The transfer of Kenya’s Public Seal from the Attorney General’s office to the Head of Public Service has sparked a major legal and political controversy, with Rarieda MP Otiende Amollo at the forefront. Amollo argues that this move, as reported by The Standard, is unconstitutional, lacking a legal basis under Section 28 of the Office of the Attorney General Act, and undermines the separation of powers.
Amollo’s position is that the Public Seal, a symbol of government authority, must remain independent from executive influence. He warns that centralizing its custody could lead to misuse, given the Head of Public Service’s closer ties to the President. This concern highlights the tension between maintaining checks and balances and the government’s push for efficiency, a delicate balance in Kenya’s political landscape.
The government defends the change, claiming it will streamline decision-making, but Amollo disputes this, arguing no legal amendments justify the shift. He sees it as a potential power grab, not a necessity, reflecting broader worries about executive overreach. The debate underscores the clash between administrative goals and constitutional principles, a familiar theme in Kenyan politics.
Amollo’s challenge has broader implications for constitutional offices, emphasizing the seal’s role in legal authority and the need to protect institutional independence. His call for adherence to the law resonates with legal experts and opposition figures concerned about erosion of these principles. This case could influence how constitutional roles are interpreted moving forward.
As the controversy continues, the public and legal community seek clarity on the government’s motives and the move’s legal impact. Amollo’s arguments ensure the issue remains under scrutiny, potentially shaping Kenya’s governance future.
Leave a Reply