@Mpenzi, you may find that when it says AG for life it's a problem, when it says AG can be dismissed by president it's a problem, and some say even the current setup (a tribunal) is still another problem.

Honestly, human beings are such emotional creatures. Many of us said YES or NO and then we begin reading the constitution (if we even do). Everything either affirms our assent, or confirms our rejection.


When I was a young man life was very black and white. As I've grown foolish with age, I've come to look with nostalgia on my convictions of days gone by. And I started by looking at where I fell short.

And I've come to realise that constitution making / dealing with people / is an art of compromise. So a strong YES proponent (MPs) or a strong NO proponent (church) can never produce a constitution. It's a difficult selfless job done by imperfect human beings.

@mwenza, they are someone's daughters. but its all jocular.

Can you think of the AG's office without thinking of Amos S. Wako?
One unfortunate aspect is that we debate the offices (& their future) of constitutional office holders with the current office holder in mind, rather than with the Office - with its roles & responsibilities - in mind.
This is the problem of having one man too long at a particular post, so that in the public eye he/ she is synonymous with the office.

Amos huyo Wako can be for life but Amos Wangu should have a term limit, as indeed any other public servant.

BTW, Wako remains a good case study of the paradox of people who have very impressive cvs but this does not translate into an ability to execute the responsibilities of their Office as impressively.

@masukuma

As correctly pointed out by muganda above, the President can appoint (with parliamentary approval) and dismiss the AG - Article 132(2).

But I must quickly add that Article 132(2) is poorly/improperly drafted as it seems to suggest that the dismissal of the AG shall be in accordance with Article 156 yet Article 156 says nothing about dismissal!!