There is a deadly plan to scuttle the forthcoming referendum. And a plan “B” to plunge the country in total chaos if the “YES” votes win. These shocking revelations have been exposed by Kenya’s courageous Fourth Estate, which is covering the referendum story in the most professional manner, perfecting the craft of interpretative journalism. When nonprofessional writers, however, put their pen to paper on this issue, they expose their rawness in the calling by letting their emotional feelings control their thinking.
This truth was brought into light over the weekend when both the Sunday Nation and the Sunday Standard splashed exposes which revealed the sinister motives of the “NO” voters. This is despite the nonprofessional defence of the “NO” votes by Mutahi Ngunyi’s shallow, and extremely emotional argument rejecting the Proposed Constitution.
Very much like the professional journalists , the Infotrak Harris public opinion polls also professionally revealed that Kenyans are determined to have a new constitution despite all the dirty work of those who want to wreck the referendum by illegally inserting the words “national security” in the Proposed Constitution ; or confuse the voters through dubious court ruling on Kadhi courts.
The Standard story talked of powerful forces secretly working to scuttle the referendum. Before the publication of that expose Msemakweli was the first to come up with that revelation which is now a subject of public debate enlightening Kenyans about the truth behind the rich peoples’ scheme to keep the poor perpetually down trodden while they remain on an ivory tower enjoying their ill-gotten wealth. Because of the stand taken by Kenyan journalists, justice is about to be done in Kenya in the most revolutionary manner as Mutula Kilonzo would put it.
In his biased and unprofessional column, Mutahi Ngunyi argues as a man “previously from the Gema Nation”. Throughout the prejudiced article, however, he propagates the Gema bigoted views, as he normally does, against the Proposed Constitution. Very Much like John Michuki he talks of “angry Armed Forces over unionization”. Again, very much like John Michuki , who walked out of Parliament when it was discussing the Proposed Constitution claiming he cannot back it because it makes members of the armed forces join union , Ngunyi refuses to accept the fact that the Proposed Constitution does not allow members of the armed forces to form or join any trade union.
For the information of the confessed Gema writer Article 24 (5) on limitation of rights and fundamental Freedom of the Bill of Rights in Chapter Four clearly limits those rights to persons serving the Kenya Defence Forces or the National Police Service on matters concerning privacy , freedom of association, assembly, demonstration , picketing and petition. The deliberate amnesia by the rich Gema people about this part of the Proposed Constitution when they ridiculously claim that it allows soldiers to form trade unions is most puzzling. Paradoxically it happens to be the same part of the Proposed Constitution where the infamous words “national security” were criminally inserted in a clandestine manner.
Journalists Emeka-Mayaka Gekara and Njeri Rugene of the Sunday Nation will go down in history as the courageous professional writers who told Kenyans that politicians opposing the Proposed Constitution do not do so out of principles but out of fear of Raila Odinga using the referendum as a political platform for the 2012 presidential elections. After reading the views expressed by the two professional journalists Kenyans must have wondered why the politicians fearing Raila don’t use the same referendum to promote their chances of winning the 2012 elections.
The answer to that question is simple. The Proposed Constitution creates the office of a President with a running mate who would end up as the country’s Vice President. Those who want to form tribal alliances to take over the leadership of this country are not quite comfortable with that arrangement. They want a constitution similar to the one used to govern this country now through a coalition Government because in it there are offices to be occupied by all the tribal leaders who join hands to win the 2012 elections as a group.
Looked at closely all the leaders in the KKK are actually still together behind William Ruto in opposing the Proposed Constitution. If the Proposed Constitution is not accepted there will still be a hope of Kikuyus under Uhuru Kenyatta, Kambas under Kalonzo Musyoka and Kalenjins under William Ruto forming a government with one of them taking the office of the President, the other one occupying that of the Vice President and the third one taking over the office of the Prime Minister.
There is little wonder that the latest opinion polls shows the elders of these communities are yet to accept the Proposed Constitution. They youth throughout the country, however, are united behind the proposed constitution and are determined to show the youth power during the referendum. Backing the tribal KKK grouping in the hope of forming the next Government in Kenya is the most shameful thing that can happen to this country.
It is therefore not quite baffling that Kalonzo Musyoka still has cold feet about sharing a platform with Raila Odinga in support of the “YES” team. Kiraitu Murungi appears with Anyang Nyongo at a press conference backing the Proposed Constitution wearing very dark glasses hiding his eyes to the journalists when he condemns those who don’t back the Proposed Constitution firmly. Whether his dark glasses were for medical or political reasons people’s perception saw a chameleon that had no courage to face journalist in an eyeball to eyeball situation.
Journalists Oscar Obonyo of the Sunday Standard exposed a shocking fact that the opponents of the Proposed Constitution have now resorted to burning copies of the Proposed Constitution. They don’t want the people to read the document and make up their minds whether to vote “YES” or “NO”. They want people to make that decision based of tribal considerations. That is why they ask Kalenjins to say “NO” because the proposed Constitution, according to them, is no good for the community. The Meru people have been told to vote “NO” as a tribe because saying “YES” would mean all their miraa farms would be taken over by Somali Muslims. This of course is a white lie.
The Kamba people have been told to say “NO” as a community because saying “YES” would give Kalonzo Musyoka no chance of becoming the next President because the Proposed Constitution would wreck the KKK alliance, which is the only hope of Kalonzo ever becoming a president in Kenya. All the tribal tricks have failed to knock down the Proposed Constitution because the youth of Kenya have rejected tribal nationalism. The attempt to polarize the country on religious grounds pitting the Muslims against the Christians has also been rejected by the people of Kenya.
The credit for all this positive thinking among the people of Kenya goes to the journalists of this country who have now decided to become true professionals for the sake of the Kenyan nation which, they have now all agreed, should not be used as a battlefield to pour the people’s blood because of a few greedy tribalist politicians. The opinion polls have also helped in revealing the true feeling of the people of Kenya.
Because of the polls, today it is quite clear that in areas where the Proposed Constitution has not been read by the people; the “NO” votes are predominant. But in areas where the contents of the Proposed Constitution are known to the people, the majority of the wananchi are for the “YES” vote. So it is up to the journalists now to popularize the contents of the Proposed Constitution through their newspapers, radio stations and television stations.
After all, tribal sectarian trouble makers are busy burning the Proposed Constitution to make the people not read it. Now it is absolutely clear that they don’t want the people to know the truth about the Proposed Constitution because deceit has always made them triumphant both politically and economically.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Secret power plotting against referendum
There is a secret power working against the referendum. The power is so formidable that even the police are unable to discuss or expose it. This is the power that invaded the Government Printer and altered the Proposed Constitution by inserting the two infamous words “national security”. The power seems to have invaded the Judiciary and made it disregard the law in a ridiculous effort to discredit the part of the current constitution that protects the existence of Kadhi courts.
It is a power that everybody feels but nobody is willing to discuss or expose it in public. This is the power which is openly stopping the funding of the civic education for the CoE. People are only guessing about the secret power; but nobody is pointing a finger at any individual for the fear of retribution by its clandestine way of hitting back at its enemies. All that is known is that the power exists and it must be within the Government but it chooses to operate in a concealed manner because most of its activities are criminal.
It is strange but true that a very serious crime was committed either at the Attorney General Chambers, where the Proposed Constitution was being edited for grammatical errors, or at the Government Printer, where it was printed. The crime was the insertion of the words “national security” at a very crucial part of the Proposed Constitution which changed the Bill of Rights’ guarantees for vital freedoms and human rights.
There can be only two reasons for changing the Proposed Constitution at its embryonic stages. The first is to make the final product defective and meaningless as it would end up leaving the Proposed Constitution so dictatorial as to render it useless. The second reason is to make the alteration the centre of debate just before the referendum so as to make the people of Kenya reject the Proposed Constitution. I am inclined to think that the later motive was the real plan by the secret power which is making everyone to shake in their boots.
It so happens that none of the tricks worked. The so-called “error” was discovered in time, made public by the vigilant media before it was widely circulated, and dismissed by the public as a dirty but cheap mischief that needed not derail the plans for a referendum. It also failed to become the centre of debate between the Reds and the Greens. In other words the “error” never served its purpose.
They mystery however is still puzzling – why is the long arm of the law proving to be totally incapable of catching up with the criminals who tried to change the Proposed Constitution? Could it be that the police investigating the crime are scared stiff of the secret power behind the crime? The deafening silence that is surrounding the whole episode only helps to deepen the mystery.
