The foul public exchanges between President William Ruto and his two former allies-turned-foes speak to a major constitutional question that needs formal investigation and conclusion. Is the country in the right hands?
Recent outbursts by two senior political leaders in lengthy television interviews paint the picture of a president in breach of office, the law and the Constitution, and basic common decency. Apart from intentional breaches, they raise the question of the president’s mental suitability to lead. They point to the need for State House to come clean on allegations of abuse of office. But, perhaps more significant, is the question of the president’s physical and mental fitness to hold that office, weighed against Article 144 of the Constitution of Kenya (2010).
The former Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua, and former Attorney General and Public Service CS, Justin Muturi, have raised issues that need formal substantiation. In the alternative, the two may have to eat their words and apologise for misleading Kenyans. Would a quasi-judicial process be necessary, to look into the serious allegations against the president, in the face of these public accusations? Is Ruto misusing authority and abusing the power of Kenya’s highest public office, for illicit personal gain? Is he mentally fit to hold office? Civilised society does not allow such questions to vaporise without formal investigation and conclusion.
The foul public exchanges between President William Ruto and his two former allies-turned-foes speak to a major constitutional question that needs formal investigation and conclusion. Is the country in the right hands?
By Barrack Muluka