Abstract

Ever since the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 was adopted, Nigerians have roundly denounced it as not being a proper reflection of their common will, but a bitter pill delivered by the departing military junta. The continued chasms and contours in the denigration of the document, pressured governments upon governments to make effort at repairing it. The result has been several constitutional conferences convoked to force a new constitution, but all have achieved little. More than two decades after its enactment, the question remains why Nigerians are unhappy with the document, and what can be done to address their unhappiness?

This article presents a critical inquiry into these issues. It examines how the current Constitution came to be and how its problem of legitimacy has become a national malaise. It argues that even though the people’s pursuit of a new constitution is in order, the route adopted may just be the disorder. Also, the fact that the relentless agitation for a brand-new Constitution has continued to meet with a brick wall may be a pointer that it is the wrong approach to a generally understood problem. It recommends that a more viable solution may lie in adopting a known, yet difficult pathway, i.e. one in which constitutional legitimacy, though not acquired in the original sense, can however be perfected over time through a progressive acceptance of the Constitution by the people. It submits that this progressive acquisition of legitimacy can be attained by the people continuously demanding good governance and strategically owning the political process, with a view to using the same Constitution’s amendment process, to rework it for their good.

Abstract

The Constitution of Kenya makes public participation indispensable when it comes to matters of governance and development. Both national and county governments are required to inculcate public participation in their operations. This article explores the meaning, scope and role of public participation within the context of devolution in Kenya. The article then argues that public participation must embrace the realities of the digital revolution in the 21st century, and suggests some of the ways in which information technology can be embraced as an effective platform for public participation in Kenya.

Abstract

The scourge of corruption has permeated all levels of government, with anecdotal accounts referring to ‘devolved corruption’, used to explain the fact that corruption has been rampant in the counties since the introduction of devolved governments in 2013. Where corruption flourishes, development and the rule of law fail. It is therefore essential that the government and other stakeholders take concerted measures to tackle corruption. Despite efforts to respond to this challenge, not much has managed to deter the vice. However, in the recent past, courts have made rulings that raised questions about what should happen when governors are on trial for corruption. The decisions of the courts have drawn mixed reactions from different quarters. There are those who believe the rulings by the courts amount to the unconstitutional removal of elected governors as they do not follow the laid-down procedure in the Constitution and other relevant laws. To others, the decisions are a timely and adequate response to the scourge of corruption. It is against this backdrop that this case review analyses the two cases of Moses Kasaine Lenolkulal v Director of Public Prosecutions and that of Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu Babayao v Republic [2019] eKLR which had similar outcomes in barring the accused governors from accessing their offices while corruption investigations were ongoing. The authors argue that the courts’ approach was progressive and in line with the 2010 Constitution of Kenya.