The incoming boundaries review should be a leeway to peaceful, unity and development but not a clandestine tribal conflicts- boundary changes won’t determine election fate

 

The impact of a redrawn constituency map will be dwarfed by other electoral forces

The redrawing of constituency boundaries is always a contentious issue. MPs who thought they had a safe seat can find their political careers put in peril by a seemingly arbitrary line drawn across a map. Parties worry about whether the changes might make it more difficult for them to win an overall majority. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) has been dysfunctional since the August 2022 General Election. Article 89 of the constitution requires the commission to review names and boundaries of constituencies at intervals of not less than eight years and not more than 12.

Further, the commission is mandated to review the number, names, and boundaries of wards periodically.

But the number of constituencies must be maintained at 290 as stated in the constitution. The last delimitation or fixing the boundary was conducted in 2012. In 2012, complaints were raised regarding how 80 extra constituencies and 1,450 county assembly wards were created, their distribution, their names, boundaries, and areas of allocation- According to the Constitution, IEBC is required to demarcate the boundaries every eight to 12 years and not later than 12 years.

It is dictated by the periodic population growth and is aimed at ensuring there is equitable distribution of resources ranging from constituency development funds to government facilities.

IEBC is expected to use the 2019 census which placed the total country’s population at 47.5 million in a process to be concluded this year. During the last review, a constituency was defined by a population quota of 132,138.

The law provides that the population of a constituency must be higher or lower than its quota by 40 per cent for cities and sparsely populated areas, and 30 per cent for other areas.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission are faced with a monumental and politically touchy task of reviewing of the incoming constituency boundaries.

The number of constituencies is set at 290 and the IEBC cannot reduce the number but it can propose newer constituencies and mergers — sensitive issues. It also can change the number of wards from the current 1,450 — another sensitive issue.

Politicians, in particular, have long had cause for concern given that for much of the population growing bigger creating a vacuum of considerations. IEBC were meant to start demarcations with several challenges lie ahead, including a limited budget, strict timeless and the absence of a clear framework to guide the statutory exercise if is the case the review will be halted automatically- currently many leaders are rolling up their sleeves to ensure their constituency won’t be affected in any way. Also some leaders are on relentless effort to have additional wards in their constituency. They are attempting all possible ways to compromise the incoming exercise of the boundary review- As we know the census result was challenged in the court.

As we gear towards to this fragile journey of revisiting our boundaries, an exercise that no doubt will be marred by events of abnormalities – no single politician want their constituency either be merged or dissolved- in Wajir county it will be another flip-side of the event, today every lips of Wajir residents debates of how the boundary review will unfold- some arguing of it will follow the colonial landmark to stretch their interest politically. 

With lack of population threshold quarter no doubts some constituency will be scrapped but that won’t be a walk in the park why we know how our political set up is, again with corruption loopholes cannot be denied - Not least of the reasons why reform has proven so difficult is that, in embarking on a new review in March 2024. the politician not only radically intervene the exercise under which the constitution  operate but also propose changes in legal framework through parliament- they will table motion or even or further amend acts so that favours their calls- to survive politically . Our politics is based on balkanized thus it will not be easy some constituencies to be scrapped. As a result of the extensive redrawing of the law this will cater their interest- their career is safe.

Wajir County is one of the regions that may either some constituencies to be dissolved or margin -  Eldas was demarcated from the mother Wajir west, Tarbaj from Wajir East if the population quota used unless the push from the concern parties availed of which already the process is on the pipeline – so with this in place we may face defaults in existence as community – extra wards demarcated from their wards example ; splitting of existing wards into: Wagalla, Ganyurey, Hadado, Athibohol, Griftu, Ademasajida  while another extra will ones created example; Garseyqoftu some source reveal - if this to go by when the exercise starts equal representation will be achieved.

In short, the changed electoral geography bequeathed by the 2009 census gene it will likely impact of the boundary review. Some constituencies protected by the Ligale Commission included Lamu East, Lamu West, Mvita, Mwatate, Wundanyi, Voi, Bura, Galole, Isiolo South, Kilome, Laisamis, North Horr, Saku, Siakago (now Mbeere North), Ndaragwa, Tetu, Murkurweini, Othaya and Kangema. They are some of the constituencies that risk losing their status for not meeting the population quota.

Others were Mathioya, Samburu East, Marakwet East, Keiyo North, Mogotio, Vihiga and Budalang’i.

The Ligale Commission decided these constituencies could continue to exist — with the understanding they would be reviewed in the coming boundary review.

