Kenya's diplomatic passport rules are facing fresh scrutiny after lawmakers questioned why officials serving in comparable constitutional positions are treated differently, prompting the government to consider revising regulations that have remained in place since 2012.
The National Assembly's Administration and Internal Security Committee wants the Department of Immigration and Citizen Services to address gaps in the existing framework, arguing that some constitutional office holders and independent commissions have been left out despite their positions warranting similar recognition.
The concerns emerged during consideration of a petition by the Commission on Administrative Justice, commonly known as the Office of the Ombudsman, which is challenging provisions it considers discriminatory in the allocation of diplomatic passports.
Appearing before the committee on Thursday, Principal Secretary Belio Kipsang said the government was ready to revisit the regulations to bring them into line with the changes introduced by the 2010 Constitution and promote equal treatment among eligible public officers.
A major concern raised by the lawmakers was the failure to include the Clerk of the Senate among officials entitled to diplomatic passports, yet the Clerk of the National Assembly is expressly listed as a beneficiary.
Kipsang acknowledged that the exclusion might have resulted from an error when the regulations were prepared, pointing out that the Senate was already in existence when the rules were introduced in 2012.
“These are questions, and even with the passage of time since 2012 and all that has happened with the implementation of the constitution, there is need for us to relook at the schedule. We are not in any dispute about reviewing the regulations,” he said.
He further agreed that leaving out the Senate clerk while recognising the National Assembly clerk was difficult to justify, suggesting that the omission could have been unintentional.
“There is no reason why we should have the Clerk of the National Assembly and leave out the Clerk of the Senate. It could just be an omission. I think it is fair to admit that.”
The PS committed the department to reviewing the existing framework, explaining that the proposed amendments would be subjected to public participation before following the required legislative process and being presented to the Houses of Parliament for consideration.
“We can look at the regulations, and we have no objection to that. The final draft will be published, and the regulations will go through public participation and the due process before being brought to the Houses of Parliament for consideration,” he said.
The committee, chaired by Narok West MP Gabriel Tongoyo, also heard calls for the review to extend beyond parliamentary offices to cover other institutions recognised under the Constitution.
Teso North MP Oku Kaunya supported the proposed changes, insisting that the department should consider all constitutional offices when preparing the revised regulations.
He said positions placed within the same constitutional category should be treated consistently rather than having some officials recognised while others are excluded.
“If you are doing a revision, it is important to ensure it is inclusive in the sense of what the constitution provides. All those offices that the constitution expressly puts in one category should be considered.”
Lawmakers further questioned why certain independent constitutional commissions and offices established under Chapter 15 of the Constitution were missing from the list of diplomatic passport beneficiaries.
They maintained that institutions operating within the same constitutional framework should enjoy equal consideration, raising concerns about the criteria currently used to determine which public officers qualify for the travel documents.
Committee vice chairperson Dido Raso, the MP for Saku, sought clarification on whether officials whose positions are not specifically mentioned in the regulations are automatically barred from receiving diplomatic passports.
He observed that the PS's explanation appeared to indicate that other public officers could still be considered for diplomatic passports when travelling abroad on official government duties.
Raso noted that the documents were intended to provide certain privileges and immunities to holders undertaking official international assignments, but questioned whether this benefit was restricted only to those expressly named in the regulations.
“From your response, one thing that clearly stands out is that the diplomatic passport is meant to afford holders immunities and privileges during official international travel. That does not necessarily exclude others,” Raso said.
The committee's deliberations have therefore placed the 2012 regulations under renewed examination, with MPs pushing for amendments that reflect the constitutional changes and eliminate differences in the treatment of officials occupying comparable public offices.