of these PCs, DCs, DOs etc are supposed to be based on the listed functions of the national government. The fact is they have a very limited jurisdiction with the PA system.
The constitution gives the government, parliament and the Kenyan public the rights to find the right restructuring to figure that out. If we are honest with a fairly competent government that should be done without much hand wringing and crying over the pre-referendum debates.
That is really the challenge at hand. The role of the PA system has been constitutionally reduced by over 90% or so. Restructuring the PA system to work with that is what the government has failed to do. They are trying to get 100% work force to do the work that requires less than 10%. That is a gross waste of very scarce resources. It is simply not acceptable and definitely not feasible. They have no work for those folks to do and I bet you they can't find any in the constitution. That is why they are talking of five years to restructure. Well one and a half of those years is gone and the time to restructure is now not 2015.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 29, 2012 5:58:59 GMT 3
mank,
I can see you are stuck in the past so in all honesty there is no point arguing with you. Definitely you have no solutions or ideas on what needs to be done in February 2012. If you want to rewind the clock to August 2010 to "build a consensus" good luck with that.
The constitution does not need to spoon feed us. We are a nation of living, breathing human beings in tens of millions. If we cannot come up with concrete ways to do things we cannot keep crying about why we have not been spoon fed.
The duties and responsiblities of the national government are clearly listed in the new constitution. I asked you to tell us which of those duties and responsibilities will require tens of thousands of PA staff including PCs, DCs, DOs and Chiefs. You are unable to do so.
From what I have seen and have stated here already we only have security, policing (some of it) disaster management and correctional sevices (some of it) that may require some form of administrative structures and personel managed by the national government. That is why I asked you to tell us what the jobs of these PCs, DCs, DOs etc are supposed to be based on the listed functions of the national government. The fact is they have a very limited jurisdiction with the PA system.
The constitution gives the government, parliament and the Kenyan public the rights to find the right restructuring to figure that out. If we are honest with a fairly competent government that should be done without much hand wringing and crying over the pre-referendum debates.
That is really the challenge at hand. The role of the PA system has been constitutionally reduced by over 90% or so. Restructuring the PA system to work with that is what the government has failed to do. They are trying to get 100% work force to do the work that requires less than 10%. That is a gross waste of very scarce resources. It is simply not acceptable and definitely not feasible. They have no work for those folks to do and I bet you they can't find any in the constitution. That is why they are talking of five years to restructure. Well one and a half of those years is gone and the time to restructure is now not 2015. Adongo, You are absolutely right. I am stuck in the past. .... not at referendum, but before that. That very time it became clear that we were obstinately destining ourselves for the situation we are in now just because of an appetite for a quick "YES" to whatever it may be. I have seen you stuck in the past with regard to independence, and you do not seem to have an issue with that. On the issue of the role of PCs and what not, It is Kibaki you should be debating with. He is the one who is using the clumsy law to feed us that system of government. Even if I were to answer that outdated question you keep asking I wouldn't have the power to legislate anything to do with PA. The time to restructure should not even have been now - it should have been at the referendum. If we were honest to the process we would not have had such an open ended article for provincial administration. So, again, deny it as you may wish, the questions you ask belong to the past. We lost the reform to the extent that we moved past referendum with this kind of debate unresolved. That's the point I think you are failing to notice in my arguments.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Feb 29, 2012 8:40:07 GMT 3
Bill on county governments does not usurp powers of national authority The County Government Bill 2012 is a crucial legislation in the implementation of the new Constitution. The Fifth Schedule demands that this legislation be enacted by February 27, 2012. Consequently, by declining to assent to the Bill, the President and Parliament have violated Article 261 by exceeding the constitutional timeline without formally extending it. Any person may now petition the court to issue a declaratory order to compel Parliament to quickly pass the legislation. Parliament can avert this situation by either acceding to the President’s demands or by returning the Bill for the second time by two thirds of the members without any amendments or with contrary amendments to the President for assent. But are there justifiable reasons for this impasse? In my opinion, the President appears to have misunderstood