Also obstructing a rational exercise are the emotions and political interests the review generates. No one wants to lose their seat and the community that voted for him or her

To bring sanity in formation of the incoming the boundary review, the senate passed a Bill that will act pivotal in ensure cohesiveness and tranquility in our counties, in alteration to wards, constituencies if not keenly looked into there will be a spillover of mayhem and conflicts- because no community wants to lose an inch of their indigenous land – due to the high voltage of politics sometimes things can get out of hand thus causing wanton repercussions. To harmonize tranquility, fair representation the Senate tried to enact laws that heavenly will impact in the incoming boundary review- they passed the County Boundaries Bill despite many times the Bill was considered to be passed but failed . The Bill was considered by the Senate on l4th October 2021, but was held up in the National Assembly on the matter of concurrence as provided in Article I10(3) of the Constitution. The Bill was also considered and passed by the Senate on 3^rd October 2018. The Bill was forwarded to the National Assembly for consideration in accordance with Article 110 of the Constitution,   However, on 12th August 2020, the National

Assembly declared the Bill a money Bill, and therefore could not be proceeded

With. Additionally, during the 11th parliament, the Bill had been considered by the

Senate, but it was not passed into law.  Furthermore, the High Court Decision in Petition No. 284 of 2019 held that the concurrence process under Article 110(3) of the Constitution is mandatory and is a

Condition precedent before any House of Parliament can consider a Bill. The Court

Further ordered the immediate cessation of consideration of all Bills that were

Pending before either House, and for which joint concurrence by the Speakers of

Both Houses could not be demonstrated In order to allow such Bills to be

Subjected to the mandatory joint concurrence process contemplated under Article

110 (3) of the Constitution; as part of implementing the Court decision, it was

Determined that concurrence as required by the Constitution could not be

demonstrated in respect of this Bill. Consequently, the Bill was withdrawn and

Republished in compliance with the Court orders in Petition No. 284 of 2019.

 

 Article 6(l) of the Constitution provides that the territory of Kenya is divided into the

Forty-seven counties specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution. However, the

Constitution does not set out the boundaries of these counties.

 It is however a matter of notoriety that the boundaries of the counties are the districts

And their boundaries as set out in the Districts and Provinces Act, No. 5 of 1992.

Indeed, the Report of the Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review (October,

2010) states as follows 

"For the units of county governments, the Districts enacted in 1992 by the District

And Provinces Act were adopted as proposed counties... it was necessary to

Establish units of devolved government ...that could be effective for this purpose...

This, and the fact that they were lawfully recognized administrative units, explains

         The adoption of the 1992 Districts. ... The [Constitutional provided for a review of

boundaries by a specialized commission. The object of including the units of

devolution to this Draft was to provide a starting point for a new dispensation of

devolved units but the boundaries of the devolved units could then be altered in

Accordance with the procedure provided.

It is to be noted that, whereas electoral boundaries would be reviewed and could

change periodically, those for the counties as units of devolution would not

Change regularly.

There is presently no mechanism for alteration of county boundaries despite the fact

That Article 188 of the Constitution gives Parliament the mandate to alter the

boundaries.

 The Bill therefore provides for the mechanism for such alteration. It also

Ensures that a high threshold will have to be met by any party desiring to alter the

boundaries of any given county.

Further, since the promulgation of the Constitution, there have been multiple disputes between counties on boundary matters. There is however no established mechanism for resolution of such disputes. The Bill therefore proposes a mechanism for

Resolution of boundary disputes through mediation. The Bill provides a mechanism for resolution of county boundary dispute, through ad hoc county boundaries mediation committee; some of the clauses of the Bill proposes that a

County boundaries mediation committee may be established by the President within

Fourteen days of a resolution of the Senate upon 

(a) A request by the governor, senator or registered voter of any county whose

Boundary is disputed; or

(b) The recommendation of the Senate made under section 20 for mediation as a

means of resolving a boundary dispute.

 

.Alteration of County Boundaries; Clause 16 of the Bill provides a mechanism for alteration of county boundaries in

Accordance with Article 188 of the Constitution, The process commences-

(a) On the recommendation by an independent commission set up for that

Purpose by parliament; and

(b) By a resolution of the National Assembly and Senate supported by two

Thirds of either all the members of the National Assembly or of the county

Delegations in the Senate;

The Bill proposes that such alteration of county boundaries may be altered to take into

Account -

(a) Population density and demographic trends;

(b) Physical and human infrastructure;

(c) Historical and cultural ties;

(d) The cost of administration;

(e) The views of the communities affected; and

 

(F) The objects of devolution of government and geographical features.

 Clause 17 provides that a petition to Parliament for the alteration of the boundaries of

A county may be made in the prescribed form by 

-

(a) Any person who is a registered voter;

(b) An elected member of the county assembly of a county whose boundary is

Proposed to be altered; this must be accompanied by a resolution of the county

Assembly supported by at least two thirds of the elected members of the county

Assembly;

(c) The Senator or a Member of the National Assembly representing a county or

Constituency within the county respectively whose boundary is proposed to be

Altered; or

(d) A county governor on behalf of a county government that proposes the alteration

of its boundary.

 

Its clearly demonstrate a way out to the any challenges to fastrack the review, on the formation of mediation, process of alteration and again the timeline for the approval of the changed of a particular constituency - WHAT we need to do is to remain sober, foster unity despite any given results- we are one as Rer Wajir – we should not take the law on our hand- the boundary should not be a means for politician to instigate or create incitement amongst the communities – clashes. Some wards will be affected.

Recently we have seen the mushrooming of new settlement it’s not anything else its boundary oriented plans- whatever the case let the concern bodies, elders, agents do a legitimate proposals – that endeavor be a peaceful exercise.

With that we have collective responsibility to make sure we live peacefully together irrespective of any affiliations- in our law its clear everyone has freedom of expression , assimilation- we should accept the right of everyone- stipulated on the chapter four- bill of rights-  both stakeholders lets led in harmony not quagmire and bloodshed.

God bless Wajir County