Nairobi — Cabinet ministers Raila Odinga and Kiraitu Murungi are at each other's jugular once again over the executive powers in the proposed new Constitution. In an interview with Nation's STEPHEN MBURU, Mr Murungi says fears that the draft seeks to take the country back to a "strong-man syndrome" are unfounded. Excerpts:

Why has the issue of the Executive generated so much political heat?

Mr Kiraitu Murungi: This because of just one person; Raila Odinga. All the heat we have is because of his personal ambitions to ascend to power. He has tried various strategies in the past. In 1997, he abandoned us and went to cooperate with (former President) Moi. He thought instead of confrontation, he could get to power by cooperating with Moi. When that route was not possible he came to cooperate with Kibaki. And now he thinks Kibaki will go to 2012, he has decided it is time for Kibaki to go.

The heat we have now is nothing else. It is for Raila to satisfy his ambition to rule this country.

Mr Odinga says he is always ready to serve as a President or Prime Minister under any Constitution that has the support of most Kenyans. Why would proponents of the Yes or Banana vote continue to accuse him of seeking executive powers through the back door?

Who would believe him. Today he says he is not interested in Prime Minister. Tomorrow he leads his own (Orange) Movement against the Constitution because of the issue of PM.

He tried to become president in 1997. He failed. The reason why he has been going for a strong PM is because he knows he cannot win presidential elections. He is looking for other ways of ruling without being elected.

Mr Odinga argues the draft seeks to create an imperial President What is your reaction?

Some months back, Raila and his team called me a chameleon over this Constitution. It is coming out very clearly now Raila is the biggest chameleon. When we went to Naivasha, he agreed we should have a PM Tanzanian style. Why this issue has come back after Naivasha, I don't understand.

Mr Odinga argues that a strong President can kill multi-party democracy as he will have a free hand to appoint non-MPs to his Cabinet even without consulting party chairpersons. Is that correct?

The proposed Constitution has clear provisions for the growth of multi-party democracy, including public funding of all political parties and how members of the parties would behave.

I don't think the new Constitution will be creating a paper multi-party democracy. Only 20 per cent of Members of Parliament shall be nominated as ministers outside Parliament. The idea was to improve the quality of the Cabinet. We might have, say, a top economist, political scientist or engineer, who can never get into politics through the electoral process, but can contribute greatly to this country. The President is given a window to improve the quality of the Cabinet and management of the country by allowing 20 per cent to come from the civil society and religious leaders who are not in the electoral system. Raila supported that proposal when we were at Naivasha. We don't know when, again, he changed his mind.

There is also the argument that since the document does not limit the number of Cabinet ministers and assistants, a President can dominate Parliament by appointing most MPs to the government.

It is quite clear that either those advancing such argument have not read the Constitution, or are deliberately refusing to understand it. The Constitution says Parliament will fix the number of Cabinet ministers. The president has no powers to fix the size of the Cabinet.

Kenya has many communities. For us to have a stable society it is important to have a government that represents various communities. We the left that (the fixing of the number of Cabinet ministers) to Parliament to look at various sectors within the society so that when fixing the number of ministries that is taken into account.

How effective will constitutional commissions be in keeping checks and balances on the President, yet their chairpersons would be presidential appointees?

Have you forgotten under the new Constitution, there will be no presidential appointee. It would be a joint appointment by the president and Parliament. These fears are unfounded.

What are the advantages of a presidential system as opposed to the parliamentary system as far as the executive powers are concerned?

The criticisms we have been receiving is that the new Constitution will create an imperial president. It is true we have divided a presidential system. A system where with checks and balances and a system where power is devolved between the President and Parliament, the President and commissions, and between the central and district governments.

The tyrannical imperial presidency we have witnessed in the past is going to be a thing of the past under the new Constitution. I challenge the Orange team to tells us a single African country where there is a parliamentary system.

The contest between a President and PM has always been the cause of instability in fledging African democracies. As we (the Government) said at Bomas, we can never support a system where we have two centres of power. We are not going to accept this so as to please just one person. We have to put Kenya first.

Would you agree with the argument that imperial presidents have bred dictatorship resulting in instability and bloodshed in most African countries?

The imperial president, in the days of 'Presidents-for-life,' the likes of Kamuzu Bandas, were creatures of single-party rule. In the new multi-party democracy, such immense powers have been checked. We are not talking about an imperial president but a democratically-elected one.

Why should we have a Prime Minister who will only be an errand boy in Parliament?

The PM will be the leader of government business in the Parliament and perform other duties as assigned to him by the President. The President can assign him to coordinate ministries and government affairs. The President can assign him to chair the Cabinet when he is not there. So I don't know where the idea of errand boy comes from.

Mr Odinga says the 'political tsunami" he had predicted is now with us. Could it be the reason why the Government now seems to have softened its stance on land issues?

We don't see a 'political tsunami.' We see a storm in a tea cup in the Orange campaign.

Do you see the Banana vote carrying the day at the referendum?

Obviously, Kenyans are going to overwhelmingly vote for the Banana. The noise you hear and the huge crowds you see at the Orange rallies will not translate into votes. People might attend these rallies for entertainment.

It has happened in the past. In 1992, when we were in Ford Kenya with Raila, we run very spirited campaigns countrywide. We were cheered everywhere we went. But we never got votes.

Your crucial message at the moment?

First is to my friend Raila. I was his lawyer when he was in detention. We have struggled together against oppression and dictatorship for a long time. As I go to bed, I always wonder whether he remembers what we have gone through under the old Constitution, which he now says that we should adopt by rejecting the new one. I appeal to him not to conduct his politics like a rolling stone; rolling from the big FORD, (Forum for the Restoration of Democracy), Ford-Kenya, NDP (National Development Party), Kanu, Narc.

We have struggled for a new Constitution for the past 15 years. Let us all join hands and give our country a new future and forget the dark past.

I appeal to all Kenyans to turn out in large numbers at and vote Yes at the referendum.