the amendment introduced by Mr Nuh Abdi and adopted and approved by Parliament. Parliament inserted section 52a to the Bill requiring public officers currently serving as district commissioners, district officers, chiefs and sub-chiefs to, after the next General Election, serve in the county public service until substantive appointments are made by the County Public Service Board. The President rightly pointed out that under Article 6 of the Constitution, the county governments and the national government are distinct entities which can only conduct their mutual relations on the basis of consultation and cooperation. Article 189 requires either level of government to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that respects the functional and institutional integrity of the other. The President argues that the “deployment” of the officers to the county violates the principle of distinctiveness. This is far from the truth. The process of devolution will lead to the restructuring of various ministries and organs in public service. Many public officers will seek employment in the 47 counties. What the County Government Bill and the Urban Areas and Cities Act have done is to guarantee the continuation of their employment until they are formerly absorbed by the county government or placed in the restructured national government. The President argues that Parliament has usurped the powers of the national government to restructure the provincial administration under Paragraph 17 of the Sixth Schedule. In my opinion, Parliament has simply deployed the officers to serve in the counties. Full restructuring will be properly done using the proposed National Administration and Coordination Bill. Even if Parliament has done some restructuring, it would merely be exercising its power to legislate on any matter and would be acting as one arm of the government. A similar action was taken when local authority staff were deployed to the counties under the Urban Areas and Cities Act, which the President assented to. Parliament has not transferred any function of the national government to counties. There is no reference to any security function being deployed to the counties. Instead, the Bill allows the governor to chair a county security council subject to structure set out in the Police Service Act and other security legislation to be enacted. It is not clear why the President has rejected the Bill on grounds that he already accepted in the National Police Service Act. In fact in the Act, the provincial administration is deprived of any security function. By deploying DCs, DOs, chiefs, and sub-chiefs to work under the county government, Parliament is assisting counties to take advantage of experienced administrators to ensure that they expedite the transitional process. This will help address the challenges and confusion that will greet the period after the elections because the county governments will benefit from the immense knowledge and expertise of these officers. I think Parliament should reject the President’s memorandum, but address his concerns when the National Administration and Coordination Bill is brought to the House. The writer is a law lecturer at Moi University’s School of Law and a former member of the Task Force on Devolved Government. omurkomen@yahoo.comwww.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Bill+on+county+governments+does+not+usurp+powers/-/440808/1355822/-/12pv4uwz/-/index.html
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 29, 2012 9:15:32 GMT 3
Adongo
If you really want to know what the PC or DC would be doing in the new dispensation, I would suggest that you wait for the National Administration Bill now doing the rounds in the civil service before it is passed on to cabinet for approval.
I think that is what you should be criticising when you know the proposed structure.
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Feb 29, 2012 19:15:07 GMT 3
Adongo If you really want to know what the PC or DC would be doing in the new dispensation, I would suggest that you wait for the National Administration Bill now doing the rounds in the civil service before it is passed on to cabinet for approval. I think that is what you should be criticising when you know the proposed structure. Kamale,Then why not remove the PCs, DCs, DOs etc from the Devolution Bill and put them with the National Administration Bill where their duties and tasks are clearly defined so that Kenyans can decide if there is any work for them and how many are appropriate? Why is someone trying to sneak the PA sytem with devolution and when they are asigned tasks within the devolved structures Kibaki is up in arms? Put the PCs, DCs, DOs etc where they belong and let's see if the country has any need for them. Don't try to sneak them through the back door. Parliament should reject Kibaki's demands to impose the PA system on the nation through the Devolution Bill and ask the government to restructure them into the National Administration Bill.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 1, 2012 3:25:52 GMT 3
Two questions: Kamale,
Then why not remove the PCs, DCs, DOs etc from the Devolution Bill ..... Who should do that? ... so that Kenyans can decide if there is any work for them ... Through what forum? It sounds tme like you are calling for a referendum, which by the way may be necessary if both PA-protagonists and antagonists have quorum.
