Pressure is mounting among politicians and analysts as growing verbal sparring intensifies over implementing the NADCO report, proposing a prime minister seat for Raila Odinga.
The report, which was a result of a consensus-building dialogue initiated by President William Ruto and opposition leader Raila Odinga, proposes, among other things, the creation of a Prime Minister position for the latter, a move that has sharply divided the political class.
As the country grapples with post-election tensions, the proposal for a prime ministerial role for Odinga—following his loss in the 2022 contest and now AUC loss -is being hailed by some as a necessary step toward uniting the country. However, others argue it is an attempt to sideline the will of the people and could lead to further political instability.
With politicians lining up on either side of the issue, supporters of the prime ministerial position argue that it is a fair reward for Odinga, who has been a fixture in Kenya’s political landscape for over two decades. However, critics are concerned that the creation of such a position could lead to an over-centralization of power and unnecessary political bickering.
Samson Cherargei, the outspoken Senator for Nandi County and a staunch ally of President Ruto, is among those supporting the proposal.
“The idea of creating a prime ministerial position to reward a man who has done great things for Kenyans is good. It is an attempt to uphold the will of the Kenyan people and the democracy we fought so hard to establish,” Cherargei said in a recent interview.
“The position of prime minister is necessary and will only serve to create peace and unity in our country.”
Cherargei’s views are echoed by a number of his colleagues, particularly those from the Kenya Kwanza coalition, who argue that the creation of the prime minister’s office is a political maneuver to appease Odinga and his supporters.
Also, the proponents believe the creation of the position is an important step toward ensuring national unity and giving Odinga, a key figure in Kenya’s political history, a formal role in government. Mulu, a Member of Parliament from the Azimio La Umoja coalition, argues that such a move would reflect the spirit of inclusivity and consensus-building that the country desperately needs.
“We cannot continue to ignore the contributions of Raila Odinga to Kenya’s democracy,” Mulu argued.
“We must acknowledge his role in stabilizing the country and the sacrifices he has made over the years. The prime ministerial position would provide a platform for him to continue contributing to Kenya’s development in a more formal capacity.”
Mulu’s views are shared by other politicians who believe that the proposal could help heal the wounds of the past and allow for a more balanced distribution of power in government.
According to them, creating a prime ministerial role would help bring together the competing political factions and provide the country with more effective governance.
Beyond the political skirmishes, the issue has sparked an intense legal debate about whether it is even constitutionally feasible to create a position of prime minister. Critics, including legal scholars and political analysts, argue that the Kenyan Constitution, which was promulgated in 2010, does not provide for a prime ministerial role.
According to Willis Otieno, a prominent lawyer and constitutional expert, any attempt to create such a position would require a constitutional amendment, which would not be an easy task.
“While political parties may engage in discussions and negotiate on various positions, the creation of a prime minister’s office is not a simple political decision—it is a constitutional matter,” Otieno explained.
“The proposal to amend the Constitution would require a referendum, and convincing the majority of Kenyans to support such an amendment will be a difficult challenge.”
Otieno’s concerns are shared by Bobby Mkangi, a well-known political buff and lawyer, who suggests that while the proposal may seem appealing to some, its implementation could lead to unintended consequences.
“Creating a prime ministerial position may not be the silver bullet to solving Kenya’s political problems,” Mkangi warned.
“In fact, it could Introduce new complications, especially if it does not come with a clear understanding of how power will be shared between the president, the prime minister, and the parliament.”
A move to secure power or a genuine step towards unity?
Supporters of the proposal have not been shy in arguing that the position of prime minister could enhance Kenya’s democratic framework. They point to the fact that many democracies around the world—such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and India—have prime ministers who serve as the head of government, often working in tandem with the president or monarch.
They suggests that, the creation of a prime ministerial role could help to prevent one person from holding too much power, which is seen as a concern in the current presidential system.
However, many critics argue that the proposal is more about consolidating power than strengthening the country’s democratic institutions.
“This is not about the good of the country,” said Otieno.
“It is about one individual seeking to maintain relevance in a political system where they have already been decisively rejected by the people. We cannot allow the country to be held hostage by political bargains that serve individual interests rather than the national interest.”
At the heart of this dispute is a question of legitimacy. Odinga’s political journey has been long and tumultuous, but his status as a national figure with a vast support base cannot be denied. His supporters, however, argue that his role in the opposition has long been an asset, and creating the prime ministerial position would allow him to continue playing a role in governance without destabilizing the system.