As the nation tries to cogitate on the obscurity of the planted erratic words the secret power seems to have moved into the Judiciary. Again in a very inscrutable manner a bench of three judges decides to dig up an old case of 2004 in which a group of church leaders were seeking the court’s ruling about a then proposed constitution known as the “Boma Draft” not to include provisions that were similar to the current Section 66 of the Constitution which creates and protects the Kadhi courts.
In their belated judgement of the said case the three judges failed to even indicate that they were making a judgement on a draft that no longer exits. What was shockingly even more puzzling was the fact that the judgement came when the country is debating on another draft constitution in which the Kadhi courts are a bone of contention. The infamous judgement is obviously the work of the mysterious secret power which is still plotting against the Proposed Constitution by trying to stop the referendum.
The judgement has now become the centre of debate instead of the content of the Proposed Constitution. With no funds for civic education even the civil society has now started talking about the Kadhi courts judgement rather than all the other virtues of the Proposed Constitution. A new debate has now emerged from the judgement about the doctrine of separation of State from religion which the Christians seem to be calling for. But as the explanation of the real meaning of the doctrine becomes clear the churches themselves are bound to suffer because in Kenya there are many State functions which bring in religion.
These include the opening of parliament, the swearing in of all holders of important public positions even the National Anthem and curriculum used in schools. In America the Doctrine of Separations of State and Religion has been used and is being used to effectively purge religion from public institutions. According to Christiananswers.net today’s conception of "separation of church and state" has also been used to remove historic crosses from public property, and religious symbols from city seals.
The website says the doctrine has been used to remove the Ten Commandments from courtrooms, even though they are carved in stone within the architecture of the Supreme Court building. The concept has been used to prevent religious expressions on personalized license plates. And these are but a few of the official applications of the concept, or “law” of "separation of church and state."
In a blind attempt to hit at the Proposed Constitution the three judges inadvertently introduced the element of the doctrine of separation of State and religion. In their ruling on May 24th 2010 judges Joseph Nyamu, Mathew Anyara Emukule and Roselyn Wendoh unambiguously said: “We grant the declaration that any form of religious courts should not form part of the Judiciary in the Constitution as it offends the doctrine f Separation of State and Religion”. That part of the judgement offends the Christian Church even more than it does Islam. If it is really followed then all that is done in the name of God will be wiped out from State functions and institutions as it is now controversially happening in America.
The Christians and the “NO” Reds are celebrating the Kadhi courts judgement but when its proper legal interpretation comes to light the Christians are likely to pull out of that celebration because the ruling will mean removing everything Christian from schools which is a heavier blow for them than the existence of the Kadhi courts. Very soon when the true meaning of the Kadhi courts judgement is understood by all, Christians will join Amos Wako in seeking the quashing of that judgement in the Court of Appeal. The secret power seems to have hit harder than the Christians can endure.
What is even more dangerous than succeeding to make Kenyans stop discussing the content of the Proposed Constitution is the fact that secret power does not seem to care even if the country is plunged into a Muslim- Christian confrontation. That secret power seems to stop at nothing, including bloodshed, to stop the referendum. Kenyans should know that the only way to stop being misled into unnecessary sectarian confrontation is to resolutely accept the Proposed Constitution through the “YES” vote.
It is a power that everybody feels but nobody is willing to discuss or expose it in public. This is the power which is openly stopping the funding of the civic education for the CoE. People are only guessing about the secret power; but nobody is pointing a finger at any individual for the fear of retribution by its clandestine way of hitting back at its enemies. All that is known is that the power exists and it must be within the Government but it chooses to operate in a concealed manner because most of its activities are criminal.
It is strange but true that a very serious crime was committed either at the Attorney General Chambers, where the Proposed Constitution was being edited for grammatical errors, or at the Government Printer, where it was printed. The crime was the insertion of the words “national security” at a very crucial part of the Proposed Constitution which changed the Bill of Rights’ guarantees for vital freedoms and human rights.
There can be only two reasons for changing the Proposed Constitution at its embryonic stages. The first is to make the final product defective and meaningless as it would end up leaving the Proposed Constitution so dictatorial as to render it useless. The second reason is to make the alteration the centre of debate just before the referendum so as to make the people of Kenya reject the Proposed Constitution. I am inclined to think that the later motive was the real plan by the secret power which is making everyone to shake in their boots.
It so happens that none of the tricks worked. The so-called “error” was discovered in time, made public by the vigilant media before it was widely circulated, and dismissed by the public as a dirty but cheap mischief that needed not derail the plans for a referendum. It also failed to become the centre of debate between the Reds and the Greens. In other words the “error” never served its purpose.
They mystery however is still puzzling – why is the long arm of the law proving to be totally incapable of catching up with the criminals who tried to change the Proposed Constitution? Could it be that the police investigating the crime are scared stiff of the secret power behind the crime? The deafening silence that is surrounding the whole episode only helps to deepen the mystery.
As the nation tries to cogitate on the obscurity of the planted erratic words the secret power seems to have moved into the Judiciary. Again in a very inscrutable manner a bench of three judges decides to dig up an old case of 2004 in which a group of church leaders were seeking the court’s ruling about a then proposed constitution known as the “Boma Draft” not to include provisions that were similar to the current Section 66 of the Constitution which creates and protects the Kadhi courts.
In their belated judgement of the said case the three judges failed to even indicate that they were making a judgement on a draft that no longer exits. What was shockingly even more puzzling was the fact that the judgement came when the country is debating on another draft constitution in which the Kadhi courts are a bone of contention. The infamous judgement is obviously the work of the mysterious secret power which is still plotting against the Proposed Constitution by trying to stop the referendum.
The judgement has now become the centre of debate instead of the content of the Proposed Constitution. With no funds for civic education even the civil society has now started talking about the Kadhi courts judgement rather than all the other virtues of the Proposed Constitution. A new debate has now emerged from the judgement about the doctrine of separation of State from religion which the Christians seem to be calling for. But as the explanation of the real meaning of the doctrine becomes clear the churches themselves are bound to suffer because in Kenya there are many State functions which bring in religion.
These include the opening of parliament, the swearing in of all holders of important public positions even the National Anthem and curriculum used in schools. In America the Doctrine of Separations of State and Religion has been used and is being used to effectively purge religion from public institutions. According to Christiananswers.net today’s conception of "separation of church and state" has also been used to remove historic crosses from public property, and religious symbols from city seals.
The website says the doctrine has been used to remove the Ten Commandments from courtrooms, even though they are carved in stone within the architecture of the Supreme Court building. The concept has been used to prevent religious expressions on personalized license plates. And these are but a few of the official applications of the concept, or “law” of "separation of church and state."
In a blind attempt to hit at the Proposed Constitution the three judges inadvertently introduced the element of the doctrine of separation of State and religion. In their ruling on May 24th 2010 judges Joseph Nyamu, Mathew Anyara Emukule and Roselyn Wendoh unambiguously said: “We grant the declaration that any form of religious courts should not form part of the Judiciary in the Constitution as it offends the doctrine f Separation of State and Religion”. That part of the judgement offends the Christian Church even more than it does Islam. If it is really followed then all that is done in the name of God will be wiped out from State functions and institutions as it is now controversially happening in America.
The Christians and the “NO” Reds are celebrating the Kadhi courts judgement but when its proper legal interpretation comes to light the Christians are likely to pull out of that celebration because the ruling will mean removing everything Christian from schools which is a heavier blow for them than the existence of the Kadhi courts. Very soon when the true meaning of the Kadhi courts judgement is understood by all, Christians will join Amos Wako in seeking the quashing of that judgement in the Court of Appeal. The secret power seems to have hit harder than the Christians can endure.
What is even more dangerous than succeeding to make Kenyans stop discussing the content of the Proposed Constitution is the fact that secret power does not seem to care even if the country is plunged into a Muslim- Christian confrontation. That secret power seems to stop at nothing, including bloodshed, to stop the referendum. Kenyans should know that the only way to stop being misled into unnecessary sectarian confrontation is to resolutely accept the Proposed Constitution through the “YES” vote.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Referendum: Kadhi courts ruling ineffective
There is nothing to be gained by the judgment declaring the Kadhi courts illegal in Kenya. The ruling can neither change the current constitution nor abolish the Kadhi courts. Examined closely the judgment seems to be a very well calculated platform by the Judiciary to hit at the Proposed Constitution which recommends Parliament to enact a legislation which shall establish mechanisms and procedures for vetting the suitability of judges. Without caring about the consequences of their judgment, the ruling exposed the caliber of people manning the Judiciary.