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Mar 1, 2012 4:02:24 GMT 3
Two questions: Kamale,
Then why not remove the PCs, DCs, DOs etc from the Devolution Bill ..... Who should do that? ... so that Kenyans can decide if there is any work for them ... Through what forum? It sounds tme like you are calling for a referendum, which by the way may be necessary if both PA-protagonists and antagonists have quorum. mank,Who do you think prepared the Bills and presented them to parliament? The Bills didn't just show up in parliament or did they? The Bills whatever process they take eventaully ends in the cabinet and are presented in parliament by the relevant cabinet minister. In this case the Bill was presented by Mudavadi and M.Ps made amendments to it. The same Bill had come from a Task Force and went through CIC etc, but ultimately it is the minister in charge who presents the Bill in parliament. Since the Bill has now hit a stale mate it is logical and actually very easy for the minister responsible to take the Bill back after the Speaker presents the president's concerns and re-do the bill in a away acceptable to parliament. I am advising that minister, free of charge, to remove the PCs, DCs and DOs stuff from the Bill altogether instead of a stalemated argument over where those "stale" offices should fall. Secondly you must be the only one who does not know that all Bills under the new constitution require public input. Have you seen job's post here asking those interested to present their views on the Bills related to the Integrity provisions on Chapter six of the constitution to do so? So public input is a constitutional requirement. No need to be excited about another referundum. That is only required if there are proposals for amendments in the constitution on provisions that touch on the Bill of Rights. This one does not. Consequently the new Bills including one dealing with the PA system can involve as much public participation as there are members of the public interested in the same. That is the constitution Kenyans passed in August 2010.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 1, 2012 9:00:43 GMT 3
mank,Who do you think prepared the Bills and presented them to parliament? The Bills didn't just show up in parliament or did they? The Bills whatever process they take eventaully ends in the cabinet and are presented in parliament by the relevant cabinet minister. In this case the Bill was presented by Mudavadi and M.Ps made amendments to it. The same Bill had come from a Task Force and went through CIC etc, but ultimately it is the minister in charge who presents the Bill in parliament. Since the Bill has now hit a stale mate it is logical and actually very easy for the minister responsible to take the Bill back after the Speaker presents the president's concerns and re-do the bill in a away acceptable to parliament. I am advising that minister, free of charge, to remove the PCs, DCs and DOs stuff from the Bill altogether instead of a stalemated argument over where those "stale" offices should fall. Secondly you must be the only one who does not know that all Bills under the new constitution require public input. Have you seen job's post here asking those interested to present their views on the Bills related to the Integrity provisions on Chapter six of the constitution to do so? So public input is a constitutional requirement. No need to be excited about another referundum. That is only required if there are proposals for amendments in the constitution on provisions that touch on the Bill of Rights. This one does not. Consequently the new Bills including one dealing with the PA system can involve as much public participation as there are members of the public interested in the same. That is the constitution Kenyans passed in August 2010. Ok Adongo, go ahead then and drop the DCs and PCs from the bill.
|
|
|
Post by chokoraa on Mar 1, 2012 10:06:59 GMT 3
Two questions: Who should do that? Through what forum? It sounds tme like you are calling for a referendum, which by the way may be necessary if both PA-protagonists and antagonists have quorum. mank,Who do you think prepared the Bills and presented them to parliament? The Bills didn't just show up in parliament or did they? The Bills whatever process they take eventaully ends in the cabinet and are presented in parliament by the relevant cabinet minister. In this case the Bill was presented by Mudavadi and M.Ps made amendments to it. The same Bill had come from a Task Force and went through CIC etc, but ultimately it is the minister in charge who presents the Bill in parliament. Since the Bill has now hit a stale mate it is logical and actually very easy for the minister responsible to take the Bill back after the Speaker presents the president's concerns and re-do the bill in a away acceptable to parliament. I am advising that minister, free of charge, to remove the PCs, DCs and DOs stuff from the Bill altogether instead of a stalemated argument over where those "stale" offices should fall. Secondly you must be the only one who does not know that all Bills under the new constitution require public input. Have you seen job's post here asking those interested to present their views on the Bills related to the Integrity provisions on Chapter six of the constitution to do so? So public input is a constitutional requirement. No need to be excited about another referundum. That is only required if there are proposals for amendments in the constitution on provisions that touch on the Bill of Rights. This one does not. Consequently the new Bills including one dealing with the PA system can involve as much public participation as there are members of the public interested in the same. That is the constitution Kenyans passed in August 2010. Adongo you're wasting your time trying to put sense into these people.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 1, 2012 20:41:28 GMT 3
