The IIEC seems to be the only body that can unite Kenyans now. Soon the ball will be in their court as they take over the heavy responsibility of organizing and conducting the referendum. But despite the polarized status that the country seems to be stuck in while debating on the contentious issues of the Proposed Constitution, a solution that could unite Kenyans can still be found. That solution is in the manner in which the Referendum Question will be framed.
So far Kenyan tempers have been so high because everyone has taken it for granted that the question to be answered at the referendum will simply be whether or not the people will accept or reject the Proposed Constitution. But that does not necessarily need to be the case. The Referendum Question could in fact be framed in such a way as to put into consideration the views of all Kenyans, including those who oppose the Proposed Constitution in its present form.
The question posed to the people of Kenya need not be so simplistic like: “Do you accept the Proposed Constitution?” Such a simple question will tear the country into the same camps that are now debating for and against the Proposed Constitution. A referendum based on that question will end up with winners and losers. Though for the time being the “YES” vote, based on that simple question, seems to have the upper hand as it is backed by all the political giants including the President and the Prime Minister, the “NO” vote, based on that same question, could still be strong as it is led by the dissatisfied Clergy which, it must be admitted, has quite a considerable backing in many parts of the country.
Given the fact that the Clergy openly says it supports the Proposed Constitution without the two controversial issues of the Kadhi courts and the Articles on abortion, its stand could easily be changed if the Referendum Question is posed differently. The Clergy will have no alternative but say “YES” when asked a question like: “Do you accept the Proposed Constitution with amendments on Articles on Kadhi courts and Abortion to be introduced later?” Unless they have another hidden agenda churches would have a tough time to say “NO” to such a question. The promise of introducing the amendment later is inevitable as the Proposed Constitution can simply not be amended before the referendum.
The next most important step for the country to take to achieve a new constitution is to think of the Referendum Question now. Section 37(1) of the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008 says the Interim Independent Electoral Commission shall within seven days of the publication of the draft Constitution by the Attorney-General frame and publish the question to be determined by the referendum.
The time to agree on that question is now when the Clergy and the State are still talking. Section 37(2) says the question referred to in subsection (1) shall be framed in consultation with the Parliamentary Select Committee. Members of the PSC who have been secretly supporting the Clergy can support the Church by helping the IIEC to come up with a question that is backed by everyone. Subsection (3) of the Act says the question to be submitted to the referendum shall require the voter to indicate whether the voter approves or does not approve the Proposed New Constitution and shall be so framed as to require the answer “Yes” or the answer “No.” Kenya must not lose the opportunity to come up with experts who can frame the required question that can get a “YES” or “NO” answer but at the same time make a promise of immediate amendment of the contentious issues after the referendum.
The suggestion I am making could, in my opinion, save the situation but there is still a danger. Those who would like to weaken the parts of the Proposed Constitution, that makes them spend sleepless nights, may jump on the bandwagon. They may, for example, propose that some non-contentious Articles they want amended for their own selfish reasons be included in the proposed question together with the Articles on abortion and the Kadhi courts. These are the people who are dissatisfied with parts of the Proposed Constitution meant to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots such as land issues. Framer of the Referendum Question should ignore this group as their main goal is to wreck the whole exercise.
Kenya will be going to the referendum with many disgruntled people with lots of problems they expect the Proposed Constitution to solve. Those who are rejecting it because of its land policy are however not sincere. Their reason for rejecting the land policy proposals of the new constitution are extremely selfish because the current Constitution is enormously unfair to the wananchi who continue to be landless while a handful own huge tracts of land they don’t even utilize gainfully. These are the same people who wanted to use the demotion of William Ruto from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Higher Education to mobilize the people to reject the Proposed Constitution.
The demotion of William Ruto must not be confused with constitutional matters. The Prime Minister has always wanted to move Ruto from the Agriculture Ministry and he has stated so in public. Earlier this year it took President Mwai Kibaki to reinstate Ruto after he was suspended by Raila on alleged corruption charges. Those allegations against Ruto are still there. Refusing to vote “YES” for the Proposed Constitution because William Ruto has been demoted is being extremely myopic.
The country is lucky that the Clergy and the State are still negotiating on the manner in which the Proposed Constitution could be salvaged. One of the ways of convincing the Clergy to back the “YES” camp is to give the church leaders an opportunity to take part in the framing of the Referendum Question. Debating on the amendment of the Proposed Constitution before the referendum is a waste of time as much as it is legally most cumbersome. Naturally there are some people, led by the former President Daniel arap Moi, who would like to see the State-Church talks collapse. Their reasons are extremely selfish and are based of the land policy suggestions of the Proposed Constitution.
There are a number of people in Kenya headed by Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka who actually back the Proposed Constitution but would not like the country to go to the referendum while it is still dangerously polarized. The way to reunite the country, which is now being threatened to be torn apart, as it was in the last referendum of 2005, is to come up with a Referendum Question acceptable to all. The targeted groups for accepting the well thought-out and phrased Referendum Question should be the churches rather than the politicians who will never seize to have an axe to grind.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Churches’ stand threaten Agenda Four reforms
The firm stand against the Proposed Constitution taken by Christian Churches is a great threat to Agenda Four reforms, which were the only hope Kenyans had of permanently solving the problems that led to the 2007-8 clashes in this country. Paradoxically, as recently as October last year the NCCK, which is now the most vocal opponent of the Proposed Constitution, issued a statement claiming that the Inter Religious Forum had been monitoring the implementation of the four Agenda Items agreed upon by the Grand Coalition Partners and signed on February 28, 2008. According to the statement the religious leaders had been at the forefront in pressing the coalition partners and the Members of Parliament to fast- track the implementation of the reform agenda.
Strange enough nothing has negated that stand more than the position now taken by the NCCK in opposition to the Proposed Constitution. In October last year the NCCK was concerned about what they referred to as “the absence of the implementation of fundamental reforms identified through the Serena Process as critical in preventing the recurrence of the post election violence.” Ironically it is the attitude now taken by the NCCK that is creating a dangerous situation in Kenya which could push this country right back to where it was soon after the 2007 elections.
In October last year the NCCK said it recognized the cardinal role the people of Kenya must play in holding the coalition partners and the Members of Parliament to implement the agenda. The NCCK then added: “We nonetheless urge the international community to lend a hand where necessary by stepping up the pressure on the government to do its job and safeguard Kenya from sliding into another orgy of violence.”