As it is universally accepted, judges cannot change constitutions. Their responsibility is to interpret them. It is therefore extremely strange that the three judges – Mathew Anyara Emukule, Joseph Nyamu and Roselyn Wendoh – behaved as if they had the responsibility of either to recognize or reject any part of the current constitution. They, in fact, behaved as if they had the responsibility to write a new constitution for Kenyans. They obviously intended their ruling to influence the outcome of the forthcoming referendum. But the judgment has had the very opposite effect of strengthening the willpower of the people of Kenya to say “YES” during the referendum. It has only reinforced the hand of the Greens and the “YES” camp.
Displaying a shocking attitude of self-interest, the three judges did not seem to care about the dangerous situation of Christian-Muslim conflict their judgment was likely to push Kenya into. Concerned only about their own fate, which will be at stake when the Proposed Constitution is operationalised, the judges were in fact trying to torpedo the referendum by ridiculing the legality of the Kadhi courts, which are at the centre of controversy in the whole referendum exercise.
The anti Kadhi courts ruling by the three judges made Kenya’s most respected law institutions to join hands in condemning the Judiciary. These are the Law Society of Kenya, the International Commission of Jurists, Kenyan branch, the Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA Kenya) and Kituo cha Sheria. These four legal institutions in Kenya command more respect among the people than the Judiciary which has time and again proved to be both corrupt and incompetent.
The Waki Report clearly says that for a long time now, the judiciary has been vilified for failure to play its pivotal role in the democratic governance of this country. Of the three arms of Government, says the Waki Report, it is the least understood and has therefore acquired the notoriety of losing the confidence and trust of those it must serve because of the perception that it is not independent as an institution even if some individual members of it were.
That is why, for example, the leadership and members of the ODM refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts to resolve the dispute that arose after the 2007 general elections in relation to the Presidential results, says the report which adds that the institution has also been accused of delays in the administration of justice and for non-transparency in its functions.
Obviously this is the one reason why Section 44 of the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008 gives the responsibility of hearing any challenges to the conduct or result of the referendum to the Interim Independent Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court established by Section 60A of the Constitution.
The framers of the law had no confidence in Kenya’s Judiciary to hear anything to do with the referendum. But the ruling on Kadhi courts by the three judges was mischievously and deliberately trying to poke the Judiciary’s nose into matters concerning the referendum.
In their case the aggrieved church leaders wanted the court to expunge from the constitution Sections 66 which introduces and entrenches the Kadhi courts in the current constitution; and in their judgement the three judges clearly said they had no powers to do so as that responsibility was in the hands of Parliamentarians and the people of Kenya through a referendum.
But all the same the three judges impudently went ahead and declared Section 66 of the current constitution unconstitutional. Paradoxically all the legal scholars and respected legal institutions have now declared that declaration by the three judges to be unconstitutional itself and the Attorney General , Amos Wako, has filed a petition seeking the rejection of that ruling by the court of appeal.
Whatever the court of appeal rules, the judgement on 24th May 2010 by Justices Nyamu, Wendoh and Emukule will go down in history as among the most notorious in Kenya’s political history. It will be among other infamous judgements which were used by oppressive regimes to torture nationalists and freedom fighters but failed to change the course of history.
According to Bombay High Court website these include the infamous judgment made in March 1922 against Mahatma Gandhi who was tried for sedition in respect of two articles he had written in his paper “Young Indians”. Despite the trial against Gandhi, India was liberated and is now one of the most respected democracies in the word. I have a feeling that despite the three judges ruling on Kadhi courts the referendum in Kenya will be a stepping stone that will lead the people of Kenya to the Third Liberation for which so many , just like Mahatma Gandhi, suffered so much.
Another judgement of similar notoriety can be found at the ANC website and involved the trial of Nelson Mandela in December 1956 when the South African nationalist was accused of participating in treasonable conspiracy, inspired by international communism, to overthrow the South African State by violence means. The trial which dragged on for four years was meant to stop South Africa from being liberated. The attempt by the apartheid regime to use the court of law to stop the trend of history failed miserably as that country was finally liberated and Nelson Mandela ended up becoming the country’s most respected President.
Also from ANC website is another example of another infamous trial against Nelson Mandela at a Pretoria Court in April 1964 the African hero told the Apartheid court that the that the suggestion made by the State that the struggle in South Africa was under the influence of foreigners or communists was wholly incorrect. Mandela then told the court that he had done whatever he did, both as an individual and as a leader of his people, because of his experience in South Africa and his own proudly felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said. Mandela used the apartheid court to correct wrong impressions meant to make Africans in that country the perpetual hewers of wood and drawers of water.
In more or less the same manner the courts in Kenya are now being used to make sure that the poor in this country will remain so forever and that the attempt to liberate them through a more just and democratic constitution will be perpetually frustrated. But like Mandela the people of Kenya must use the courts to expose the truth and correct the trend of history that will liberate the suffering majority of the people Kenya. That is why the whole country must unite to vote “YES” to the Proposed Constitution and liberate Kenya.
The use of courts to deny the people their democratic rights was also made here in the infamous Kapenguria trial of Jomo Kenyatta. According to a short online biography of the first President of Kenya, his trial at Kapenguria on April 8, 1953, for managing Mau Mau was a mockery of justice. As all Kenyans know the colonialists used the court to suppress the liberation movement in Kenya when they sentenced Mzee to seven years imprisonment.
But that jail term made the struggle for independence become even more vigorous with brilliant minds such as that of Tom Mboya and radical nationalism of Raila’s father , Oginga Odinga, joining hands to liberate Kenya. Courts have therefore never succeeded in suppressing the truth in any struggle for liberation. It is with this conviction that I strongly believe the move by the Kenyan Judiciary to try and torpedo the referendum will most certainly fail and fail very miserably.
As it is universally accepted, judges cannot change constitutions. Their responsibility is to interpret them. It is therefore extremely strange that the three judges – Mathew Anyara Emukule, Joseph Nyamu and Roselyn Wendoh – behaved as if they had the responsibility of either to recognize or reject any part of the current constitution. They, in fact, behaved as if they had the responsibility to write a new constitution for Kenyans. They obviously intended their ruling to influence the outcome of the forthcoming referendum. But the judgment has had the very opposite effect of strengthening the willpower of the people of Kenya to say “YES” during the referendum. It has only reinforced the hand of the Greens and the “YES” camp.
Displaying a shocking attitude of self-interest, the three judges did not seem to care about the dangerous situation of Christian-Muslim conflict their judgment was likely to push Kenya into. Concerned only about their own fate, which will be at stake when the Proposed Constitution is operationalised, the judges were in fact trying to torpedo the referendum by ridiculing the legality of the Kadhi courts, which are at the centre of controversy in the whole referendum exercise.
The anti Kadhi courts ruling by the three judges made Kenya’s most respected law institutions to join hands in condemning the Judiciary. These are the Law Society of Kenya, the International Commission of Jurists, Kenyan branch, the Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA Kenya) and Kituo cha Sheria. These four legal institutions in Kenya command more respect among the people than the Judiciary which has time and again proved to be both corrupt and incompetent.
The Waki Report clearly says that for a long time now, the judiciary has been vilified for failure to play its pivotal role in the democratic governance of this country. Of the three arms of Government, says the Waki Report, it is the least understood and has therefore acquired the notoriety of losing the confidence and trust of those it must serve because of the perception that it is not independent as an institution even if some individual members of it were.
That is why, for example, the leadership and members of the ODM refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts to resolve the dispute that arose after the 2007 general elections in relation to the Presidential results, says the report which adds that the institution has also been accused of delays in the administration of justice and for non-transparency in its functions.
Obviously this is the one reason why Section 44 of the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008 gives the responsibility of hearing any challenges to the conduct or result of the referendum to the Interim Independent Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court established by Section 60A of the Constitution.
The framers of the law had no confidence in Kenya’s Judiciary to hear anything to do with the referendum. But the ruling on Kadhi courts by the three judges was mischievously and deliberately trying to poke the Judiciary’s nose into matters concerning the referendum.
In their case the aggrieved church leaders wanted the court to expunge from the constitution Sections 66 which introduces and entrenches the Kadhi courts in the current constitution; and in their judgement the three judges clearly said they had no powers to do so as that responsibility was in the hands of Parliamentarians and the people of Kenya through a referendum.
