I think there is little disagreement on the need for Ministers implicated in corrupt dealings to step aside.

In my layman's opinion, the controversy appears to be:
- Due Process - How should a minister be suspended?
- Authority - By whom should a minister be suspended?
- Definitions - Is there a difference between a suspension and a sack? How do you classify an indefinite suspension?
- Consistency - Which scandals should require suspension and which ones should not? There seem to be a number scandals that have escaped the limelight.

If these 4 aspects are not conclusively addressed and adhered to, then it is difficult not to read politics in any action.

On a related note, might it have been best for the PWC report, KACA report and Auditor General report to have been made public? Or are they already? I am not a lawyer so not sure if there are legal implications. Right now, Raila says Ruto is implicated. Ruto says he is exonerated. Who to believe?

Can ODM pls be serious here. There is nothing like the PM of the republic of Kenya. What the national accord created was the PM of the govenment of Kenya. The two are very different and idinct and their powers also. What Raila is is only a senior minister and thats it. Pls read the national accord and you will see this.

I was with arap mibey on this one...untill he ran to obama sorry i mean for kofi anan coat-tails...
And that Bbc laundry wash was githongo-esque! Watch out the guy may just get a position on the oxford faculty LOL

issues of protocal more so in place headed by a hands off leader like the Kenyan president is retrogressive backward and has got alot of hinderance to the wheel of developement so Raila to me was just fine when he jumped the protocol after all the govt is nusu bin nusu ongeri bin ruto fair. otherwise we are headed to limbo