On 21 November 2018, women legislators mounted a public defence of the gender bill, rejecting claims that it was designed to create political slots for “slay queens” or the girlfriends and boyfriends of the political and business class.
The pushback came after Tongaren MP Eseli Simiyu dismissed the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill 2018 as a lazy way of meeting the constitutional rule that no more than two-thirds of appointive and elective public positions should be held by one gender.
Woman Representatives Faith Gitau of Nyandarua and Sabina Chege of Murang’a said the proposal was not limited to women. They argued that it also sought to improve representation for marginalised groups, including persons with disabilities, the youth and ethnic minorities, and said the National Assembly had a duty to align the law with Article 81(b) of the Constitution.
“This bill is not about slay queens, boyfriends or girlfriends of the politically connected. It is about the women of Kenya,” Ms Gitau said, with Ms Chege adding that Parliament should pass the law or risk dissolution.
The bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Aden Duale, was scheduled for a vote the following Tuesday and needed a two-thirds majority — 233 of the 349 MPs in the National Assembly — to pass. If approved, it would open the way for Article 97 of the Constitution to be amended and for additional nomination seats for women beyond the 12 already provided.
Not everyone on the floor was convinced. Nominated MP David Sankok said the proposal would not help women in rural areas because nominations would likely favour those close to political power. Kimilili MP Didmus Barasa said he was not against more seats for women, but questioned the nomination formula and warned that deserving candidates could be sacrificed to political interests.
“We are not opposed to women getting more seats, what we want to know is the formula being used in this because our women will be at the mercy of their party leaders,” Mr Barasa said.
Dr Simiyu argued that the deeper fix lay in changing the electoral system rather than passing what he called a weak legislative response. He said proportional representation would better address gender imbalance and include youth without expanding the size of the House.
“This bill is trying to solve a complex problem through a lazy legislation,” he said.
He also pointed to the bill’s 20-year sunset clause, saying women would still not have been sufficiently empowered or mentored by the time it expired. In his view, the first-past-the-post system itself needed review, with proportional representation offering a more workable route for women and youth.
Electoral experts have long favoured proportional representation, under which parties receive seats in Parliament according to their strength. That model allows parties to nominate members instead of relying on the winner-takes-all approach used in first-past-the-post contests.
Even so, Kandara MP Alice Wahome warned that failure to pass the law could expose Parliament to dissolution. She said any person could move to court and seek dissolution for missing the constitutional deadline.
The law was originally due in 2015, five years after the new Constitution was promulgated. Parliament later amended the Constitution to extend the deadline by two more years.
“Let’s affirm the position of the boy-child because marginalisation can also catch up with him. In 2016, the Supreme Court gave this House up to August of 2016 to come up with this legislation but it has never happened,” Ms Wahome said.