But all the same the three judges impudently went ahead and declared Section 66 of the current constitution unconstitutional. Paradoxically all the legal scholars and respected legal institutions have now declared that declaration by the three judges to be unconstitutional itself and the Attorney General , Amos Wako, has filed a petition seeking the rejection of that ruling by the court of appeal.
Whatever the court of appeal rules, the judgement on 24th May 2010 by Justices Nyamu, Wendoh and Emukule will go down in history as among the most notorious in Kenya’s political history. It will be among other infamous judgements which were used by oppressive regimes to torture nationalists and freedom fighters but failed to change the course of history.
According to Bombay High Court website these include the infamous judgment made in March 1922 against Mahatma Gandhi who was tried for sedition in respect of two articles he had written in his paper “Young Indians”. Despite the trial against Gandhi, India was liberated and is now one of the most respected democracies in the word. I have a feeling that despite the three judges ruling on Kadhi courts the referendum in Kenya will be a stepping stone that will lead the people of Kenya to the Third Liberation for which so many , just like Mahatma Gandhi, suffered so much.
Another judgement of similar notoriety can be found at the ANC website and involved the trial of Nelson Mandela in December 1956 when the South African nationalist was accused of participating in treasonable conspiracy, inspired by international communism, to overthrow the South African State by violence means. The trial which dragged on for four years was meant to stop South Africa from being liberated. The attempt by the apartheid regime to use the court of law to stop the trend of history failed miserably as that country was finally liberated and Nelson Mandela ended up becoming the country’s most respected President.
Also from ANC website is another example of another infamous trial against Nelson Mandela at a Pretoria Court in April 1964 the African hero told the Apartheid court that the that the suggestion made by the State that the struggle in South Africa was under the influence of foreigners or communists was wholly incorrect. Mandela then told the court that he had done whatever he did, both as an individual and as a leader of his people, because of his experience in South Africa and his own proudly felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said. Mandela used the apartheid court to correct wrong impressions meant to make Africans in that country the perpetual hewers of wood and drawers of water.
In more or less the same manner the courts in Kenya are now being used to make sure that the poor in this country will remain so forever and that the attempt to liberate them through a more just and democratic constitution will be perpetually frustrated. But like Mandela the people of Kenya must use the courts to expose the truth and correct the trend of history that will liberate the suffering majority of the people Kenya. That is why the whole country must unite to vote “YES” to the Proposed Constitution and liberate Kenya.
The use of courts to deny the people their democratic rights was also made here in the infamous Kapenguria trial of Jomo Kenyatta. According to a short online biography of the first President of Kenya, his trial at Kapenguria on April 8, 1953, for managing Mau Mau was a mockery of justice. As all Kenyans know the colonialists used the court to suppress the liberation movement in Kenya when they sentenced Mzee to seven years imprisonment.
But that jail term made the struggle for independence become even more vigorous with brilliant minds such as that of Tom Mboya and radical nationalism of Raila’s father , Oginga Odinga, joining hands to liberate Kenya. Courts have therefore never succeeded in suppressing the truth in any struggle for liberation. It is with this conviction that I strongly believe the move by the Kenyan Judiciary to try and torpedo the referendum will most certainly fail and fail very miserably.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Why referendum is a Government project
If, at the peak of post election violence, the newly established illegitimate Government of Mwai Kibaki offered to spend ten billion shillings to bring about peace in this country, the whole nation, indeed the entire world, would have backed him. At that time, in early 2008, all Kenyans thought the money used to welcome international dignitaries who tried to make us stop what was developing into a tribal war in our country, was very well spent. Many leaders, including the respected South African Bishop Desmond Tutu and the former Ghanaian President John Kufour came to Kenya to try and make us stop fighting, without much success.
That last statement is not exactly true because John Agyekum Kufour, a man of very few words, but with an extremely sharp mind and full of wisdom did not quite fail in his mission. After separately talking to Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga he, very much like Solomon, knew what Kenya needed to end the shameful killing and raping that was still going on in this country. Kufour had a Ghanaian diagnosis and a Ghanaian prescription to end all our problems. But it was going to cost quite a bit of money.
To cut a long story short, that is how Kofi Annan, Kufour’s Ghanaian prescription for Kenya, came into the picture for it was the former Ghanaian President’s decision to let the renown international diplomat from his country spearhead peace talks in Kenya that the solution to our problem was found. When Annan looked at the magnitude of our problem he realized the wounds we had inflicted on ourselves were so deep and too complicated to heal. He therefore sought and obtained the assistance of three eminent Africans namely Jakaya Kikwete and Ben Mkapa from Tanzania and Graca Machel from South Africa.
To welcome them we must have spent some money at least in making sure they were safe while in Kenya. To provide security for such people can be an extremely expensive business. All Kenyans who were desperately looking for peace thought the money spent for the security of our VIP guests was very well spent.
It did not take long before Kofi Annan and his team realized that the solution to our problem would be long, tedious and extremely expensive. First he had to sanitize and legitimize Kibaki’s Government by making an expensive suggestion—that of forming large coalition Government led by both the President and the Prime Minister. It was under Kofi Annan’s initiative that the Agreement on the principles of partnership of a coalition Government was signed on February the 28th 2008.
That agreement signed by, Mwai Kibaki, Raila Odinga, Kofi Annan and Jakaya Kikwete clearly says that the crisis triggered by the 2007 disputed presidential elections had brought to the surface deep seated and long standing divisions within Kenyan society. It further said if left unaddressed, these divisions would threaten the very existence of Kenya as a unified country. In the agreement, Raila and Kibaki made an undertaking to step forward together, as political leaders, to overcome the 2007 crisis and to set the country on a new path.
To achieve the goals of that historical agreement, the leaders committed the coalition government they were forming to fulfill some well defined goals they called and numbered as Agendas. Agenda One was concerned with the immediate action to stop violence and restore fundamental rights and liberties. Needless to say that goal was extremely expensive to achieve. There are those who can legitimately claim that though the goal has indeed been achieved the Government is still obligated to spend more money to make sure it is solidly achieved. To do so successfully money must be spent.
According to the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation (KNDR) monitoring project that looks at status of implementation of Agenda One between January and March this year, calm has returned to all areas affected by the violence. According to the report this has helped Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) to return to their residences or near their farms. Significant also, says the report, is the increasing confidence among citizens that violence will not reoccur. The report emphasizes that during the period of review there was the absence of political violence which helped people to develop a sense of safety compared to early 2008.
The achievement of Agenda One can be said to be one of the success stories of the Raila-Kibaki coalition Government. But it is a very expensive part of the story for the political survival of the coalition has depended in the maintenance of a very huge Cabinet of 40 ministries. A lot of them are duplicates and they were established simply to create jobs for the party boys and girls from both the PNU and ODM. In a nutshell, the fulfillment of Agenda One has been extremely expensive and is costing the taxpayers a lot of money.
The leaders’ set Agenda Two as a target to address humanitarian crisis, promote national healing and reconciliation is also extremely expensive. According to the KNDR January- March report the Government has spent a total of 1,575,980,000/- in trying to solve the problem of IDPs. The report says by March 2010, the Ministry of Special Programmes had disbursed ksh 10,000 to a total of 157, 598 IDP households to restart their lives. Rift Valley has had the largest share (69.84 per cent) of the funds because it is home to a majority of IDPs. Nyanza province is second at 11.98 percent.
The report says the problems facing IDPs are far from over. Although the Government has provided assistance to many of them, about half of households registered as potential
beneficiaries for reconstruction assistance are yet to receive the funds. The Report concludes that it is important that the government expedites disbursement of funds to these households so that they can reconstruct their homes without further delay. In other words the whole business of achieving the Agenda Two goal is spending money. The entire exercise is therefore an extremely expensive one and the Government has no choice but to spend more of taxpayer’s money to achieve this important goal of the peace agreement.
Agenda Three was concerned in resolving the political crisis or the whole business of power sharing. No one can claim this to have been a cheap process. It has costed the taxpayers an arm and a leg. According to the KNDR January-March report cohesion within the government has remained a major challenge since the formation of the Coalition. It says the Principals have not always managed to rally their parties together for the national good. Rather, it says, political, ethnic and sectarian interests have dominated the reform process and are derailing consensus building on the constitutional review process. According to the report an effective conflict resolution mechanism is yet to be established. May be the best way to achieve this goal is to spend more of taxpayers’ money to create the needed cohesion.
