Parliament’s Shame: Azimio MPs Condemn Saving Mithika Linturi Amid Fertilizer Scandal
Some Members of Parliament (MPs) have criticized their seven colleagues on the special committee who voted in favor of saving Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mithika Linturi from impeachment over the fake fertilizer scandal. They accused these seven MPs of disregarding the wishes of Kenyan citizens.
MPs Opiyo Wandayi (Ugunja), Otiende Amollo (Rarieda), Irene Mayaka (nominated), and Junet Mohamed (Suna East) voiced their criticism as four out of the 11 committee members presented their dissenting report. In this report, they asserted that Mr. Linturi played a central role in the scandal.
The special committee, chaired by Marsabit Woman Representative Naomi Waqo, submitted its report clearing Mr. Linturi of all allegations.
This committee was established to probe the grounds of a motion seeking the removal of the Cabinet Secretary, initiated by Bumula MP Wanami Wamboka.
All the Kenya Kwanza MPs on the committee—Naomi Waqo, Samuel Chepkong’a (UDA, Ainabkoi), George Murugara (UDA, Tharaka), Malulu Injendi (ANC, Malava), Njeri Maina (UDA, Kirinyaga), and Kassim Tandaza (ANC, Matuga)—voted in favor of retaining Mr. Linturi.
On the other hand, members from the Azimio la Umoja One Kenya coalition—Deputy Minority Leader Robert Mbui (Wiper, Kathiani), Tom Kajwang’ (ODM, Ruaraka), Catherine Omanyo (ODM, Busia), and Yusuf Farah (ODM, Wajir West)—pushed for the dismissal of the Cabinet Secretary.
Substandard fertiliser
While the committee members were divided into their perspectives, they unanimously agreed on one thing: the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) had indeed procured and distributed fake and substandard fertilizer, causing farmers to suffer financial losses.
Mr Wandayi criticized the special committee for opposing the decision of the “149 MPs who overwhelmingly voted to establish the committee to investigate the conduct of the CS.”
Asserting the authority of the House, Mr Wandayi emphasized that the committee’s decision shouldn’t override the collective will of the Parliament. He argued that Mr Linturi should have resigned promptly.
Mr Wandayi further emphasized the importance of the House’s stance and criticized the committee’s actions, suggesting that they disgraced the Parliament.
Mr Amollo condemned the seven members who voted in favor of saving Mr Linturi, stating that they had failed the Kenyan people and should feel ashamed. He also highlighted the significance of the House’s decision and its implications for the Cabinet secretary.
Highlighting the importance of presidential intervention, Mr Amollo suggested that only the President could effectively address the farmers’ issues without relying on the Parliament.
Despite the criticisms levied by MPs against their peers, Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah expressed the view that the matter had been rushed, suggesting that it would have been prudent to await the Agriculture Committee’s findings on the issue.
Mr Junet expressed disappointment with the committee’s verdict, indicating that it did not align with the expectations of the public.
The dissenting minority report concluded that the CS was indeed responsible after thoroughly examining the allegations and grounds presented in the motion. They held Linturi accountable for his failure to operationalize the Fertiliser and Animal Foodstuffs Board of Kenya, which they deemed a serious violation of the constitution or other relevant laws.
Gross incompetence
The principal legislation governing the fertilizer subsidy program is the Fertilizer and Animal Foodstuffs Act.
According to the minority report, the Act mandates the creation of a board, with the responsibility falling solely on the CS to put it into operation. The report highlights that the CS’s failure to appoint the board constitutes either a deliberate and serious breach of the law or a demonstration of significant incompetence.
Consequently, the report asserts, the minority concludes that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim of a serious breach of the constitution and the law.
Outlined within the Act are the responsibilities of the board, which include advising both national and county governments on the procurement, importation, and effective and timely distribution of subsidized fertilizers and animal foodstuffs.
ALSO READ:
- Inside Job Exposed: Kenyan Prison Wardens Convicted for Orchestrating Daring Terrorist Escape
- Uganda Pulls the Plug: Nationwide Internet Blackout Ordered Days Before Crucial General Election
- African Elections Under the Spotlight as Zambia Turns to Kenya Ahead of 2026 Vote
- “Two Drug Barons in Cabinet?” Kenya Government Fires Back as Ex-Deputy President Sparks Explosive Drug Claims
- Kenyan Court Freezes Use of Private Lawyers by Government, Sparks Nationwide Legal Storm
Furthermore, the board is mandated to establish retail outlets for these products within the counties and formulate relevant policies concerning their manufacture and distribution.
The report asserts that the law stipulates that the procurement and distribution of subsidized fertilizer fall squarely under the jurisdiction of the board and no other entity. Any other body purportedly engaging in such activities is deemed illegal, according to the minority.
The CS, who assumed office in 2022, acknowledged during questioning by the special committee that the board had not been established. He stated that progress was being made in this regard, despite the law having been in place since 2015.
Subsidized fertilizer
While the Cabinet Secretary (CS) failed to establish the board he intended to, his ministry did create what is described as an “illegal entity” known as the National Fertiliser Monitoring Committee. The minority opinion suggests that this action indicates deliberate intent on the part of the CS, and claims that ignorance of the Fertilizer and Foodstuffs Act cannot excuse this behavior.
The report continues by asserting that the monitoring committee has no authority regarding the procurement and distribution of subsidized fertilizer. According to the document, this committee lacks a legal foundation, as none of the functions outlined in the National Cereals and Produce Board Act pertain to the procurement and distribution of subsidized fertilizer.
Although Executive Order No. 23, which outlines government organization, designates the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) as an institution within the Agriculture Department, it does not confer upon it the power to procure and distribute subsidized fertilizer.
Furthermore, the minority report highlights that by providing false information to a parliamentary committee, Mr. Linturi has seriously violated the law. It accuses the CS of failing in his duty to provide accurate information to the public following the discovery of the fake fertilizer scandal. Instead, the report claims, the CS gave conflicting accounts and misled the public, as evidenced by audio-visual presentations before the committee and the committee’s records.
Parliament’s Shame: Azimio MPs Condemn Saving Mithika Linturi Amid Fertilizer Scandal
