On 22 November 2018, women MPs mounted a defence of the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill 2018, insisting the proposal was aimed at widening representation in public office and not creating opportunities for “slay queens” or politically connected girlfriends and boyfriends.
The debate came after Tongaren MP Eseli Simiyu attacked the measure as a sign of laziness in meeting the constitutional rule that no more than two-thirds of appointive and elective positions in public office should be held by one gender. He argued that Parliament should look for a deeper electoral fix instead of relying on what he called a weak legislative shortcut.
Woman Representatives Faith Gitau of Nyandarua and Sabina Chege of Murang’a said the bill was not only about women. They said it also speaks to the representation of marginalised groups, including persons with disabilities, youth and ethnic minorities, and argued that the National Assembly must pass it to remain aligned with Article 81(b) of the Constitution.
Ms Gitau said, “This bill is not about slay queens, boyfriends or girlfriends of the politically connected. It is about the women of Kenya,” while Ms Chege warned 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 allow Article 97 of the Constitution to be amended and open the door to extra nomination seats for women beyond the 12 already provided.
Not all supporters agreed on the method. Nominated MP David Sankok said the proposal would not necessarily help women in rural areas, arguing that it could still favour those close to political power. Kimilili MP Didmus Barasa also backed the idea of more women in Parliament, but said there had to be a clear nomination formula so deserving candidates were not 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 pushed for a broader change in the electoral system, saying proportional representation would be a better answer to gender imbalance than expanding the House through what he described as lazy legislation. He said the bill’s 20-year sunset clause would still leave women without enough empowerment or mentorship by the time it expired.
He added: “Let’s look at the electoral laws. Is the first-past-the-post the best electoral system? Let’s consider proportional representation to have women and youth catered for without bloating this House. This one is too lazy and it won’t work,” the MP said.
Electoral experts have favoured proportional representation, under which parties are allocated seats in Parliament according to their parliamentary strength. That model allows parties to nominate members, unlike the winner-takes-all first-past-the-post system.
Kandara MP Alice Wahome, however, warned that Parliament could be dissolved if the law was not passed. She said any person could move to court and seek dissolution for failure to enact the legislation within the required period.
The law was originally due in 2015, five years after the promulgation of the new Constitution, but Parliament later amended the Constitution to extend the deadline by two more years. Ms Wahome said the Supreme Court had in 2016 given the House until August 2016 to complete the legislation, but that had not happened.
“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.
The dispute left the House split between those warning of legal consequences and those demanding a clearer system for nominations before any expansion of seats is approved.
