Daggers drawn as Bomas III kicks off

Earlier in the month, a party consultative meeting held at Nairobi's Safari Park Hotel hit an impasse after parties failed to agree on a major contentious issue - whether the country should adopt a presidential or parliamentary democracy. The differences centred mostly on whether the president should sack the prime minister without reference to parliament. While NAK wants the president to have such powers, FORD-People, KANU and LDP want those powers to be vested in parliament. Whereas LDP wants the prime minister to be given powers to co-ordinate government activities as spelt out in the Draft Constitution, NAK wants such powers to be exercised by the prime minister and the Deputy prime minister, but set out by the president. The parties' failure to agree on this contentious issue only hardens the work of delegates, who will have to lobby intensely in order to carry the day. In the event of a deadlock, a referendum - which has already generated a lot of controversy - will have to be held. LDP and NAK - both key partners in the 15-party conglomerate that form NARC - have been at loggerheads following President Mwai Kibaki's failure to implement a pre-election Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was to create the post of a premier for LDP's Raila Odinga. Even as the delegates prepared to go to Bomas, signs of mistrust and lack of confidence in the ruling coalition's rank and file was still evident. So much has been the suspicion that ministers allied to NAK, notably Kiraitu Murungi, Chris Murungaru and Charity Ngilu have been calling for the dissolution of Bomas so that the rest of the process cab be completed by legal experts. Their argument has been that the delegates cannot be left to complete the exercise, given the low quality debates that Bomas has churned out in the previous sessions. Other MPs opposed to Bomas argue that the delegates are partisan, considering that they were appointed during the KANU regime, hence their likelihood to owe their loyalty to the former governing party. But a Constitution of Kenya Review Commissioner Mr Abdirizak Nuno took issue with the MPs opposed to Bomas, arguing that such leaders had not attended the previous sessions or technical committee meetings. "Calling on experts to handle the constitution is a clear way of scuttling the whole process by people who have not attended Bomas I and II sessions", he asserted. He was supported by another commissioner, Prof Okoth Ogendo, who said that MPs who are criticizing Bomas had the worst absenteeism record. As the delegates headed to Bomas, it was clearly evident that a few chapters in the Draft Constitution would generate heated debates. Among these is Chapter 8, which talks about the Executive and the creation of the prime minister's post. Ironically, the president and his coterie had supported the premier's position when they were in the opposition but are now arguing that the creation of such a position will lead to two centers of power. Chapter 10 is also contentious and is bound to be a subject of acrimonious debate. It provides for the devolution of power to give self -governance to the people at all levels and the creation of provincial, urban, district and locational governments. Proponents of this provision argue that economic development in the country has been lopsided, as the central government has tended to favour certain regions, while neglecting others. Leaders from Coast province particularly lead in the clamour for devolution, arguing that the region has been neglected by the central government since independence. But hose opposed to this provision argue that it is an expensive exercise that will create limitless bureaucracies. The judicial system, provided for in Chapter 9 of the Draft Constitution has also become controversial. The bone of contention has been the enshrinement of the Kadhi's courts in the constitution as suggested by Muslims, but which has been vehemently opposed by Christians. The opponents of this provision argue that it amounts to declaring Islam a favoured state religion, though Muslims maintain that the Kadhi's courts have been in existence over the years. It is this same chapter that provides for the creation of a Supreme Court as the highest court in the land. But those who are opposed to the idea argue that the creation of such an institution cannot be justified given that the Court of Appeal can serve the functions for which it is to be assigned. Another contentious chapter is Chapter 7, which provides for the creation of a two-chamber legislature, similar to the one adopted at independence. But opponents of this provision say it is expensive and would complicate matters of representation, while running the risk of duplicating responsibilities. However, the most contentious provision in this chapter is the proposal to have constituents recall their non-performing MPs. This will no doubt generate a lot of controversy. Always a thorny issue in the country, land as provided for in Chapter 11 will no doubt generate endless debates. As it is, some argue that land should be redistributed, since it was to be done so at independence but this never happened. Some delegates, especially those from the coast want squatters resettled. Similarly, victims of the 1992 and 1997 ethnic clashes want laws to be enacted for the protection of legally acquired land. Human wildlife conflict, which has raged for sometime now is also likely to dominate the session. Those whose properties have been destroyed by wildlife want compensation, a matter which does not sit comfortably with the environment minister. However, it is worth noting that most of the delegates have already agreed on the need to protect the country's forests, which have been previously decimated to provide timber and land for certain people in high places. Given the differences that have dogged the review process since its inception, it remains to be seen whether the review will come to a fruitful conclusion.