It seems to me that it is the NCCK, rather than the Government, which needs to listen to the call of the international community this time. For the information of the NCCK the African Union Panel of Eminent African Personalities, which spearheaded peace talks after the 2007-8 clashes, was among the first groups to congratulate the Kenyan Parliament for passing the draft Constitution the Churches are rejecting now.
In hailing the passage of the Proposed Constitution the Eminent Personalities clearly said that by supporting the draft constitution, Kenya’s elected representatives had demonstrated their commitment to fundamental legal and political reform in Kenya. The big questions now puzzling all Kenyans are: What happened to the Churches to make them engage their reverse gear and take a shocking about turn against the people of Kenya? Which invisible power is manipulating the Clergy at the moment?
On the issue of the referendum the Eminent African Personalities are advising Kenyans to vote “YES”. Though they did not use the word “YES” in their statement, they did not mince their words when they said a new Constitution was within Kenya’s grasp. Obviously there could be no new Constitution without the “YES” vote because the “NO” vote is the endorsement of the current Constitution. That is why Eminent Personalities are urging Kenyans to seize this opportunity and make their voices heard in the coming referendum. More than anyone else, the Eminent Africans know it is the “YES” vote that will make sure that “an important component of Kenya’s reform agenda is fulfilled”. That reform agenda is Agenda Four.
The Clergy in Kenya was absolutely right in calling for the voice of the international community to be heard on the matter of speeding up the process that will bring about reforms in this country. I therefore have no apologies to make in reminding them of one powerful voice that has praised Kenyan MPs for passing the Proposed Constitution. This is the voices of none other than the President of United States of America Barack Obama, who has Kenyan blood flowing in his veins. According to Kenya’s authoritative Daily Nation he said President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga had done well to rally support from Members of Parliament and welcomed the overwhelming approval of the new law
Churchmen must be told that when they oppose the Proposed Constitution they are hampering the implementation of Agenda Four which they purport to support. According to the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Monitoring Project of last year on the status of Agenda Four, which deals with long-standing issues that led to the 2007/8 disturbances and solutions, Constitutional reforms are at the core of implementing some of the aspects of Agenda Four. It clearly says without a new constitution, some institutional reforms may not be undertaken and Kenya’s Vision 2030 may not be effectively implemented.
These are the issues closes to the hearts of the suffering wananchi who would like a new Constitution to change the injustices that have taken place in this country since it became independent almost half a century ago. The issues concerned are connected with tackling poverty and inequality, and combating regional development imbalances; tackling unemployment especially among the youth; consolidating national cohesion and unity; addressing transparency, accountability and impunity . All of these goals of Agenda Four cannot be achieved without undertaking constitutional, legal and institutional reforms which the Proposed Constitution takes the most vital step to fulfill.
There are several Articles in the Proposed Constitution that are specifically aimed at tackling poverty and inequality. Article 21 on implementation of rights and fundamental freedoms, for example, says (1) It is a fundamental duty of the State and every State organ to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfill the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Article 21 (2) says the State shall take legislative, policy and other measures, including the setting of standards, to achieve the progressive realization of the rights guaranteed under Article 43 which deals with Economic and social rights. Strictly speaking these are the rights which make the acceptance or rejection of the Proposed Constitution amount to a battle between the haves and the have-nots.
Article 21(3) says all State organs and all public officers have the duty to address the needs of vulnerable groups within society, including women, older members of
society, persons with disabilities, children, youth, members of minority or
marginalized communities, and members of particular ethnic, religious or
cultural communities. Are these the issues which the Clergy is now working against? Kenyans must know that there are very strong forces with tons of money that are determined to make sure that the gap between the haves and the have-nots will never be wiped out by the Proposed Constitution. Hence the mysterious vehement opposition to it by the Churchmen, who, for some very strange reasons, seem to want to kill Agenda Four proposals.Tackling unemployment especially among the youth is yet another target of Agenda Four.
There is little doubt that the post election violence of 2007-8 would not have been so widespread had there not been a huge number of unemployed people ready to commit all sorts of crimes for a small amount of money from the masterminds of the violence. Joblessness is a problem caused by many factors including population explosion and bad governance. The Proposed Constitution is likely to create jobs through a number of ways including devolution and consolidation of national cohesion and unity, which is another goal of Agenda Four.
Marginalization of whole communities due to nepotism has been a major cause of unemployment even among young graduates with good degrees from both national and private universities. Article 56 of the Proposed Constitution deals specifically with minorities and marginalized people. It says the State shall put in place affirmative action programmes designed to ensure that minorities and marginalized groups—(a) participate and are represented in governance and other spheres of life;(b) are provided special opportunities in educational and economic fields;(c) are provided special opportunities for access to employment;(d) develop their cultural values, languages and practices; and(e) have reasonable access to water, health services and infrastructure. Churchmen should not have any excuse to oppose such a proposals.
One of the reasons the country is experiencing high levels of unemployment is due to the lack of an elaborate plan of making the youth of Kenya feel they belong to the country and that they are full participants in the economic development of the nation. Article 55 of the Proposed Constitution says the State shall take measures, including affirmative action programmes, to ensure that the youth—(a) access relevant education and training;(b) have opportunities to associate, be represented and participate in political, social, economic and other spheres of life;(c) access employment; and (d) are protected from harmful cultural practices and exploitation. These are all the aims and aspirations of Agenda Four which can only be accomplished through the Proposed Constitution. Unfortunately now the Churches are against them.
The Proposed Constitution also intends to deal firmly with the problem of corruption which Agenda Four plans to eradicate. Article 79 on legislation to establish the ethics and anti-corruption Commission says Parliament shall enact legislation to establish an independent ethics and anti-corruption commission, which shall be and have the status and powers of a commission under Chapter Fifteen, which is about Commissions and independent Offices ,for purposes of ensuring compliance with, and enforcement of, the provisions of this Chapter. Why the Churches should want to oppose such noble proposals, God alone knows.
Strange enough nothing has negated that stand more than the position now taken by the NCCK in opposition to the Proposed Constitution. In October last year the NCCK was concerned about what they referred to as “the absence of the implementation of fundamental reforms identified through the Serena Process as critical in preventing the recurrence of the post election violence.” Ironically it is the attitude now taken by the NCCK that is creating a dangerous situation in Kenya which could push this country right back to where it was soon after the 2007 elections.