After all the KNDR clearly says power sharing is usually recommended as a mechanism
for promoting stability in deeply fragmented societies because no single party can
govern alone. It says inclusive government, therefore, brings all major parties together to
enable hard decision making and promotion of the national good. A Grand Coalition
usually brings together all groups to protect and promote national unity. The unity that was shown last Saturday by almost all political parties in Kenya when they gathered in Nairobi for the first “YES” campaigns has pointed to the possible achievement of Agenda Three, provided the Government is willing to spend more money to solidify that unity through joint party campaigns to support the Proposed Constitution.
Agenda Four looks at the long standing issues and solutions. Among those issues is the constitutional review. KNDR report notes remarkable developments in the constitutional review process. The PSC, it says, reached an agreement on the harmonized draft constitution and presented the draft to Parliament. The draft, it goes on, is at a critical state where the need for consensus is paramount to avoid divisions that could derail the process when the draft reaches the referendum stage.
According to the KNDR the political will to implement constitutional reform seems to have been achieved and should be maintained as the referendum approaches. However, the report adds, the Coalition Government continues to be plagued with numerous allegations of serious corruption, which raises the alarm on rampant impunity. Agents of impunity, it says, are likely to mobilize against any reform that threatens their interests. The constitutional review is not an exception in this context. This alarm bell by KNDR must be taken very seriously and the Coalition Government must spend money against the forces opposed to the Proposed Constitution, which is part of the whole effort to introduce lasting peace in Kenya.
As Kenyans continue to argue for and against the Proposed Constitution it is now absolutely clear that the whole process is part of Agenda Four which must be seen as part and parcel of the coalition Government’s most important policies that must be implemented if we have to avoid another bloodbath like that of 2007. The Government has been spending so much money to achieve Agendas One, Two and Three. Why shouldn’t it spend money to achieve Agenda Four, for which the stability of this nation depends? Why?
That last statement is not exactly true because John Agyekum Kufour, a man of very few words, but with an extremely sharp mind and full of wisdom did not quite fail in his mission. After separately talking to Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga he, very much like Solomon, knew what Kenya needed to end the shameful killing and raping that was still going on in this country. Kufour had a Ghanaian diagnosis and a Ghanaian prescription to end all our problems. But it was going to cost quite a bit of money.
To cut a long story short, that is how Kofi Annan, Kufour’s Ghanaian prescription for Kenya, came into the picture for it was the former Ghanaian President’s decision to let the renown international diplomat from his country spearhead peace talks in Kenya that the solution to our problem was found. When Annan looked at the magnitude of our problem he realized the wounds we had inflicted on ourselves were so deep and too complicated to heal. He therefore sought and obtained the assistance of three eminent Africans namely Jakaya Kikwete and Ben Mkapa from Tanzania and Graca Machel from South Africa.
To welcome them we must have spent some money at least in making sure they were safe while in Kenya. To provide security for such people can be an extremely expensive business. All Kenyans who were desperately looking for peace thought the money spent for the security of our VIP guests was very well spent.
It did not take long before Kofi Annan and his team realized that the solution to our problem would be long, tedious and extremely expensive. First he had to sanitize and legitimize Kibaki’s Government by making an expensive suggestion—that of forming large coalition Government led by both the President and the Prime Minister. It was under Kofi Annan’s initiative that the Agreement on the principles of partnership of a coalition Government was signed on February the 28th 2008.
That agreement signed by, Mwai Kibaki, Raila Odinga, Kofi Annan and Jakaya Kikwete clearly says that the crisis triggered by the 2007 disputed presidential elections had brought to the surface deep seated and long standing divisions within Kenyan society. It further said if left unaddressed, these divisions would threaten the very existence of Kenya as a unified country. In the agreement, Raila and Kibaki made an undertaking to step forward together, as political leaders, to overcome the 2007 crisis and to set the country on a new path.
To achieve the goals of that historical agreement, the leaders committed the coalition government they were forming to fulfill some well defined goals they called and numbered as Agendas. Agenda One was concerned with the immediate action to stop violence and restore fundamental rights and liberties. Needless to say that goal was extremely expensive to achieve. There are those who can legitimately claim that though the goal has indeed been achieved the Government is still obligated to spend more money to make sure it is solidly achieved. To do so successfully money must be spent.
According to the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation (KNDR) monitoring project that looks at status of implementation of Agenda One between January and March this year, calm has returned to all areas affected by the violence. According to the report this has helped Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) to return to their residences or near their farms. Significant also, says the report, is the increasing confidence among citizens that violence will not reoccur. The report emphasizes that during the period of review there was the absence of political violence which helped people to develop a sense of safety compared to early 2008.
The achievement of Agenda One can be said to be one of the success stories of the Raila-Kibaki coalition Government. But it is a very expensive part of the story for the political survival of the coalition has depended in the maintenance of a very huge Cabinet of 40 ministries. A lot of them are duplicates and they were established simply to create jobs for the party boys and girls from both the PNU and ODM. In a nutshell, the fulfillment of Agenda One has been extremely expensive and is costing the taxpayers a lot of money.
The leaders’ set Agenda Two as a target to address humanitarian crisis, promote national healing and reconciliation is also extremely expensive. According to the KNDR January- March report the Government has spent a total of 1,575,980,000/- in trying to solve the problem of IDPs. The report says by March 2010, the Ministry of Special Programmes had disbursed ksh 10,000 to a total of 157, 598 IDP households to restart their lives. Rift Valley has had the largest share (69.84 per cent) of the funds because it is home to a majority of IDPs. Nyanza province is second at 11.98 percent.
The report says the problems facing IDPs are far from over. Although the Government has provided assistance to many of them, about half of households registered as potential
beneficiaries for reconstruction assistance are yet to receive the funds. The Report concludes that it is important that the government expedites disbursement of funds to these households so that they can reconstruct their homes without further delay. In other words the whole business of achieving the Agenda Two goal is spending money. The entire exercise is therefore an extremely expensive one and the Government has no choice but to spend more of taxpayer’s money to achieve this important goal of the peace agreement.
Agenda Three was concerned in resolving the political crisis or the whole business of power sharing. No one can claim this to have been a cheap process. It has costed the taxpayers an arm and a leg. According to the KNDR January-March report cohesion within the government has remained a major challenge since the formation of the Coalition. It says the Principals have not always managed to rally their parties together for the national good. Rather, it says, political, ethnic and sectarian interests have dominated the reform process and are derailing consensus building on the constitutional review process. According to the report an effective conflict resolution mechanism is yet to be established. May be the best way to achieve this goal is to spend more of taxpayers’ money to create the needed cohesion.
After all the KNDR clearly says power sharing is usually recommended as a mechanism
for promoting stability in deeply fragmented societies because no single party can
govern alone. It says inclusive government, therefore, brings all major parties together to
enable hard decision making and promotion of the national good. A Grand Coalition
usually brings together all groups to protect and promote national unity. The unity that was shown last Saturday by almost all political parties in Kenya when they gathered in Nairobi for the first “YES” campaigns has pointed to the possible achievement of Agenda Three, provided the Government is willing to spend more money to solidify that unity through joint party campaigns to support the Proposed Constitution.
Agenda Four looks at the long standing issues and solutions. Among those issues is the constitutional review. KNDR report notes remarkable developments in the constitutional review process. The PSC, it says, reached an agreement on the harmonized draft constitution and presented the draft to Parliament. The draft, it goes on, is at a critical state where the need for consensus is paramount to avoid divisions that could derail the process when the draft reaches the referendum stage.
According to the KNDR the political will to implement constitutional reform seems to have been achieved and should be maintained as the referendum approaches. However, the report adds, the Coalition Government continues to be plagued with numerous allegations of serious corruption, which raises the alarm on rampant impunity. Agents of impunity, it says, are likely to mobilize against any reform that threatens their interests. The constitutional review is not an exception in this context. This alarm bell by KNDR must be taken very seriously and the Coalition Government must spend money against the forces opposed to the Proposed Constitution, which is part of the whole effort to introduce lasting peace in Kenya.
