On 2018-11-21, President Uhuru Kenyatta’s instruction to Cabinet Secretaries to take their work seriously signaled more than routine impatience. It reflected clear dissatisfaction with how some of them were performing and raised the question of whether underperforming ministers should be retained at all.
A closer look at the Cabinet, the article argues, shows a mixed picture. A few ministers are described as committed, public-minded and effective in their dockets. Others, however, are said to be invisible in the offices they lead, having either lost momentum after a strong start or settled into grandstanding without delivering results.
The debate goes beyond personalities and into the structure of government. Under the Constitution, the Cabinet is meant to be non-political, with appointments based on competence and protection from political pressure. In principle, the President has the power to appoint people with the right qualifications and experience.
In practice, the article says, that standard is not always met. Some appointments are made for political convenience or narrow ethnic interests, and the result is weak performance that has now drawn the President’s anger.
Accountability is also complicated by the fact that the Cabinet answers directly to Parliament. Cabinet Secretaries are not Members of Parliament and do not sit in the House, which limits direct questioning on the floor. They may appear before committees, but the article notes that Parliament once offered a stronger platform for enforcing responsibility.
That gap has fed calls for constitutional review to deal with unresolved governance problems. The current arrangement leaves the President setting targets for ministers and their technocrats, but those targets are not made public, making it difficult for citizens to judge whether promises are being met.
The article further says that even where performance targets exist, follow-up is weak and consequences are rarely imposed on the basis of results. For that reason, it argues that the system must be made to work in a real and measurable way.
If the President is genuinely dissatisfied, the piece concludes, he should do more than issue warnings. He has the legal and administrative authority to remove non-performers and replace them with competent people who can deliver.
Threats alone, the article says, are not enough. The logical next step is to send the non-performers packing.