In October last year the NCCK said it recognized the cardinal role the people of Kenya must play in holding the coalition partners and the Members of Parliament to implement the agenda. The NCCK then added: “We nonetheless urge the international community to lend a hand where necessary by stepping up the pressure on the government to do its job and safeguard Kenya from sliding into another orgy of violence.”
It seems to me that it is the NCCK, rather than the Government, which needs to listen to the call of the international community this time. For the information of the NCCK the African Union Panel of Eminent African Personalities, which spearheaded peace talks after the 2007-8 clashes, was among the first groups to congratulate the Kenyan Parliament for passing the draft Constitution the Churches are rejecting now.
In hailing the passage of the Proposed Constitution the Eminent Personalities clearly said that by supporting the draft constitution, Kenya’s elected representatives had demonstrated their commitment to fundamental legal and political reform in Kenya. The big questions now puzzling all Kenyans are: What happened to the Churches to make them engage their reverse gear and take a shocking about turn against the people of Kenya? Which invisible power is manipulating the Clergy at the moment?
On the issue of the referendum the Eminent African Personalities are advising Kenyans to vote “YES”. Though they did not use the word “YES” in their statement, they did not mince their words when they said a new Constitution was within Kenya’s grasp. Obviously there could be no new Constitution without the “YES” vote because the “NO” vote is the endorsement of the current Constitution. That is why Eminent Personalities are urging Kenyans to seize this opportunity and make their voices heard in the coming referendum. More than anyone else, the Eminent Africans know it is the “YES” vote that will make sure that “an important component of Kenya’s reform agenda is fulfilled”. That reform agenda is Agenda Four.
The Clergy in Kenya was absolutely right in calling for the voice of the international community to be heard on the matter of speeding up the process that will bring about reforms in this country. I therefore have no apologies to make in reminding them of one powerful voice that has praised Kenyan MPs for passing the Proposed Constitution. This is the voices of none other than the President of United States of America Barack Obama, who has Kenyan blood flowing in his veins. According to Kenya’s authoritative Daily Nation he said President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga had done well to rally support from Members of Parliament and welcomed the overwhelming approval of the new law
Churchmen must be told that when they oppose the Proposed Constitution they are hampering the implementation of Agenda Four which they purport to support. According to the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Monitoring Project of last year on the status of Agenda Four, which deals with long-standing issues that led to the 2007/8 disturbances and solutions, Constitutional reforms are at the core of implementing some of the aspects of Agenda Four. It clearly says without a new constitution, some institutional reforms may not be undertaken and Kenya’s Vision 2030 may not be effectively implemented.
These are the issues closes to the hearts of the suffering wananchi who would like a new Constitution to change the injustices that have taken place in this country since it became independent almost half a century ago. The issues concerned are connected with tackling poverty and inequality, and combating regional development imbalances; tackling unemployment especially among the youth; consolidating national cohesion and unity; addressing transparency, accountability and impunity . All of these goals of Agenda Four cannot be achieved without undertaking constitutional, legal and institutional reforms which the Proposed Constitution takes the most vital step to fulfill.
There are several Articles in the Proposed Constitution that are specifically aimed at tackling poverty and inequality. Article 21 on implementation of rights and fundamental freedoms, for example, says (1) It is a fundamental duty of the State and every State organ to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfill the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Article 21 (2) says the State shall take legislative, policy and other measures, including the setting of standards, to achieve the progressive realization of the rights guaranteed under Article 43 which deals with Economic and social rights. Strictly speaking these are the rights which make the acceptance or rejection of the Proposed Constitution amount to a battle between the haves and the have-nots.
Article 21(3) says all State organs and all public officers have the duty to address the needs of vulnerable groups within society, including women, older members of
society, persons with disabilities, children, youth, members of minority or
marginalized communities, and members of particular ethnic, religious or
cultural communities. Are these the issues which the Clergy is now working against? Kenyans must know that there are very strong forces with tons of money that are determined to make sure that the gap between the haves and the have-nots will never be wiped out by the Proposed Constitution. Hence the mysterious vehement opposition to it by the Churchmen, who, for some very strange reasons, seem to want to kill Agenda Four proposals.Tackling unemployment especially among the youth is yet another target of Agenda Four.
There is little doubt that the post election violence of 2007-8 would not have been so widespread had there not been a huge number of unemployed people ready to commit all sorts of crimes for a small amount of money from the masterminds of the violence. Joblessness is a problem caused by many factors including population explosion and bad governance. The Proposed Constitution is likely to create jobs through a number of ways including devolution and consolidation of national cohesion and unity, which is another goal of Agenda Four.
Marginalization of whole communities due to nepotism has been a major cause of unemployment even among young graduates with good degrees from both national and private universities. Article 56 of the Proposed Constitution deals specifically with minorities and marginalized people. It says the State shall put in place affirmative action programmes designed to ensure that minorities and marginalized groups—(a) participate and are represented in governance and other spheres of life;(b) are provided special opportunities in educational and economic fields;(c) are provided special opportunities for access to employment;(d) develop their cultural values, languages and practices; and(e) have reasonable access to water, health services and infrastructure. Churchmen should not have any excuse to oppose such a proposals.
One of the reasons the country is experiencing high levels of unemployment is due to the lack of an elaborate plan of making the youth of Kenya feel they belong to the country and that they are full participants in the economic development of the nation. Article 55 of the Proposed Constitution says the State shall take measures, including affirmative action programmes, to ensure that the youth—(a) access relevant education and training;(b) have opportunities to associate, be represented and participate in political, social, economic and other spheres of life;(c) access employment; and (d) are protected from harmful cultural practices and exploitation. These are all the aims and aspirations of Agenda Four which can only be accomplished through the Proposed Constitution. Unfortunately now the Churches are against them.