As Kenyans continue to argue for and against the Proposed Constitution it is now absolutely clear that the whole process is part of Agenda Four which must be seen as part and parcel of the coalition Government’s most important policies that must be implemented if we have to avoid another bloodbath like that of 2007. The Government has been spending so much money to achieve Agendas One, Two and Three. Why shouldn’t it spend money to achieve Agenda Four, for which the stability of this nation depends? Why?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Raila-Kalonzo wars won’t wreck the Greens
The current hot war between the Prime Minister Raila Odinga and Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka will have little effect on the growing strengths of the Greens, as the supporters of the Proposed Constitution are wont to be known following IIEC’s decision to allocate that colour as their symbol during the referendum. As fellow Greens the two leaders may go separate ways while championing the cause of the “YES” vote but their parting will have very little negative consequences to the might of the camp.
Superficially Raila and Kalonzo are in the Green coalition to make sure the Proposed Constitution is accepted by the majority of Kenyans; but in reality they are both in the “YES” camp for very different reasons. The Vice President is in that camp mainly to protect his high office which is arguably the second most prestigious job in the country. According to Section to Section 15 (3) of the current Constitution the Vice President is the principal assistant of the President in the discharge of his functions. No matter how glamorous Kalonzo feels while occupying that office he is at the mercy of Mwai Kibaki who can fire him at any time.
Naturally there must have been some agreement between Kibaki and Kalonzo before the later was appointed the VP at a crucial time soon after the bloody 2007 elections. The two desperately needed each other to remain in politics so they solidified the unity between themselves. But that unity left Kalonzo vulnerable all the time because Section 15 (2) of the same Constitution says the President shall appoint the Vice President from among the Ministers who are elected members of the National Assembly. Which means the Vice President can be fired any time by the President no matter what secret agreement exists between them.
To remain in that top office therefore, Kalonzo must always try to be in the good books of Mwai Kibaki, who this time is determined to get the country a new Constitution. To please his boss and safely keep his job Kalonzo must dance to Mwai Kibaki’s tune no matter what his inner feelings about the Proposed Constitution are. Left to himself he would obviously rather be with William Ruto in the Reds’ camp so as to nurture the KKK ambition of forming the next Government. The Reds support the current Constitution because it can be manipulated to create three top jobs for the Kikuyu leader, the Kamba leader and the Kalenjin leader. Uniting the three tribes under the current Constitution, therefore, would have provided a President, a Vice President and a Prime Minister to the KKK leadership.
Kibaki’s determined willpower to give the Proposed Constitution to Kenyans as his legacy has actually torn the KKK plan apart. Uhuru Kenyatta has been forced to back Kibaki in his support for the Proposed Constitution because the Mungiki are in the Greens’ camp for completely different reason. The Mungiki supports the Proposed Constitution because it is the only hope of bringing about justice in Kenya on the land issue for which the Mungiki’s forefathers poured blood as Mau Mau freedom fighters in early 50s. Without Mungiki’s support Uhuru Kenyatta’s political future would come to an abrupt end.
Raila Odinga is, on the other hand, in the Greens’ camp because he believes in justice not only being done but seen to be done. Raila genuinely believes the Proposed Constitution is the best possible thing that could possibly happen to Kenya. As a political Machiavellian he sees the support of the Proposed Constitution as a stepping stone to future Presidency of Kenya.
Raila’s calculations are not far fetched because with the disintegration of the KKK, tribal politics will have very little role to play in the 2012 elections. The none-tribal unity that is likely to be the outcome of the adoption of the Proposed Constitution is likely to midwife a new brand of politics in Kenya in which ones’ tribe will be of little significance.
That eventuality is seen as a very big threat to all the political leaders who depend on ethnic nationalism to get into high offices. Such leaders can all be seen in the Reds’ camp where they are openly seeking to unite their supporters ethnically to promote the “NO” vote.
Raila Odinga is not in the Greens’ camp to please Kibaki though by being there he does so by default. He is not supporting the “YES” team because he wants to protect his job like Kalonzo Musyoka. Indeed Agwambo’s job is secure. He is holding the country’s second most powerful position because Section 15A (1) of the current Constitution creates the job of the Prime Minister of the Government of Kenya.
Though Section 3 (1) of the National Accord and Reconciliation Act gives the powers of appointing the Prime minister to the President, Subsection 2 says the person to be appointed as Prime Minister shall be an elected member of the National Assembly who is the parliamentary leader of -(a) the political party that has the largest number of members in the National Assembly; or (b) a coalition of political parties in the event that the leader of the political party that has the largest number of members in the National Assembly does not command the majority in the National Assembly.
Raila Odinga is therefore the Prime Minister of the Government of Kenya because, among other things, he is the leader of the largest political party in the Legislature. According to the First Schedule of the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers can only be removed if the National Assembly passes a motion of no confidence with a majority vote. The principles of partnership between Raila and Kibaki were signed on February 28, 2008 following the crisis triggered by the 2007 disputed presidential elections which brought to the surface deep-seated and long-standing divisions within Kenyan society. Unlike Kalonzo, Raila has absolutely nothing to fear about his job. Kibaki cannot, even if he wants to, fire the Prime Minister.
Looked at in this manner it is clear that Kalonzo Musyoka and Raila Odinga are in the Greens’ camp for very different reasons. Though they now puddle in the same canoe, they are intrinsically miles apart politically. And that has always been the case whenever the two were brought together by circumstances beyond their individual control. Before Raila and Kalonzo became birds of the same feather Kalonzo was a loyal servant of President Daniel arap Moi in Kanu where Raila joined in 2002 when he brought his National Development Party (NDP)to corporate with Moi’s Kanu.
At that time Moi thought he would destroy the NDP by making Raila Kanu’s Secretary General. Instead he created a Frankenstein who destroyed Kanu from within. For a short time Raila was in Kanu as the party’s Secretary General, Kalonzo felt betrayed by Moi who established a quick friendship with a “stranger” and made him Kalonzo’s boss in the party.
When Raila pulled out of Kanu to form the Liberal Democratic Party after Moi anointed Uhuru Kenyatta as the party’s presidential candidate for the 2002 general elections, Kalonzo, together with Saitoti followed him. But while in the LDP Kalonzo was always challenging Raila’s leadership and the two never saw eye to eye on any issue. Even when they finally won the election under the National Rainbow Coalition they never warmed to each other in the first Kibaki Cabinet where they both belonged. The two politicians found themselves in the same camp again in the 2005 referendum. After that there was a tug-of-war between the two over the leadership of ODM-K which saw Raila’s pulling out and establishing ODM just before the 2007 elections.
The current rivalry between the two leaders will never end soon because it is extremely deep rooted. Kalonzo thinks Raila, as the unchallenged leaders of the Greens, is sure to win the country’s Presidency in the next elections in 2012. Raila’s supporters think they can destroy Kalonzo politically by heckling him at all the “YES” rallies. That way, they think, they can succeed in painting him as a “traitor” who cannot be trusted. All in the name of the 2012 elections. But the animosity between the two leaders will not in anyway affect the strength of the Greens who will from now become even more formidable before the deadline of August 4th.
Superficially Raila and Kalonzo are in the Green coalition to make sure the Proposed Constitution is accepted by the majority of Kenyans; but in reality they are both in the “YES” camp for very different reasons. The Vice President is in that camp mainly to protect his high office which is arguably the second most prestigious job in the country. According to Section to Section 15 (3) of the current Constitution the Vice President is the principal assistant of the President in the discharge of his functions. No matter how glamorous Kalonzo feels while occupying that office he is at the mercy of Mwai Kibaki who can fire him at any time.
Naturally there must have been some agreement between Kibaki and Kalonzo before the later was appointed the VP at a crucial time soon after the bloody 2007 elections. The two desperately needed each other to remain in politics so they solidified the unity between themselves. But that unity left Kalonzo vulnerable all the time because Section 15 (2) of the same Constitution says the President shall appoint the Vice President from among the Ministers who are elected members of the National Assembly. Which means the Vice President can be fired any time by the President no matter what secret agreement exists between them.
To remain in that top office therefore, Kalonzo must always try to be in the good books of Mwai Kibaki, who this time is determined to get the country a new Constitution. To please his boss and safely keep his job Kalonzo must dance to Mwai Kibaki’s tune no matter what his inner feelings about the Proposed Constitution are. Left to himself he would obviously rather be with William Ruto in the Reds’ camp so as to nurture the KKK ambition of forming the next Government. The Reds support the current Constitution because it can be manipulated to create three top jobs for the Kikuyu leader, the Kamba leader and the Kalenjin leader. Uniting the three tribes under the current Constitution, therefore, would have provided a President, a Vice President and a Prime Minister to the KKK leadership.
