In a recent episode that laid bare the fragile boundaries between legitimate oversight and political expediency, the Senate Public Accounts Committee (PAC) session devolved into a spectacle of personalized vendetta and procedural subversion.
At the heart of this political melodrama was Senator Fatuma Dullo, whose actions transformed what should have been a sober audit review into a misadventure of calculated malice aimed squarely at the County Government of Isiolo.
What was originally convened as a platform to interrogate findings by the Office of the Auditor General took a jarring detour when Senator Dullo hijacked the session’s focus.
Rather than anchoring her inquiries in the objectivity and procedural discipline expected of a legislative watchdog, Dullo veered into what many perceive as a premeditated smear campaign.
Her line of questioning—predicated on what were later dismissed as dubious documents—targeted the legitimacy of appointments within the Isiolo County administration, namely those of Josephine Eregae and Rukia Mokku.
The senator’s aggressive posture and use of questionable evidence did little to convince her colleagues.
On the contrary, her theatrics were met with conspicuous silence and visible discomfort from fellow members of the committee.
This institutional cold shoulder wasn’t just symbolic; it was a quiet yet unambiguous repudiation of a blatant misuse of parliamentary privilege.
For a chamber that prides itself on impartiality, rigor, and adherence to due process, Dullo’s performance was nothing short of a dereliction of legislative duty.
What unfolded, therefore, was not just an isolated incident of poor judgment—it was a philosophical betrayal of the Senate’s raison d’être.
The upper chamber of Parliament exists not as an arena for character assassination or political brinkmanship, but as a crucible for democratic accountability.
When senators use the oversight platform to settle scores or promote vendettas, they corrode the credibility of the very institutions they swore to protect.
In sharp contrast to Dullo’s accusatory tone stood the demeanor of the Isiolo Governor, the one and only, Guyo Abdi Ibrahim whose calm and composed engagement with the committee embodied what public accountability should look like.
Rather than descending into defensive bluster, he requested additional time to furnish more comprehensive responses, reaffirming his administration’s commitment to transparency and due process.
The committee’s decision to grant this request marked a return to procedural sobriety and a reaffirmation of the Senate’s facilitative—not punitive—oversight role.
This incident, though regrettable, provides a necessary wake-up call. It underscores the importance of fidelity to institutional norms and the dangers of weaponizing oversight for parochial ends.
The principle of audi alteram partem—let the other side be heard—is not merely a legal maxim; it is the ethical foundation of all just governance. To ignore it in pursuit of political advantage is to flirt with legislative nihilism.
Senator Dulo’s ill-fated attempt to conflate oversight with prosecution serves as a cautionary tale. It reminds us that the Senate must remain a forum for rational deliberation, not a theater of vengeance.
Political partisanship must never be allowed to masquerade as public interest. Oversight, in its highest form, is an instrument of justice—not a weapon of retribution.
In this instance, the Senate—by ultimately rejecting Dullo’s divisive narrative—chose maturity over mayhem, accountability over animosity, and integrity over intrigue. The episode should serve as a lasting reminder that while power may tempt, it is principle that must prevail.
Disclaimer| The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author’s.
Share This Post