The Proposed Constitution also intends to deal firmly with the problem of corruption which Agenda Four plans to eradicate. Article 79 on legislation to establish the ethics and anti-corruption Commission says Parliament shall enact legislation to establish an independent ethics and anti-corruption commission, which shall be and have the status and powers of a commission under Chapter Fifteen, which is about Commissions and independent Offices ,for purposes of ensuring compliance with, and enforcement of, the provisions of this Chapter. Why the Churches should want to oppose such noble proposals, God alone knows.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Referendum: Media must take a stand
The Prime Minister, Mr. Raila Odinga, must be congratulated for defending the independence of the media in covering the current referendum debate. A vicious attack against the media by a group of Parliamentarians opposed to the Draft Constitution was nipped in the bud in the House, when Raila refused to give any direction to journalists on how to handle the referendum story. Several MPs had asked him to do so after claming the media were biased in favour of the supporters of the Draft Constitution.
What the complaining MPs were implying is that journalists in Kenya are not covering the referendum debate professionally. Nothing could be farther from the truth because all the three ways of measuring journalistic professionalism vindicate the media. The three ways are the nuts and bolts of handling a story; the adherence to ethical principles and professional training.
The grumbling MPs are obviously unhappy because of the high standard of journalism in Kenya which makes the competitive nature of the profession demand a high benchmark of interpretative reporting. This is different from the obsolete conveyor belt reportorial method which did not question the authenticity of newsmakers. Today, for example, when an MP deliberately misinterprets any Article of the Proposed Constitution, it is obligatory on the part of the reporter to point out the misdemeanor in his copy. That obviously offends the treacherous MPs who had backed on mendacity to popularize the NO vote.
The second yardstick of adherence to the professional ethics is a lot harder, though not impossible, to discover when it is violated. Superficially it looked as if the MPs were complaining about journalistic independence, or lack of it, among Kenyan journalists while covering the referendum debate. As far back as in 1922 when the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) first thought of independence as a journalistic ethical principle the worry was none interference in editorial decision making process from three distinct quarters namely proprietorial, governmental and commercial meddling.
Little, of course, did the complaining MPs think of the use of their Parliamentary absolute privilege as a form of political interference in editorial decision making process. The Prime Minister did well to remind them not to poke their noses in instructing journalists on how to handle their copy. If there was any ethical principle Parliamentarians could challenge journalists in Kenya on, it would probably be impartiality which is not specifically mentioned by the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya. The tendency by Kenyan journalists to be a bit tendentious can be excused by the acceptance of interpretative journalism.
Be that as it may, no one can accuse Kenyan journalists of not adhering to their Code’s third principle of integrity which calls on journalists to present news with integrity and decency, avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, and respect the dignity and intelligence of the audience as well as the subjects of news. Like the ASNE Code of impartiality the Kenyan Code of integrity asks the Kenyan journalists to clearly label opinion and commentary.
The fact that ethically journalists are expected to separate facts from opinion does not mean they have none. Indeed on matters of the forthcoming referendum they are not only expected to express their opinion on their op-ed pages, they are expected to educate their readers, viewers and listeners on the pros and cons of the Proposed Constitution in their various feature articles. That way their readers will easily separate the horses from the mules in all claims made by the proponents and opponents of the Proposed Constitution.
As professional people , journalists in Kenya know the difference between the current Constitution and the Proposed one in so far as their calling is concerned. The current Constitution’s Section 79 guarantees freedom of expression with one hand and takes it with another. It says except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence.
But in Section 79(2) it says nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision - (a) that is reasonably required in the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health and(b) that is reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons or the private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts or regulating the technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television; or (c) that imposes restrictions upon public officers or upon persons in the service of a local government authority, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
Reading that section of the current Constitution clearly indicates under what pressure the Fourth Estate operates in this country. One has only to compare all that with the three articles of the Proposed Constitution which shows considerable respect for the Fourth Estate and the people of Kenya.
The first one is to be found in Article 33 on Freedom of Expression which says every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes— (a) freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas;(b) freedom of artistic creativity; and(c) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. And Article 33 (2) says the right to freedom of expression does not extend to—(a) propaganda for war; (b) incitement to violence;(c) hate speech; or (d) advocacy of hatred that—(i) constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others or incitement to cause harm; or (ii) is based on any ground of discrimination mentioned or contemplated in Article 27 (which deals with equality and freedom from discrimination). Article 33(3) says in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, every person shall respect the rights and reputation of others.
The difference between the two resembles the disparity between day and night. And as if that is not enough, protection for journalist in the Proposed Constitution’s Article 34 deals specifically with Freedom of the Media which is not even mentioned in the current Constitution. The Proposed Constitution’s Article 35 which deals with Access to Information will make all journalists’ work very easy while respecting the people’s right to know.
For these and many other reasons journalists in Kenya must not be apologetic for supporting the Proposed Constitution in their editorial and news analysis columns. At the same time they should not allow anyone to lie about the Proposed Constitution and get away with it. On this important issue of constitutional debate the Fourth Estate must unashamedly take a firm stand and openly endorse the Proposed Constitution.
What the complaining MPs were implying is that journalists in Kenya are not covering the referendum debate professionally. Nothing could be farther from the truth because all the three ways of measuring journalistic professionalism vindicate the media. The three ways are the nuts and bolts of handling a story; the adherence to ethical principles and professional training.
The grumbling MPs are obviously unhappy because of the high standard of journalism in Kenya which makes the competitive nature of the profession demand a high benchmark of interpretative reporting. This is different from the obsolete conveyor belt reportorial method which did not question the authenticity of newsmakers. Today, for example, when an MP deliberately misinterprets any Article of the Proposed Constitution, it is obligatory on the part of the reporter to point out the misdemeanor in his copy. That obviously offends the treacherous MPs who had backed on mendacity to popularize the NO vote.
The second yardstick of adherence to the professional ethics is a lot harder, though not impossible, to discover when it is violated. Superficially it looked as if the MPs were complaining about journalistic independence, or lack of it, among Kenyan journalists while covering the referendum debate. As far back as in 1922 when the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) first thought of independence as a journalistic ethical principle the worry was none interference in editorial decision making process from three distinct quarters namely proprietorial, governmental and commercial meddling.
Little, of course, did the complaining MPs think of the use of their Parliamentary absolute privilege as a form of political interference in editorial decision making process. The Prime Minister did well to remind them not to poke their noses in instructing journalists on how to handle their copy. If there was any ethical principle Parliamentarians could challenge journalists in Kenya on, it would probably be impartiality which is not specifically mentioned by the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya. The tendency by Kenyan journalists to be a bit tendentious can be excused by the acceptance of interpretative journalism.