Kibaki’s determined willpower to give the Proposed Constitution to Kenyans as his legacy has actually torn the KKK plan apart. Uhuru Kenyatta has been forced to back Kibaki in his support for the Proposed Constitution because the Mungiki are in the Greens’ camp for completely different reason. The Mungiki supports the Proposed Constitution because it is the only hope of bringing about justice in Kenya on the land issue for which the Mungiki’s forefathers poured blood as Mau Mau freedom fighters in early 50s. Without Mungiki’s support Uhuru Kenyatta’s political future would come to an abrupt end.
Raila Odinga is, on the other hand, in the Greens’ camp because he believes in justice not only being done but seen to be done. Raila genuinely believes the Proposed Constitution is the best possible thing that could possibly happen to Kenya. As a political Machiavellian he sees the support of the Proposed Constitution as a stepping stone to future Presidency of Kenya.
Raila’s calculations are not far fetched because with the disintegration of the KKK, tribal politics will have very little role to play in the 2012 elections. The none-tribal unity that is likely to be the outcome of the adoption of the Proposed Constitution is likely to midwife a new brand of politics in Kenya in which ones’ tribe will be of little significance.
That eventuality is seen as a very big threat to all the political leaders who depend on ethnic nationalism to get into high offices. Such leaders can all be seen in the Reds’ camp where they are openly seeking to unite their supporters ethnically to promote the “NO” vote.
Raila Odinga is not in the Greens’ camp to please Kibaki though by being there he does so by default. He is not supporting the “YES” team because he wants to protect his job like Kalonzo Musyoka. Indeed Agwambo’s job is secure. He is holding the country’s second most powerful position because Section 15A (1) of the current Constitution creates the job of the Prime Minister of the Government of Kenya.
Though Section 3 (1) of the National Accord and Reconciliation Act gives the powers of appointing the Prime minister to the President, Subsection 2 says the person to be appointed as Prime Minister shall be an elected member of the National Assembly who is the parliamentary leader of -(a) the political party that has the largest number of members in the National Assembly; or (b) a coalition of political parties in the event that the leader of the political party that has the largest number of members in the National Assembly does not command the majority in the National Assembly.
Raila Odinga is therefore the Prime Minister of the Government of Kenya because, among other things, he is the leader of the largest political party in the Legislature. According to the First Schedule of the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers can only be removed if the National Assembly passes a motion of no confidence with a majority vote. The principles of partnership between Raila and Kibaki were signed on February 28, 2008 following the crisis triggered by the 2007 disputed presidential elections which brought to the surface deep-seated and long-standing divisions within Kenyan society. Unlike Kalonzo, Raila has absolutely nothing to fear about his job. Kibaki cannot, even if he wants to, fire the Prime Minister.
Looked at in this manner it is clear that Kalonzo Musyoka and Raila Odinga are in the Greens’ camp for very different reasons. Though they now puddle in the same canoe, they are intrinsically miles apart politically. And that has always been the case whenever the two were brought together by circumstances beyond their individual control. Before Raila and Kalonzo became birds of the same feather Kalonzo was a loyal servant of President Daniel arap Moi in Kanu where Raila joined in 2002 when he brought his National Development Party (NDP)to corporate with Moi’s Kanu.
At that time Moi thought he would destroy the NDP by making Raila Kanu’s Secretary General. Instead he created a Frankenstein who destroyed Kanu from within. For a short time Raila was in Kanu as the party’s Secretary General, Kalonzo felt betrayed by Moi who established a quick friendship with a “stranger” and made him Kalonzo’s boss in the party.
When Raila pulled out of Kanu to form the Liberal Democratic Party after Moi anointed Uhuru Kenyatta as the party’s presidential candidate for the 2002 general elections, Kalonzo, together with Saitoti followed him. But while in the LDP Kalonzo was always challenging Raila’s leadership and the two never saw eye to eye on any issue. Even when they finally won the election under the National Rainbow Coalition they never warmed to each other in the first Kibaki Cabinet where they both belonged. The two politicians found themselves in the same camp again in the 2005 referendum. After that there was a tug-of-war between the two over the leadership of ODM-K which saw Raila’s pulling out and establishing ODM just before the 2007 elections.
The current rivalry between the two leaders will never end soon because it is extremely deep rooted. Kalonzo thinks Raila, as the unchallenged leaders of the Greens, is sure to win the country’s Presidency in the next elections in 2012. Raila’s supporters think they can destroy Kalonzo politically by heckling him at all the “YES” rallies. That way, they think, they can succeed in painting him as a “traitor” who cannot be trusted. All in the name of the 2012 elections. But the animosity between the two leaders will not in anyway affect the strength of the Greens who will from now become even more formidable before the deadline of August 4th.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Referendum fraud exposes the “NO” scheme
The tough stand taken by the “NO” voters exposes their myopic and porous dirty scheme to wreck the current constitution making process. Led by Higher Education Minister William Ruto, the group does not want the fake Proposed Constitution to be withdrawn. They want it to remain in circulation and continue to confuse the people. That way the chances of the Proposed Constitution not getting the full support of the people become greater.
Unfortunately for the “NO” voters all the experts involved in the shaping of the Proposed Constitution through its various stages say the attempt by hooligans to change it has not succeeded. Both the CoE and the PSC agree that the country has only one Proposed Constitution to either accept or reject.
The William Ruto plan is porous because anyone can see through it. With the two drafts in circulation he gets more ammunition to ridicule the Government, which he paradoxically belongs to. His argument is that the secret insertion of the words “national security” to change the meaning of the entire Bill of Rights was the work of the Government. He does not give any convincing reason for the Government’s ostensible wish to change its own plan to give the people of Kenya a more democratic Bill of Rights.
Instead Ruto wants the entire exercise to give the people a new constitution put to a halt until such a time as the problem of two conflicting drafts has been solved. He does not accept the fact that that problem has been solved by the discovery of the offensive insertion in good time before it was massively distributed to the wananchi as the criminals wished.
The correct Article 24 (1) (d) says: “The need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedom of others”. The defiled one reads: “The need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice national security, the rights and fundamental freedoms of others.” I have put the added words in bold letters.
Without the two drafts in circulation Ruto is denied the opportunity to condemn the Proposed Constitution in stronger terms. In fact without the insertion of the two offensive words “national security” in Article 24 (1) (d) Ruto’s commission of opposing the Proposed Constitution is a difficult uphill task. Without the defilement of the Bill of Rights, saying “NO” to the Proposed Constitution could easily be seen as an attempt to deny the people of Kenya the framework for social, economic and cultural policies which are being introduced by the Proposed Constitution for the benefit of the wananchi.
Unadulterated, the Bill of Rights comes out clearly as the part of the Proposed Constitution that is intended to bridge the gap between the haves, who for years have been sucking the blood of the poor through very unfair exploitation, and the have-nots, whose only hope of seeing any justice being done in our country, is now in the Proposed Constitution.
The Bill of Rights which the criminals wanted to change in a clandestine manner is the part of the Proposed Constitution which recognizes and protects human rights and fundamental freedoms which according to Article 19 (2) has the purpose of preserving the dignity of individuals and communities as well as promoting social justice and realization of the potential of all human beings. Voting “NO” for such a proposal in the forthcoming referendum will be going against the very essence of human rights.
As a matter of fact it becomes rather embarrassing to be seen to go against human rights. The only way for the “NO” camp to save face was to plant the words “national security” in Article 24 (1) (d) and make it appear that in the Proposed Constitution human rights would take the second place after national security has been put into consideration.
Putting national security as a condition for people to enjoy their freedoms of conscience, movement, assembly, association and expression is a characteristic of many despotic regimes. The Governments of Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi made national security the prerequisite of the enjoyment of all human rights. The criminals who inserted the words “national security” in the Article 24(1) (d) of the Proposed Constitution had a specific aim of fighting the “YES” camp which wants the new draft to go through in its purest form.
It is therefore not far fetched to conclude that among the genuine “YES” team there are very few people who would have had any wish of wrecking the 20 year old effort of getting this country a new constitution. The “YES” people are the ones eager to get this nation a new constitution. The “NO” ones are rejecting the Proposed Constitution and therefore halting the entire process.
If there are any people in the “YES” camp who want to put national security matters before those on human rights then they are not genuine “YES” people. They are probably in the “YES” camp due to group pressure and the realization of the fact that supporting the “NO” camp outside the Kalenjin areas is the same as committing political suicide.
