The Departmental Committee on Administration and Internal Security has rejected the Assumption of the Office of President and Transition of Executive Authority Bill, 2025, citing a range of practical and legal concerns following a meticulous review.
Sponsored by the Leader of Majority, Kimani Ichung’wah, the Bill aimed to expand the existing framework for executive transitions but faced significant hurdles that led to its dismissal.
The committee’s rejection stemmed from several key issues identified during its analysis.
The Bill proposed the creation of a 25-member Executive Authority Committee, including high-ranking officials such as the Attorney-General, Principal Secretaries, and the Chief of the Kenya Defence Forces.
The committee deemed this structure impractical, arguing that the large size and complex composition could hinder efficient decision-making and lead to logistical challenges during the transition period.
The Bill’s requirement for a Transition Secretariat was criticised for lacking clear funding and operational mechanisms.
The committee noted that while the Secretariat was intended to support the transition process, the absence of a defined budget or resource allocation made its implementation unfeasible, potentially burdening existing state resources without clear justification.
A significant point of contention was the bill’s overlap with the current Assumption of the Office of President Act, 2012, and the Constitution.
The clause on security briefings was seen as redundant, as it mirrored existing constitutional provisions under Articles 141 and 158, which already govern the assumption of office and security arrangements.
The committee argued that this redundancy could create confusion and legal conflicts, undermining the clarity of current laws.
Stakeholder submissions further influenced the decision.
The State Department for Parliamentary Affairs and the Office of the Attorney-General highlighted the Bill’s inadequate provisions for public participation, a constitutional requirement under Article 10.
The Kenya Law Reform Commission echoed these concerns, noting that the proposed public officer obligations and transition procedures lacked enforceable mechanisms, rendering them ineffective.
Additionally, the Bill’s expansive scope, covering transitions for Cabinet Secretaries, the Attorney-General, Principal Secretaries, and the Secretary to the Cabinet, was viewed as overly ambitious.
The committee found that the detailed processes could disrupt the orderly transfer of executive authority rather than facilitate it, especially given the short 90-day transition period outlined in the Bill.
Financial implications also played a role, with prohibition on Cabinet Secretaries or Principal Secretaries making commitments without approval from the Head of Public Service seen as overly restrictive and potentially hindering governance continuity.
In its observations, the committee concluded that the Bill’s implementation would likely lead to inefficiencies and potential governance gaps.
This assessment, coupled with the lack of practical support from state departments, led to the formal recommendation to reject the Bill.