Be that as it may, no one can accuse Kenyan journalists of not adhering to their Code’s third principle of integrity which calls on journalists to present news with integrity and decency, avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, and respect the dignity and intelligence of the audience as well as the subjects of news. Like the ASNE Code of impartiality the Kenyan Code of integrity asks the Kenyan journalists to clearly label opinion and commentary.
The fact that ethically journalists are expected to separate facts from opinion does not mean they have none. Indeed on matters of the forthcoming referendum they are not only expected to express their opinion on their op-ed pages, they are expected to educate their readers, viewers and listeners on the pros and cons of the Proposed Constitution in their various feature articles. That way their readers will easily separate the horses from the mules in all claims made by the proponents and opponents of the Proposed Constitution.
As professional people , journalists in Kenya know the difference between the current Constitution and the Proposed one in so far as their calling is concerned. The current Constitution’s Section 79 guarantees freedom of expression with one hand and takes it with another. It says except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence.
But in Section 79(2) it says nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision - (a) that is reasonably required in the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health and(b) that is reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons or the private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts or regulating the technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television; or (c) that imposes restrictions upon public officers or upon persons in the service of a local government authority, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
Reading that section of the current Constitution clearly indicates under what pressure the Fourth Estate operates in this country. One has only to compare all that with the three articles of the Proposed Constitution which shows considerable respect for the Fourth Estate and the people of Kenya.
The first one is to be found in Article 33 on Freedom of Expression which says every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes— (a) freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas;(b) freedom of artistic creativity; and(c) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. And Article 33 (2) says the right to freedom of expression does not extend to—(a) propaganda for war; (b) incitement to violence;(c) hate speech; or (d) advocacy of hatred that—(i) constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others or incitement to cause harm; or (ii) is based on any ground of discrimination mentioned or contemplated in Article 27 (which deals with equality and freedom from discrimination). Article 33(3) says in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, every person shall respect the rights and reputation of others.
The difference between the two resembles the disparity between day and night. And as if that is not enough, protection for journalist in the Proposed Constitution’s Article 34 deals specifically with Freedom of the Media which is not even mentioned in the current Constitution. The Proposed Constitution’s Article 35 which deals with Access to Information will make all journalists’ work very easy while respecting the people’s right to know.
For these and many other reasons journalists in Kenya must not be apologetic for supporting the Proposed Constitution in their editorial and news analysis columns. At the same time they should not allow anyone to lie about the Proposed Constitution and get away with it. On this important issue of constitutional debate the Fourth Estate must unashamedly take a firm stand and openly endorse the Proposed Constitution.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Kenyan Referendum: It’s the Rich vs the Poor
The stand taken by various groups either supporting or opposing the Proposed Constitution proves that Kenya is at war between the rich and the poor. The supporters of the current constitution, which strongly favours the rich against the poor, are hiding behind the “NO” group claiming to be dissatisfied with the Proposed Constitution. Their main bone of contention is ostensibly based on issues concerning the Kadhi courts, abortion and land. But in reality they are scared stiff of the proposals of the Draft Constitution because it is taking most drastic steps to introduce real democracy and equality in this country.
The “NO” supporters are people who have acquired a lot of wealth under the dictatorships of Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi. Both the first and the second Presidents of this country used land as a major political weapon with which to bribe their supporters. Public land, including forests and even public toilets, were illegally grabbed and allocated to individuals who became multimillionaires after selling them. Now they are mobilizing the “NO” votes by bribing gullible church leaders to make all sorts fictitious criticism against the Proposed Constitution.
The war against the parts of the constitution supporting the people’s rights started in Naivasha when the PSC was examining the first Harmonized Draft Constitution by the CoE. At that time the Second Generation Human Rights recommended by Nzamba Kitonga were all wiped out by the same parliamentarians now led by William Ruto to oppose the Proposed Constitution. Their real anger is the fact that Nzamba Kitonga actually reinstated the Second Generation Human Rights in the final draft which is now the Proposed Constitution.
Nzamba Kitonga’s Harmonized Draft had made very commendable recommendations on social security which must haven offended the likes of William Ruto in the PSC. In Article 61, for example, Kitonga suggested that every person had the right to social security which compelled the State to provide appropriate social security to persons who were unable to support themselves or their dependants. Nzamba Kitonga had suggested in Article 62 that every person had the right to health care and that no person would be refused emergency medical treatment.
In Article 63 Kitonga suggested that every person had the right to education and that the State would institute a programme to implement the right of every child to free and compulsory pre-primary and primary education and in so doing would pay particular attention to children with special needs. In that draft Kitonga also suggested that the State would take measures to make secondary and post secondary education progressively available and accessible. In Article 64 Kitonga called for the right of every person to accessible and adequate housing and to reasonable standard of sanitation. Article 65 of the Harmonized Draft said that every person had the right to be free from hunger and to adequate food of acceptable quality. Article 66 of the Harmonized Draft Constitution said every person had the right to clean and safe water in adequate quantities.
When William Ruto and other Parliamentarians had a look at Nzamba Kitonga’s proposals at Naivasha they changed all the above Second Generation Human Rights into a small Article 40 they called “Economic and Social Right” that said that the State shall take legislative, policy and other measures including the setting of standards to achieve the progressive realization of the right of every person to social security, health, education, housing, food and water. In other words the rich people meeting in Naivasha under the auspices of PSC changed the command of the Constitution into a proposal to make legislation in future to look into people’s welfare. They did not like the categorical demand from the Constitution asking the State unambiguously to provide Second Generation Human Rights. They did not want the Constitution to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
They therefore mutilated the Nzamba Kitonga’s Harmonized Draft by removing every aspect of the Constitution that boosted the lives of the ordinary wananchi. They also took stern measures to fight the Fourth Estate by removing the article which called for access to information. Luckily the mutilated Draft from the PSC had, by law, to go back to the CoE to incorporate the views of the people before the Proposed Draft was handed back to Parliament for debate.
It was when the Draft was taken back to him that Nzamba Kitonga reinstated the Second Generation Human Rights which now appear in Articles 43 called Economic and Social Rights which says every person has the right to highest attainable standard of health, which include the right to health care services, including reproductive health care; to accessible and adequate housing, and reasonable standards of sanitation; to be free from hunger and to have adequate food of acceptable quality; to clean and safe water in adequate quantities; to social security and to education. This Article also says a person shall not be denied emergency medical treatment and that the State shall provide appropriate social security to persons who are unable to support themselves and their dependants.
