Siaya Governor James Orengo during a past event/COURTESYSiaya Governor James Orengo has suffered another setback after the County Assembly's Appointments Committee rejected the nomination of some of his Cabinet nominees, ruling that their resubmission violated the law governing public appointments.
The committee, chaired by Speaker George Okode, said the nominees were ineligible because they had previously been rejected by the County Assembly and the appointing authority had failed to demonstrate that the circumstances leading to their earlier rejection had changed.
During the vetting exercise, Okode told the nominees that the committee's concerns were directed at the appointing authority rather than the candidates themselves, saying the law places the responsibility on the governor to justify the resubmission of previously rejected nominees.
"We are also alive to the fact that the obligations in the Act are bestowed on the appointing authority and not you," Okode told the nominees.
He referred to Section 10 of the County Assembly Approval Act, 2017, explaining that where the County Assembly rejects a nominee, the appointing authority is required to submit the name of another candidate.
According to the Speaker, the law only permits the resubmission of a previously rejected nominee if the circumstances that led to the rejection no longer exist.
"When a nomination of a candidate is rejected by the County Assembly, the appointing authority shall submit to the County Assembly the name of another candidate," Okode said while reading the law to the nominees.
He further cited the provision stating that a nominating authority "shall not resubmit the name of a candidate whose nomination has been rejected by the County Assembly unless the circumstances relied on for the rejection of the appointment of the candidate did not exist or ceased to exist."
Okode said the committee had not been provided with any information demonstrating that the issues which informed the earlier rejection had been addressed.
"What we are saying is, it is not your work, it is not your burden, it is the burden of the appointing authority," he said.
He added that the committee would have preferred to receive an explanation from the appointing authority rather than the nominees themselves.
"We have heard you, the committee has heard you. We would have had more issues with the appointing authority than you because it is the appointing authority that ought to have demonstrated the change in circumstance," Okode said.
One of the nominees attempted to explain changes in his professional background, telling the committee that his career had evolved over time.
"My career initially, I was a teacher. I left the classroom and went into banking, so I think there were some changes," the nominee said.
He also told the committee that he had contacted the Teachers Service Commission in an effort to obtain documentation relating to his employment history.
"Yesterday I called the TSC director in Nairobi... the records of that time require a little bit of writing and all that," he said.
Despite the explanation, the committee maintained that the burden of proving compliance with the law rested with the appointing authority and not the nominees.
The committee consequently ruled that the repeat nominations did not meet the legal threshold set out in the County Assembly Approval Act and rejected them.