I have always thought one of the pitfalls we must wade through as a nation, is that a popular progressive constitution has to be enacted and implemented by a political elite that does not believe in it. A group that would rather have things stay the same. The inertia I expect, from the bareaucracy ---infact every powerful arm of the state including the judiciary and the millitary, is such that I would put my money with those who say the struggle is just beginning. Because of the duplicity of the parliament in refusing to go to work, essentially the spirit of the constitution has been compromised. What remains is the letter of the same, but here, interpretation is so at variance that nothing can be said with certainity. Not the election date; not the care-taker period if a second round is necessary; not the defination of integrity as a yardstick for eligibility; not the quota system of women representatives in state bodies. Actually chaos and confusion are rife. Meanwhile it is March, and ammendments are being passed without much argument, and, time being short, shoddy clauses find their way into the laws, which set the stage for pertetual litigation. The constitution is effectively being dismembered, being mutilated and de-fanged. Daily nation exampleOne of the things a constitution must do, is resolve conflicts, or at least create a credible and legitimate mechanism for resolving deep conflicts. What happens when one side does not underwrite the fairness of the legal infrastructure, was clear when Raila rejected any legal mediation by the Kenya courts after Kibaki's sneaky swearing in. What I am saying is that if the legal infrastructure of the new constitution is shoddy and in dispute, then it will not be in a position to steer the country through the looming conflict in the aftermath of a heated and partisan Presidential elections later this year or earlier next. There will be enough loopholes to challenge whoever is declared winner, such that he [or she] will not be legitimate for a wide section of the population. And with the nation divided about evenly.. the winner, in such an eventuality, will only rule his coalition of ethnicities... This is the real danger I see emanating from the dodgy implementation. [Adongo captures it well in another thread: Parliament playing with fire] And Kibaki's latest set, is just another nudge in the direction of doom. But that means the history of Kenya will be interesting, as it records the struggle against the obsolete Kibaki and his slowly decaying GCG.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 5, 2012 5:37:43 GMT 3
As far as I know, a key objective of the constitutional reform was to scrap the provincial administration system. And for most of the time in the referendum politics most of us thought tha was accomplished. We even had statements made by key political leaders to that effect. To the contrary, we did not scrap the system. We simply indicated a desire to restructure it, and then gave the mandate for engineering that restructuring to a certain office (an office we have viewed with skepticism when it comes to reform issues). So, now, while there are two sides fighting in parliament over this matter, neither side's view reflects the initial key objective - and the winner is already declared in the constitution - that is how I see it. ================================================== Divided House set to debate Kibaki memoBy ALPHONCE SHIUNDU ashiundu@ke.nationmedia.com Posted Saturday, March 3 2012 at 22:30 The fate of the President’s memorandum rejecting the calls to have the provincial administration placed under the ambit of the governors will be known on Tuesday, when the Local Authorities Committee tables its critique of the memorandum in the House. The memo has exposed a dysfunctional coalition government given that the amendment to make the provincial administrators part of the county administration was a product of Mr Musalia Mudavadi, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Local Government. The night-time amendment (the House sat late that day) raised a storm. The Office of the President, in which the provincial administration is domiciled, said it had been ambushed. (READ: Kibaki’s memo stirs up MPs) That night, 10 days ago, the front bench abandoned Mr Mudavadi and he, with Lands minister James Orengo, had to fight off about 20 backbenchers keen to abolish the system. Mr Mudavadi is piqued that he spent long hours in the House to ensure the Bill was enacted, only for the Head of State to reject it. He has vowed to report the absentee ministers to the President at this week’s Cabinet meeting. Back to that night. Bura MP Dr Abdi Nuh had proposed the amendment to have the provincial administration report to the governor at the county level. But, as the night