Senate's Justice, Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee chairman Hillary Sigei/ HANDOUT A fierce debate has erupted in the Senate over repeated political nominations, with lawmakers divided on whether nominated MPs and MCAs should be limited to a single five-year term.
The debate comes amid concerns about political patronage and the exclusion of deserving Kenyans from nomination slots.
Some senators accused political parties of recycling nominees at the expense of women, young people and persons with disabilities.
Others, however, defended repeat nominations as necessary to reward experience and loyalty.
At the centre of the dispute was a petition by public interest litigator Laban Omusundi, who sought legislation limiting nominated Members of County Assemblies to one five-year term.
The Senate’s Justice, Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, chaired by Senator Hillary Sigei, rejected the proposal.
The committee argued that political parties should retain discretion to nominate individuals, provided they comply with constitutional requirements on gender balance and representation of special interest groups.
“The committee was convinced that we should not accede to creating that limitation of a timeline of a five-year single term,” Sigei said.
Sigei told the House that stakeholders had expressed divergent views, with the majority opposing restrictions on repeat nominations.
He argued that nominations serve different purposes, including recognising party loyalists, accommodating individuals who lose elections and ensuring representation for marginalised communities.
However, Kakamega Senator Boni Khalwale challenged the committee’s position, arguing that repeated nominations deny other qualified Kenyans an opportunity to serve.
“How can we, with such a huge pool of deserving Kenyans, nominate anybody more than once? When will the others benefit?” he posed.
Khalwale cited women, who account for 52 per cent of the population, young people at 35 per cent and approximately 2.7 million persons with disabilities as groups that should benefit from affirmative action.
He accused some party leaders of using nomination slots to reward relatives and romantic partners instead of advancing constitutional representation.
“Some nominating leaders of political parties end up nominating girlfriends, relatives and some even nominate their children,” he said.
Khalwale vowed to pursue legislative amendments despite the committee’s rejection of the petition.
He argued that nomination should provide opportunities to deserving individuals who would otherwise struggle to enter elective politics.
He also proposed that women representatives should be elected by women in their respective counties, arguing that this would allow women to determine who best represents their interests.
Senate Majority Leader Aaron Cheruiyot, however, defended the committee’s position, saying political parties needed flexibility to reward individuals who contribute to party organisation and electoral campaigns.
Cheruiyot said managing party affairs, resolving electoral disputes and coordinating nominations required specialised skills that could justify repeated appointments.
“From my experience as a legislator, you actually get better in legislation with time,” he said, arguing that experience improves the quality of debate and legislative performance.
He acknowledged that nomination exercises can be chaotic and sometimes violent, leaving parties with difficult decisions on how to compensate or accommodate individuals who contribute to their political success.
Cheruiyot nevertheless suggested that lawmakers could consider restrictions after more than two terms, particularly where nominees had already gained substantial experience.
Vihiga Senator Godfrey Osotsi said the controversy had exposed deeper weaknesses in the nomination system, particularly the limited support and independence afforded to nominated legislators.
Osotsi argued that nominated members often lacked resources for oversight and could be pressured into supporting county executives that facilitated their nominations.
He called for reforms to ensure nominations genuinely advance affirmative action rather than turn nominated representatives into voting instruments for governors.
“This is an eye-opener that the whole law on nomination as contained in the Elections Act should be reviewed,” he said.
Osotsi also challenged lawmakers to reconsider term limits across elective positions, arguing that fresh leadership should have opportunities to emerge.
Nominated Senator Tabitha Mutinda supported the committee, warning that restricting nominated MCAs to one term could deny young leaders sufficient time to develop their political careers.
She argued that nomination could serve as a stepping stone to elective office, citing the example of leaders who had moved from county assemblies to Parliament.
Nominated Senator Margaret Kamar also backed the committee, saying one term was insufficient for nominated members to demonstrate their leadership abilities.
Kamar defended the contribution of nominated legislators, particularly women, and called for better funding for their oversight responsibilities.
She said nominated senators often played a crucial role in committee work but lacked the resources available to elected members.
INSTANT ANALYSIS
The debate ultimately highlighted a central question facing political parties ahead of the 2027 General Election: whether nomination slots should remain largely at party leaders’ discretion or be governed by tighter safeguards to widen access to political representation.
While the committee recommended rejecting Omusundi’s petition, senators’ sharply contrasting positions signalled that the nomination system, affirmative action and the treatment of nominated legislators will remain contentious issues as parties prepare for the next election.
