In June, Justice Chacha Mwita will decide if Parliament is required to eliminate skeleton carvings located at the entrance of the National Assembly and on the Speaker’s seats, in response to a petition questioning their presence.
The case has been filed by John Mweha, who lives in Ndenderu (Kirinyaga County). He argues that the carvings encourage idolatry and occult practices. He asserts that the imagery brings to mind painful memories of colonial oppression and slavery.
Mweha claims in court documents that the 12 skeleton carvings at the entrance, especially the two central figures standing on the year 1963—Kenya’s independence year—represent ongoing subjugation. He contends that such images detract from the National Assembly’s dignity.
Additionally, the petitioner asserts that the carvings could exert an unconscious influence on parliamentary proceedings and the choices of legislators. He proposes that symbols representing hope, unity, and patriotism would foster a more positive atmosphere if they replaced them.
Mweha criticizes Parliament for purportedly placing the skeleton carvings without public involvement or a gazette notice, deeming this action unconstitutional. He asserts that the lack of public involvement raises issues regarding transparency and accountability.
Named as respondents in the case are the Parliamentary Service Commission, National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, Senate Speaker Amason Kingi, and the Attorney General.
In his response, Wetang’ula has requested that the court dismiss the petition, labeling it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the judicial process. He contends that the petition fails to demonstrate a clear constitutional violation.
He additionally claims that the petition does not provide specific details on how he, the Parliamentary Service Commission, or Kingi have violated any laws.
The carvings at Parliament for many years form part of a larger artistic installation, but their intended symbolism has sparked debate. It is still uncertain if they have encountered comparable legal challenges previously.
The petitioner considers the imagery to be negative, but the National Assembly has not signaled any intention to change or remove it.
It raises larger issues regarding the significance of public involvement in governmental decision-making and the understanding of cultural symbols in public areas.
The ruling may establish a precedent for the management of artistic and historical representations within government institutions.
Due in June, the ruling will establish if Parliament is required to keep or remove the carvings.