These are the parts of the Constitution which anger Daniel arap Moi and William Ruto with his gang of Kalenjin MPs. Nzamba Kitonga came to the rescue of the Fourth Estate by reinstating in Article 35 the important human right issue of Access to Information which MPs had deleted. For all the above reasons the Fourth Estate in the country has an obligation to inform the people the importance of voting YES even if in doing so they will make Ruto and Churchmen accuse them of being biased.
Kenyans are about to go through a historic moment when they will determine whether or not to accept the Proposed Constitution. The media have been challenged to remain neutral on this matter and as a matter of fact churchmen have accused journalists of taking sides by openly backing the Proposed Constitution. Following that complaint the media must not start downplaying the debate on the Proposed Constitution. This is the time when journalists should continue to do the good work they are doing now of telling the people the truth about the content of the Proposed Constitution in order to educate them.
Journalists must not ignore their very important ethical principle of Accuracy. As a matter of fact the very first ethical principle of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya is about Accuracy and Fairness. It says that the fundamental objective of a journalist is to write a fair, accurate and an unbiased story on matters of public interest. It goes on to say that all sides of the story shall be reported, wherever possible. By failing to tell the people the truth every time opponents of the Proposed Constitution deliberately misinterpret its articles, the journalists are taking the risk of being unprofessional.
In covering the constitutional debate currently taking place in the country journalists have an obligation to tell the truth and nothing but the truth about both what is going on in the debate and what the subject matter of the debate is all about. Journalists have a professional duty to tell the people of Kenya the truth about the differences between the current Constitution of Kenya and the Proposed Constitution. It is their professional duty to tell the people of Kenya the weakness and strength of the two constitutions' Bill of Right. If they do so sincerely and professionally they will expose the fact that Proposed Constitution is far better for the people of Kenya than the current one. All they need to do is to tell the truth as accurately as possible. It is their professional obligation to do so.
The “NO” supporters are people who have acquired a lot of wealth under the dictatorships of Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi. Both the first and the second Presidents of this country used land as a major political weapon with which to bribe their supporters. Public land, including forests and even public toilets, were illegally grabbed and allocated to individuals who became multimillionaires after selling them. Now they are mobilizing the “NO” votes by bribing gullible church leaders to make all sorts fictitious criticism against the Proposed Constitution.
The war against the parts of the constitution supporting the people’s rights started in Naivasha when the PSC was examining the first Harmonized Draft Constitution by the CoE. At that time the Second Generation Human Rights recommended by Nzamba Kitonga were all wiped out by the same parliamentarians now led by William Ruto to oppose the Proposed Constitution. Their real anger is the fact that Nzamba Kitonga actually reinstated the Second Generation Human Rights in the final draft which is now the Proposed Constitution.
Nzamba Kitonga’s Harmonized Draft had made very commendable recommendations on social security which must haven offended the likes of William Ruto in the PSC. In Article 61, for example, Kitonga suggested that every person had the right to social security which compelled the State to provide appropriate social security to persons who were unable to support themselves or their dependants. Nzamba Kitonga had suggested in Article 62 that every person had the right to health care and that no person would be refused emergency medical treatment.
In Article 63 Kitonga suggested that every person had the right to education and that the State would institute a programme to implement the right of every child to free and compulsory pre-primary and primary education and in so doing would pay particular attention to children with special needs. In that draft Kitonga also suggested that the State would take measures to make secondary and post secondary education progressively available and accessible. In Article 64 Kitonga called for the right of every person to accessible and adequate housing and to reasonable standard of sanitation. Article 65 of the Harmonized Draft said that every person had the right to be free from hunger and to adequate food of acceptable quality. Article 66 of the Harmonized Draft Constitution said every person had the right to clean and safe water in adequate quantities.
When William Ruto and other Parliamentarians had a look at Nzamba Kitonga’s proposals at Naivasha they changed all the above Second Generation Human Rights into a small Article 40 they called “Economic and Social Right” that said that the State shall take legislative, policy and other measures including the setting of standards to achieve the progressive realization of the right of every person to social security, health, education, housing, food and water. In other words the rich people meeting in Naivasha under the auspices of PSC changed the command of the Constitution into a proposal to make legislation in future to look into people’s welfare. They did not like the categorical demand from the Constitution asking the State unambiguously to provide Second Generation Human Rights. They did not want the Constitution to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
They therefore mutilated the Nzamba Kitonga’s Harmonized Draft by removing every aspect of the Constitution that boosted the lives of the ordinary wananchi. They also took stern measures to fight the Fourth Estate by removing the article which called for access to information. Luckily the mutilated Draft from the PSC had, by law, to go back to the CoE to incorporate the views of the people before the Proposed Draft was handed back to Parliament for debate.
It was when the Draft was taken back to him that Nzamba Kitonga reinstated the Second Generation Human Rights which now appear in Articles 43 called Economic and Social Rights which says every person has the right to highest attainable standard of health, which include the right to health care services, including reproductive health care; to accessible and adequate housing, and reasonable standards of sanitation; to be free from hunger and to have adequate food of acceptable quality; to clean and safe water in adequate quantities; to social security and to education. This Article also says a person shall not be denied emergency medical treatment and that the State shall provide appropriate social security to persons who are unable to support themselves and their dependants.
These are the parts of the Constitution which anger Daniel arap Moi and William Ruto with his gang of Kalenjin MPs. Nzamba Kitonga came to the rescue of the Fourth Estate by reinstating in Article 35 the important human right issue of Access to Information which MPs had deleted. For all the above reasons the Fourth Estate in the country has an obligation to inform the people the importance of voting YES even if in doing so they will make Ruto and Churchmen accuse them of being biased.
Kenyans are about to go through a historic moment when they will determine whether or not to accept the Proposed Constitution. The media have been challenged to remain neutral on this matter and as a matter of fact churchmen have accused journalists of taking sides by openly backing the Proposed Constitution. Following that complaint the media must not start downplaying the debate on the Proposed Constitution. This is the time when journalists should continue to do the good work they are doing now of telling the people the truth about the content of the Proposed Constitution in order to educate them.
