The new political battlefield is no longer Parliament. It is the institutions that were created to ensure that power itself remains accountable /STAR ILLUSTRATION
Kenya’s
political battles are no longer confined to Parliament, political rallies or
election campaigns. Increasingly, they are being fought within the very
institutions that the constitution established to stand above politics.
From
the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission to the Independent Policing
Oversight Authority, from the Judiciary to the Office of the Auditor General
and ethics agencies, independent institutions are finding themselves at the
centre of intense political contests.
The real struggle in Kenya today is no
longer simply about who wins power. It is about who influences the institutions
meant to check that power.
The
framers of the 2010 Constitution understood that democracy cannot rely solely
on elected leaders. Government’s change, political alliances shift and public
opinion fluctuates.
Independent institutions were therefore created to provide
continuity, accountability and oversight regardless of which administration
occupies State House. Their legitimacy rests on one principle. They must remain
independent of political interests.
Yet
recent developments suggest that this independence is facing increasing
pressure.
The
IEBC is once again under public scrutiny as it oversees by elections while
preparing for the more consequential task of managing the 2027 general election.
Every decision it makes is interpreted through a political lens.
Success is no
longer measured only by the efficient conduct of elections but by whether every
political actor accepts the commission as impartial. In a country where
elections have repeatedly tested national unity, public confidence in the
electoral agency is as important as the legal framework that governs it.
The
debate surrounding proposals to place Ipoa under the Ministry of Interior
raises even more fundamental questions. Oversight institutions exist to provide
independent scrutiny of state agencies.
Their effectiveness depends on both
operational autonomy and public confidence that they can investigate without
fear or favour.
Once an oversight agency is perceived to be too close to the
institution it is expected to oversee, questions about its credibility
inevitably follow. Whether or not such concerns are justified, perception often
shapes public trust as much as reality.
The
Judiciary has equally found itself navigating an increasingly complex political
environment. Court decisions on matters of governance frequently attract
criticism from those dissatisfied with the outcome.
Judges are expected to
interpret the law rather than accommodate political interests, yet public
debate increasingly places them under partisan scrutiny. This trend risks
eroding confidence in one of the constitution’s most important guardians.
Perhaps
the most overlooked institution in this conversation is the auditor general.
Year after year, audit reports expose irregular expenditure, stalled projects
and weaknesses in public financial management.
These reports generate headlines
and parliamentary debate, yet many of the concerns raised remain unresolved.
This raises an uncomfortable question. Has the Auditor General become an
institution that identifies problems but lacks sufficient mechanisms to ensure
meaningful corrective action?
The
same challenge confronts ethics and anti-corruption agencies. Every
investigation involving senior public officials quickly becomes politically
charged.
Supporters describe investigations as politically motivated while
opponents portray them as long overdue accountability.
Lost in this political
contest is the original purpose of these institutions, which is to enforce
integrity standards fairly, consistently and without regard to political
affiliation.
None
of these institutions was designed to be popular. They were designed to be
independent. Their constitutional role is to make difficult decisions, hold
public officials accountable and protect the public interest even when doing so
attracts criticism.
That responsibility becomes impossible if every decision is
viewed primarily through a political lens.
Kenya’s
democracy will ultimately be judged not only by the elections it conducts or
the governments it elects, but by whether its independent institutions remain
strong enough to exercise their constitutional mandates without intimidation, interference
or undue influence.
The new political battlefield is no longer Parliament. It
is the institutions that were created to ensure that power itself remains
accountable.
If those institutions are weakened, the greatest casualty will not
be any political party. It will be public trust in the constitutional order
itself.
The writer is a political analyst