wore on, Yusuf Chanzu (Vihiga) decided to delete the whole clause and changed it to establish village units. The changes made Dr Nuh’s amendment untenable. “Since even for my amendment I had consulted the minister as well, and I do not have powers to move any new amendments now and the minister has been granted such powers by the Standing Orders, then I would rather donate my amendment to him, so that he can move it as a new amendment,” Dr Nuh pleaded with Mr Mudavadi. Having read the mood that the House was so much against the provincial administration – something most MPs equate to a colonial relic – Mr Mudavadi acquiesced. He took over to Dr Nuh’s amendment. The MPs, including Dr Nuh, supported the move and thus the Bill was approved. OP and State House were not amused. So, on Monday morning, when the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr Patrick Gichohi, presented the Bills to the Attorney-General for submission to the President for assent, there was a crisis meeting. (READ: House and Executive clash over county law) The Sunday Nation learnt that the AG and Justice minister Mutula Kilonzo asked the President to reject the Bill because of the changes. The argument from OP was that it was the President’s function to decide how he would “restructure” the provincial administration according to the Sixth Schedule which says the national government shall restructure the provincial administration within five years. That the President, in his memo, rejected the amendment as “unconstitutional” cast doubts on the whole exercise of law-making in the House. The procedure is that amendments are filed with the Legal Counsel of Parliament for their legality to be ascertained and then drafting is done for presentation to the House. The argument in Parliament is that the President had no basis to question the legality of the motion given that it had the nod of the Legal Counsel of Parliament. Mr Njoroge Baiya, the de facto chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, said the House and the people of Kenya had declared that they didn’t want the provincial administration. Colonial thing“Why do we need it? If it was bad for the President, will it be good for the governor? It is associated with tyranny. It is a colonial thing,” Mr Baiya said. But the Kenya Law Reform Commission, the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution, the AG and the Justice minister agree with the President. “The Constitution wants the national government to determine the fate of the provincial administration once the county governments are in place,” said KLR secretary Joash Dache, who drafted the County Governments Bill, 2012. To overturn the President’s memo 145 MPs need to approve the Bill without changes.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 5, 2012 10:19:50 GMT 3
Meanwhile it is March, and ammendments are being passed without much argument, and, time being short, shoddy clauses find their way into the laws, which set the stage for pertetual litigation. The constitution is effectively being dismembered, being mutilated and de-fanged. Daily nation exampleJakaswanga I am afraid but you seem to be a victim of irresponsible journalism. The constitution has not been ammended at all as claimed by the Nation. What parliament did was make a vote to invoke Article 261 (2) which allows parliament to extend the period prescribed in the constitution to pass certain legislation. So rest easy, the mutilation is yet to start and you will be invited to the party be sure of that!! Kamale
|
|
|
Post by job on Mar 5, 2012 17:10:47 GMT 3
Meanwhile it is March, and ammendments are being passed without much argument, and, time being short, shoddy clauses find their way into the laws, which set the stage for pertetual litigation. The constitution is effectively being dismembered, being mutilated and de-fanged. Daily nation exampleJakaswanga I am afraid but you seem to be a victim of irresponsible journalism. The constitution has not been ammended at all as claimed by the Nation. What parliament did was make a vote to invoke Article 261 (2) which allows parliament to extend the period prescribed in the constitution to pass certain legislation. So rest easy, the mutilation is yet to start and you will be invited to the party be sure of that!!
Kamale Kamale,
That was the proverbial wicked laugh of a witch. How does mutilation of the new Constitution qualify for a PARTY? May be I'm not getting the context of your figurative speech.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 5, 2012 19:41:47 GMT 3
Jakaswanga
... the mutilation is yet to start .... Sad ... but yes!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 5, 2012 19:45:55 GMT 3
Jakaswanga I am afraid but you seem to be a victim of irresponsible journalism. The constitution has not been ammended at all as claimed by the Nation. What parliament did was make a vote to invoke Article 261 (2) which allows parliament to extend the period prescribed in the constitution to pass certain legislation. So rest easy, the mutilation is yet to start and you will be invited to the party be sure of that!!
Kamale Kamale,
That was the proverbial wicked laugh of a witch. How does mutilation of the new Constitution qualify for a PARTY? May be I'm not getting the context of your figurative speech. The mutilation is gonna happen....just you be patiend!