Journalists must not ignore their very important ethical principle of Accuracy. As a matter of fact the very first ethical principle of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya is about Accuracy and Fairness. It says that the fundamental objective of a journalist is to write a fair, accurate and an unbiased story on matters of public interest. It goes on to say that all sides of the story shall be reported, wherever possible. By failing to tell the people the truth every time opponents of the Proposed Constitution deliberately misinterpret its articles, the journalists are taking the risk of being unprofessional.
In covering the constitutional debate currently taking place in the country journalists have an obligation to tell the truth and nothing but the truth about both what is going on in the debate and what the subject matter of the debate is all about. Journalists have a professional duty to tell the people of Kenya the truth about the differences between the current Constitution of Kenya and the Proposed Constitution. It is their professional duty to tell the people of Kenya the weakness and strength of the two constitutions' Bill of Right. If they do so sincerely and professionally they will expose the fact that Proposed Constitution is far better for the people of Kenya than the current one. All they need to do is to tell the truth as accurately as possible. It is their professional obligation to do so.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Referendum: YES vote sure to win
Despite all the hullabaloos by the Clergy and the William Ruto camp, the Proposed Constitution is sure to go through the referendum successfully and be accepted by Kenyans as their future supreme law.
Yet there are powerful forces against it. Composed of radical anti- Islam American Christian fundamentalists and the Kenyan tycoons who have always been protected by the current Constitution in their quest for sucking the blood of the people, the forces against the Proposed Constitutions are extremely strong; but even more formidable are the forces that back it. These are made up of the combination of the powers behind the American Government, the Kenyan Prime Minister, the Kenyan trade union, the President, the Vice President, the two Deputy Prime Ministers and the civil society.
Backed by a team of about 30 members of Parliament and the former President Daniel arap Moi, Ruto’s squad is likely to create a lot of serious obstruction; but there is no way that impediment can be beyond the means of Raila Odinga, Mwai Kibaki, William ole Ntimama, Musalia Mudavadi, Charity Ngilu, Gitobu Imanyara, Kiraitu Murungi, Kalonzo Musyoka, Mutula Kilonzo, Danson Mungatana to crush. On that list one could also add Barack Obama and Kofi Annan whose powers and influence spread beyond many boundaries.
In other words, the combination of all these people forms such a frightening political power bloc that can be stopped by almost nothing at all to achieve virtually anything they want. The passage of the Proposed Constitution through Parliament, for example, was not a mere accident. It was within the predetermined scheme of the group which foresaw no possibility of any amendment to the Proposed Constitution during the Parliamentary debating period. Hence the stage managed dramatic walkouts which achieved that goal.
Succumbing to the pressure from the American Christian fundamentalists, who are said to have poured in a lot of money into some Kenyan pockets, the Clergy in this country has made a lot of noise about the Kadhi courts and the clause on abortion. But that was before their closed door meeting with Agwambo and Mwai Kibaki. After that meeting they seem to have softened their position; and by the look of things, religious leaders are likely to back the Proposed Constitution without any amendment, hoping that that will follow after the referendum. The Clergy may even agree to sign a MoU with Kibaki and Raila though they know how slippery the two politicians are when it comes to memoranda of understanding.But it may be the only way of saving face after realizing the mood of the country is for a YES vote.
Deep inside their hearts the religious leaders are Kenyan nationalists who have been fighting for the very things that are promoted by the Bill of Rights in the Proposed Constitution. By accepting to sign a MoU with Kibaki and Raila they will now have an uphill task of convincing their American paymasters that the inclusion of Kadhi courts in our constitution is not the same thing as opening doors for Muslim fundamentalism in Kenya. That they can simply do by making proper interpretations of the proposed Constitution to the American paymasters.
The manner in which the Kenyan churchmen behave is like gluttonous dogs of war ready to fight anyone’s battle for some meager payment. No matter how much they are getting from the American Christian fundamentalists the amount is insignificant compared to nationalism they have decided to throw out of the window. Yet this is not the first time they are selling their souls. They did exactly the same in 2007-8 when they fanned the tribal flames of Kenya that led to the bloodbath which is still fresh in the wananchi’s minds. Paradoxically the tribal hegemonic chiefs whose tunes the Churchmen were dancing to in 2007-8 are at it again. They have joined the American Christian fundamentalists in bribing the Clergy in Kenya to oppose the Proposed Constitution.
There are many reasons for the tribalist to detest the Proposed Constitution. It threatens to deny them the opportunity to practise their xenophobic nationalism through the Majimbo system which would have licensed them to renew their ethnic cleansing exercises which they have practiced every time the country has gone through a general election. Thousands of Kenyans are still living in IDP camps because of the tribalist’s cruelty. Yet it is strongly rumoured that this time they have armed themselves to their teeth waiting for the 2012 elections.
The tribalists are up in arms against the Proposed Constitution’s attempt to stop land grabbers from continuing to own huge tracts of land when the ordinary wananchi have none. They have the audacity to impudently tell the landless people to reject the proposal that would make them stand a chance of owning some land. What angers the big sharks in the Proposed Constitution is Article 68 (1) (c) (i) which says Parliament shall enact legislation to prescribe minimum and maximum land holding acreages in respect of private land. Only people like Daniel Toroitich arap Moi and John Michuki who own very large tracts of land can oppose such a proposal. Yet they dare not give the people the true reason for their opposing the Proposed Constitution.
Moi says he opposes the Proposed Constitution because it contains many “academic issues” yet he does not name any. Michuki claims he opposes the Proposed Constitution because it allows members of the armed forces to strike. For Michuki to use that excuse to oppose the Proposed Constitution is most absurd because Article 24 (5) clearly says a provision in legislation may limit the application of the rights or fundamental freedoms to persons serving in the Kenya Defence Force or the National Police Service in the provisions concerning privacy, Freedom of Association, Assembly, demonstration, picketing and petition, labour relations, economic and social rights and the rights of arrested persons. For a man who has sat in the Kenyan Cabinet and is so respected in the country for introducing popular laws regulating matatu, his selective amnesia after reading the Proposed Constitution is simply shocking.
