Close allies of Deputy President William Ruto have threatened legal action to force the removal from office of ministers who support Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) leader Raila Odinga’s 2022 presidential bid.
United Democratic Alliance (UDA) party leaders have vowed to file a lawsuit against Cabinet Secretaries Fred Matiang’i and Joe Mucheru for allegedly violating the leadership and integrity Act by taking sides in political campaigns.
The party has accused the two highly influential ministers of biased views despite calls for political neutrality of State officers and public officials.
UDA argues that the duo cannot be trusted to discharge their duties impartially as they have already endorsed the ODM leader’s campaigns and have been attacking Dr Ruto.
In a letter to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, the party claimed the ministers would be central to preparations for the polls due to their roles as heads of security and Information Technology.
“We’ll have to pursue this matter through other legal means. IEBC will be held responsible for any bungled electoral process,” said UDA chairperson Johnson Muthama.
Murang’a Senator Irungu Kang’ata added: “UDA might be compelled to file a lawsuit against state servants violating the Leadership and Integrity Act. The law compels state servants to act in a neutral manner.”
Speaking in Nyamira a fortnight ago, Dr Matiang’i declared support for the ‘handshake’ between President Kenyatta and Mr Odinga.
“I have now told you where I am. I cannot be where Mr Odinga and President Kenyatta are not,” he said.
Dismissed bottom-up model
Mr Mucheru has in the past dismissed Dr Ruto’s bottom-up economic approach and accused “Bible-waving politicians of misleading the youth”.
Read: Mucheru hits out at Ruto’s wheelbarrow narrative
IEBC chairman Wafula Chebukati acknowledged UDA’s concerns in a November 5 letter to its secretary-general, Ms Veronica Maina, saying all State officers and public officials should uphold political neutrality.
“The provisions of the constitution, the Public Officers Ethics Act, 2003 and the Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012 prohibit State officers and Public officers from engaging in any political activity that may compromise the neutrality of the office they hold,” he stated.
“We wish to observe that whereas Section 23 of the Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012 seems to give Cabinet Secretaries and County Executive Committee Members a lifeline to engage in political activity, that statutory provision no doubt falls foul of the Constitutional underpins under Chapter Six of the Constitution. There is need for all State officers and Public Officers to uphold political neutrality.”
Besides the courts, UDA could take the parliamentary route, which provides for the removal of a CS.
It requires that a motion compelling the President to dismiss a CS on grounds of gross violation of the constitution, gross misconduct and suspicions of a serious offence be supported by at least a quarter of all the members of the National Assembly (87).
It must be supported by at least one-third of members (116) for the House to appoint a select committee to investigate the claims against the CS.
<p class="story-body-text" …….