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 5, 2012 21:35:33 GMT 3
Kamale, That was the proverbial wicked laugh of a witch. How does mutilation of the new Constitution qualify for a PARTY? May be I'm not getting the context of your figurative speech. The mutilation is gonna happen....just you be patiend! Kamalet, Then we are back in 1964. The Lancaster constitution is proving a strain on the new powermen and has to be butchered. Setting the stage for the struggle to reclaim Kenya by Wanjiku. Nice to see history repeating herself so openly within a generation! Kamalet, get your people out of the Rift Valley! But I am afraid you guys have not paid attention to the process of writing the bills. Some lawyers hired to write those bills are writing mutilations. And now only parliament must pass them. The promulgated constitution has fainted!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 6, 2012 8:57:43 GMT 3
The mutilation is gonna happen....just you be patiend! Kamalet, Then we are back in 1964. The Lancaster constitution is proving a strain on the new powermen and has to be butchered. Setting the stage for the struggle to reclaim Kenya by Wanjiku. Nice to see history repeating herself so openly within a generation! Kamalet, get your people out of the Rift Valley! But I am afraid you guys have not paid attention to the process of writing the bills. Some lawyers hired to write those bills are writing mutilations. And now only parliament must pass them. The promulgated constitution has fainted! Jakaswanga Better be a realist....! I think there has been too much debate about the flaws of the new constitution and these have to corrected one way or another. During the pre-referendum campaigns many acknowledged flaws with the document and claimed that rather than throw out the whole document, a process to correct the flaws would be done post promulgation. There will be those that call it mutilation (civil society busy bodies) and those hit by the realism that somethings will not just work as drafted. Case in point the problem of reserved seats for the other gender.
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Mar 6, 2012 16:00:08 GMT 3
Kamale & others
I can see the mutilators are wringing their hands with glee ready to put their dirty fingers on the katiba to do what they do best. It is not going to be as easy as some people think. Amendments will happen but mutilations to transform the meaning and intent of the constitution are going to be a nightmare.
May be history repeats itself but we have to remember one thing. Every time it comes around it is loaded with infinite complications. It is never the same thing. The 1964 Lancaster House katiba was decimated by the rascals under the leadership of kamaliza but anybody thinking there will be a new round of that is dreaming. This is why.
The architecture of the Lancaster constitution is very different from the one we have now. If you are in the demolition business it is important to know the architecture of what you are supposed to demolish.
The Lancaster katiba revolved around protecting colonial interests and gave the country most of the fundamental rights in constitutions at the time. It pre-supposed a parliamentary system of government complete with regional authorities. It was good enough but it made one big mistake.
The constitution was premised on the notion that politicians are fairly decent people who have a duty to preserve what is good for their country. Big mistake. We had rascals in power who grabbed everything in site and the first thing they had to grab was power.
Also we have to remember that Kenyatta many times did not care about the constitution, same with Moi after him and even Kibaki. Political assassinations were never in our constitution and yet they defined the political landscape of Kenya very often. There are some many things where the crooks in power just abused the law and did what they wanted. That is for another day.
The new katiba has one distinct characteristic. It's architecture is premised on the lived experience of Kenya that politicians are terrible people. They have no respect for the law. Given any chance they will dismantle anything in their way and that includes constitutions.
Our new constitution is built to try to ensure that even if the devils themselves are running the show, the nation can still be safe. I had that discussion along time ago with PLO when he was working with the BOMAS process. I am paraphrasing his words.
Our new constitution is therefore loaded with checks and balances that is a politician's worst nightmare. They will fool around with it but it is going to serve the country for a very long time. They can't touch anything that touches on the Bill of Rights without facing a referendum which scares them to death. Ordinary folks have the powers to take them to court.