Likewise the churchmen’s inability to read in the Proposed Constitution’s Section 26 (4) which categorically says that abortion is not permitted is yet another case of selective amnesia. Their greatest sin is to recommend the murders of expectant mothers whose pregnancies threaten their lives. Doctors’ duties in all countries in the world are to save life. Churchmen in Kenya want them to let pregnant mothers experiencing miscarriages to be simply ignored until they die in agony.
Churchmen’s argument against Kadhi courts is equally shallow and does not appear to be original. It is certainly implanted in their minds by the American paymasters who think the word Islam is synonymous with terrorism. Why have the churchmen never raised a finger against the courts for almost half a century? Why don’t they tell their followers that the NO vote is a vote in favour of Kadhi courts because all it does is to push us back to the present constitution which recognizes the Kadhi courts?
Yet there are powerful forces against it. Composed of radical anti- Islam American Christian fundamentalists and the Kenyan tycoons who have always been protected by the current Constitution in their quest for sucking the blood of the people, the forces against the Proposed Constitutions are extremely strong; but even more formidable are the forces that back it. These are made up of the combination of the powers behind the American Government, the Kenyan Prime Minister, the Kenyan trade union, the President, the Vice President, the two Deputy Prime Ministers and the civil society.
Backed by a team of about 30 members of Parliament and the former President Daniel arap Moi, Ruto’s squad is likely to create a lot of serious obstruction; but there is no way that impediment can be beyond the means of Raila Odinga, Mwai Kibaki, William ole Ntimama, Musalia Mudavadi, Charity Ngilu, Gitobu Imanyara, Kiraitu Murungi, Kalonzo Musyoka, Mutula Kilonzo, Danson Mungatana to crush. On that list one could also add Barack Obama and Kofi Annan whose powers and influence spread beyond many boundaries.
In other words, the combination of all these people forms such a frightening political power bloc that can be stopped by almost nothing at all to achieve virtually anything they want. The passage of the Proposed Constitution through Parliament, for example, was not a mere accident. It was within the predetermined scheme of the group which foresaw no possibility of any amendment to the Proposed Constitution during the Parliamentary debating period. Hence the stage managed dramatic walkouts which achieved that goal.
Succumbing to the pressure from the American Christian fundamentalists, who are said to have poured in a lot of money into some Kenyan pockets, the Clergy in this country has made a lot of noise about the Kadhi courts and the clause on abortion. But that was before their closed door meeting with Agwambo and Mwai Kibaki. After that meeting they seem to have softened their position; and by the look of things, religious leaders are likely to back the Proposed Constitution without any amendment, hoping that that will follow after the referendum. The Clergy may even agree to sign a MoU with Kibaki and Raila though they know how slippery the two politicians are when it comes to memoranda of understanding.But it may be the only way of saving face after realizing the mood of the country is for a YES vote.
Deep inside their hearts the religious leaders are Kenyan nationalists who have been fighting for the very things that are promoted by the Bill of Rights in the Proposed Constitution. By accepting to sign a MoU with Kibaki and Raila they will now have an uphill task of convincing their American paymasters that the inclusion of Kadhi courts in our constitution is not the same thing as opening doors for Muslim fundamentalism in Kenya. That they can simply do by making proper interpretations of the proposed Constitution to the American paymasters.
The manner in which the Kenyan churchmen behave is like gluttonous dogs of war ready to fight anyone’s battle for some meager payment. No matter how much they are getting from the American Christian fundamentalists the amount is insignificant compared to nationalism they have decided to throw out of the window. Yet this is not the first time they are selling their souls. They did exactly the same in 2007-8 when they fanned the tribal flames of Kenya that led to the bloodbath which is still fresh in the wananchi’s minds. Paradoxically the tribal hegemonic chiefs whose tunes the Churchmen were dancing to in 2007-8 are at it again. They have joined the American Christian fundamentalists in bribing the Clergy in Kenya to oppose the Proposed Constitution.
There are many reasons for the tribalist to detest the Proposed Constitution. It threatens to deny them the opportunity to practise their xenophobic nationalism through the Majimbo system which would have licensed them to renew their ethnic cleansing exercises which they have practiced every time the country has gone through a general election. Thousands of Kenyans are still living in IDP camps because of the tribalist’s cruelty. Yet it is strongly rumoured that this time they have armed themselves to their teeth waiting for the 2012 elections.
The tribalists are up in arms against the Proposed Constitution’s attempt to stop land grabbers from continuing to own huge tracts of land when the ordinary wananchi have none. They have the audacity to impudently tell the landless people to reject the proposal that would make them stand a chance of owning some land. What angers the big sharks in the Proposed Constitution is Article 68 (1) (c) (i) which says Parliament shall enact legislation to prescribe minimum and maximum land holding acreages in respect of private land. Only people like Daniel Toroitich arap Moi and John Michuki who own very large tracts of land can oppose such a proposal. Yet they dare not give the people the true reason for their opposing the Proposed Constitution.
Moi says he opposes the Proposed Constitution because it contains many “academic issues” yet he does not name any. Michuki claims he opposes the Proposed Constitution because it allows members of the armed forces to strike. For Michuki to use that excuse to oppose the Proposed Constitution is most absurd because Article 24 (5) clearly says a provision in legislation may limit the application of the rights or fundamental freedoms to persons serving in the Kenya Defence Force or the National Police Service in the provisions concerning privacy, Freedom of Association, Assembly, demonstration, picketing and petition, labour relations, economic and social rights and the rights of arrested persons. For a man who has sat in the Kenyan Cabinet and is so respected in the country for introducing popular laws regulating matatu, his selective amnesia after reading the Proposed Constitution is simply shocking.
Likewise the churchmen’s inability to read in the Proposed Constitution’s Section 26 (4) which categorically says that abortion is not permitted is yet another case of selective amnesia. Their greatest sin is to recommend the murders of expectant mothers whose pregnancies threaten their lives. Doctors’ duties in all countries in the world are to save life. Churchmen in Kenya want them to let pregnant mothers experiencing miscarriages to be simply ignored until they die in agony.
Churchmen’s argument against Kadhi courts is equally shallow and does not appear to be original. It is certainly implanted in their minds by the American paymasters who think the word Islam is synonymous with terrorism. Why have the churchmen never raised a finger against the courts for almost half a century? Why don’t they tell their followers that the NO vote is a vote in favour of Kadhi courts because all it does is to push us back to the present constitution which recognizes the Kadhi courts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