The citizens have the tools to deal with these people and they will do so when necessary. Like I say many times we cannot afford the luxury of cynicism where we throw our hands up and take whetever is thrown at us. Those who moved the chains to this level had a much harder job than we have in preserving it. There is no need for panic. Certainly not our side of the equation
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Mar 16, 2012 2:21:57 GMT 3
Now here we go: www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000054160&cid=4&ttl=Parliament%20declines%20to%20debate%20Kibaki's%20memorandum%20on%20Bill Stupid is as stupid does. This thing is a mess. Kibaki has rejected the devolution bill because he wants to keep his DCs, DOs etc under the OP running around. Kibaki argues this is because the national government has jurisdiction on national security. I have no problem with that argument because as I have said before, I don't trust local warlords who may become governors etc having an army of A.Ps etc to terrorize local folk for their own political agenda. Now it turns out the same president already signed into law the National Police Services Act which gives the governor the exact same authority he is claiming they should not have. Without going through the whole tom and jerry show of Kibaki and parliament the thing that I found really stupid is that the government is telling M.Ps to accept Kibaki's request (whatever it is) and address the issues of how the new system works when they discuss the National Administration and Coordination Bill. Basically the government is saying let's have a slot for thousands of state employees under the old PA system thrown to the counties to work for State House without even asking what they will do and then try to figure out what they will do when we eventually get down to discussing the National Administration and Coordination Bill. That is just utter nonsense. Why can't the government remove the DCs, DOs, and the entire PA system from the devolution bill and take it along with the National Administration Bill so that M.Ps can figure first what the DCs, DOs will be doing before they determine how many are needed and in what capacity? We know tons of money will change hands in the next month to get M.Ps to accept Kibaki's demands and all sorts of numbers games will be brought in but sooner than later these blunders are going to explode in Kibaki's face if he hangs around long enough. Keep it up boys.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 16, 2012 4:11:16 GMT 3
. ... Why can't the government remove the DCs, DOs, and the entire PA system from the devolution bill and take it along with the National Administration Bill so that M.Ps can figure first what the DCs, DOs will be doing before they determine how many are needed and in what capacity?....Because government intends to use the political privilege Kenyans gave it, to have total say on the structure of provincial administration ... and to do so with a selfish intent. Its politics.
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Mar 16, 2012 4:23:42 GMT 3
. ... Why can't the government remove the DCs, DOs, and the entire PA system from the devolution bill and take it along with the National Administration Bill so that M.Ps can figure first what the DCs, DOs will be doing before they determine how many are needed and in what capacity?....Because government intends to use the political privilege Kenyans gave it, to have total say on the structure of provincial administration ... and to do so with a selfish intent. Its politics. mank,Which government were given which privileges by Kenyans and when? Secondly the so called government has no "total say" on the structure of the provincial administration as you suggest. The moi era and its "constitution" is over. Thank you very much. There is a new constitution that whatever government it is has to contend with. There is parliament which doesn't have to sing baba na mama hymns everyday. And then there are the courts being cleaned from the choir mentality. Those are just a few real developments we have to deal with as a nation. I would suggest to you that it is not that easy (or even practical) for the presidents to dictate to Kenyans what they want, or is it? I don't think so. We will see. This is a long battle that will probably take half a decade. We have the time. No problem. I wonder how much time Kibaki and his cronys have. It seems to me that they are running out of time. This is a battle Kenyans will take to a whole new level. I tend to think Kenyans want their country and I am convinced they will take it back. Woe unto those who think they can't. Yes they can and will. That is my thinking. I could be wrong. That is fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 16, 2012 5:37:27 GMT 3
Because government intends to use the political privilege Kenyans gave it, to have total say on the structure of provincial administration ... and to do so with a selfish intent. Its politics. mank,
Which government were given which privileges by Kenyans and when?
Secondly the so called government has no "total say" on the structure of the provincial administration. The moi era is over. Thank you very much.
There is a new constitution that whatever government it is has to contend with. There is parliament which doesn't have to sing baba na mama hymns. And then there are the courts.
It is not that easy for the president to dictate to Kenyans what they want, or is it? I don't think so.
We will see. This is a long battle that will probably take half a decade. We have the time. No problem. I wonder how much time and his cronys have. Adongo, Long battle it has to be indeed, if we want change ... but when we had a chance to effect the change we clamored for, we chose to play cheap politics. There is a price to pay for it. You just refuse to see my point because you are looking for easy opponents on Jukwaa as if Provincial Administration will be restructured or phased out from Jukwaa. Kibaki is reading from the same new constitution. You should revisit the same.
|
|