Logically the only people who are likely to insert the words “national security” in the Bill of Rights of the Proposed Constitution are people who are dissatisfied with the version that was approved by the CoE and unanimously adopted by the National Assembly. Otherwise why introduce the change? Those people dissatisfied with the version that was printed by the Attorney General on the 6th of May 2010, are all in the “NO” camp.
After that distortion the “NO” voters are making so much noise to make it appear as if they were the supporters of the Proposed Constitution’s Bill of Rights before it was adulterated with the inclusion of the words “national security” in the Article dealing with limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms. The most puzzling shock to the people of Kenya is that the “NO” camp does not want any correction to be made. They want the debate on the mystery of two drafts to replace that of the merits and demerits of the Proposed Constitution’s Bill of Right.
If they were the true champions of the recommendations made by the Proposed Constitution’s Bill of Rights they would be thanking God that the so-called error was corrected before the referendum. Now they would be calling for the referendum to take place and allowing the people of Kenya to make their own independent choice. There is very little doubt that the planters of the words “national security” in the Proposed Constitution are people who would like to use all the tactics to delay the constitution making process. They would like to delay the referendum. In fact they would like the whole exercise to be stopped because they know the outcome will not be in their favour. So far it is only the group led by William Ruto that has come out openly in demand of the postponement of the referendum. Can it really be that difficult to guess the reason why? In my opinion, not at all.
Apart from the strange stand taken by the “NO” group the other shocking event concerning the referendum concerns councillors. These people had the impudence to tell the President of Kenya that they would not support the Proposed Constitution if they were not paid more money. They did not have any opinion about the content of the Proposed Constitution. All they wanted was more money to publicly support the new law. In my opinion the “YES” team should not even bother to have their support in popularizing the Proposed Constitution. Kenyans must learn to reject leaders who want to be bribed to provide service to the people.
The greedy councillors used party tickets to be elected to their lucrative local government positions of leadership where they are given preference in getting trading licenses and plots in beautiful areas they represent in councils. Today political parties are not in a position to discipline the obviously corrupt councilors. With the passage of the Proposed Constitution that will be a thing of the past. Parties will be so well organized that only the dedicated will be able to get party tickets during elections.
Unfortunately for the “NO” voters all the experts involved in the shaping of the Proposed Constitution through its various stages say the attempt by hooligans to change it has not succeeded. Both the CoE and the PSC agree that the country has only one Proposed Constitution to either accept or reject.
The William Ruto plan is porous because anyone can see through it. With the two drafts in circulation he gets more ammunition to ridicule the Government, which he paradoxically belongs to. His argument is that the secret insertion of the words “national security” to change the meaning of the entire Bill of Rights was the work of the Government. He does not give any convincing reason for the Government’s ostensible wish to change its own plan to give the people of Kenya a more democratic Bill of Rights.
Instead Ruto wants the entire exercise to give the people a new constitution put to a halt until such a time as the problem of two conflicting drafts has been solved. He does not accept the fact that that problem has been solved by the discovery of the offensive insertion in good time before it was massively distributed to the wananchi as the criminals wished.
The correct Article 24 (1) (d) says: “The need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedom of others”. The defiled one reads: “The need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice national security, the rights and fundamental freedoms of others.” I have put the added words in bold letters.
Without the two drafts in circulation Ruto is denied the opportunity to condemn the Proposed Constitution in stronger terms. In fact without the insertion of the two offensive words “national security” in Article 24 (1) (d) Ruto’s commission of opposing the Proposed Constitution is a difficult uphill task. Without the defilement of the Bill of Rights, saying “NO” to the Proposed Constitution could easily be seen as an attempt to deny the people of Kenya the framework for social, economic and cultural policies which are being introduced by the Proposed Constitution for the benefit of the wananchi.
Unadulterated, the Bill of Rights comes out clearly as the part of the Proposed Constitution that is intended to bridge the gap between the haves, who for years have been sucking the blood of the poor through very unfair exploitation, and the have-nots, whose only hope of seeing any justice being done in our country, is now in the Proposed Constitution.
The Bill of Rights which the criminals wanted to change in a clandestine manner is the part of the Proposed Constitution which recognizes and protects human rights and fundamental freedoms which according to Article 19 (2) has the purpose of preserving the dignity of individuals and communities as well as promoting social justice and realization of the potential of all human beings. Voting “NO” for such a proposal in the forthcoming referendum will be going against the very essence of human rights.
As a matter of fact it becomes rather embarrassing to be seen to go against human rights. The only way for the “NO” camp to save face was to plant the words “national security” in Article 24 (1) (d) and make it appear that in the Proposed Constitution human rights would take the second place after national security has been put into consideration.
Putting national security as a condition for people to enjoy their freedoms of conscience, movement, assembly, association and expression is a characteristic of many despotic regimes. The Governments of Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi made national security the prerequisite of the enjoyment of all human rights. The criminals who inserted the words “national security” in the Article 24(1) (d) of the Proposed Constitution had a specific aim of fighting the “YES” camp which wants the new draft to go through in its purest form.
It is therefore not far fetched to conclude that among the genuine “YES” team there are very few people who would have had any wish of wrecking the 20 year old effort of getting this country a new constitution. The “YES” people are the ones eager to get this nation a new constitution. The “NO” ones are rejecting the Proposed Constitution and therefore halting the entire process.
If there are any people in the “YES” camp who want to put national security matters before those on human rights then they are not genuine “YES” people. They are probably in the “YES” camp due to group pressure and the realization of the fact that supporting the “NO” camp outside the Kalenjin areas is the same as committing political suicide.
Logically the only people who are likely to insert the words “national security” in the Bill of Rights of the Proposed Constitution are people who are dissatisfied with the version that was approved by the CoE and unanimously adopted by the National Assembly. Otherwise why introduce the change? Those people dissatisfied with the version that was printed by the Attorney General on the 6th of May 2010, are all in the “NO” camp.
After that distortion the “NO” voters are making so much noise to make it appear as if they were the supporters of the Proposed Constitution’s Bill of Rights before it was adulterated with the inclusion of the words “national security” in the Article dealing with limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms. The most puzzling shock to the people of Kenya is that the “NO” camp does not want any correction to be made. They want the debate on the mystery of two drafts to replace that of the merits and demerits of the Proposed Constitution’s Bill of Right.
If they were the true champions of the recommendations made by the Proposed Constitution’s Bill of Rights they would be thanking God that the so-called error was corrected before the referendum. Now they would be calling for the referendum to take place and allowing the people of Kenya to make their own independent choice. There is very little doubt that the planters of the words “national security” in the Proposed Constitution are people who would like to use all the tactics to delay the constitution making process. They would like to delay the referendum. In fact they would like the whole exercise to be stopped because they know the outcome will not be in their favour. So far it is only the group led by William Ruto that has come out openly in demand of the postponement of the referendum. Can it really be that difficult to guess the reason why? In my opinion, not at all.
Apart from the strange stand taken by the “NO” group the other shocking event concerning the referendum concerns councillors. These people had the impudence to tell the President of Kenya that they would not support the Proposed Constitution if they were not paid more money. They did not have any opinion about the content of the Proposed Constitution. All they wanted was more money to publicly support the new law. In my opinion the “YES” team should not even bother to have their support in popularizing the Proposed Constitution. Kenyans must learn to reject leaders who want to be bribed to provide service to the people.
The greedy councillors used party tickets to be elected to their lucrative local government positions of leadership where they are given preference in getting trading licenses and plots in beautiful areas they represent in councils. Today political parties are not in a position to discipline the obviously corrupt councilors. With the passage of the Proposed Constitution that will be a thing of the past. Parties will be so well organized that only the dedicated will be able to get party tickets during elections.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Referendum fraud: Media saves Kenya
The alteration of a vital part of the Proposed Constitution at the Government Press amounts to a serious fraud for which some heads must roll. The crime would never have been discovered had it not been for the vigilance of the media which played its watchdog role in the most professional and admirable manner. The whole saga started on the 11th of May when the Daily Nation published a six paragraph story at the bottom of page five which was devoted to constitutional debate. The story at the bottom of the page could have been missed by any reader since it had such a commonplace and banal heading reading: “Error noted in law document.”
Many must have wondered what the big deal was. After all the whole exercise was man made and it was human to err. But alas, the magnitude of the error was so gigantic that it changed the essence and spirit of whole Proposed Constitution. All the wonderful guarantees made by the Bill of Rights were subjected to conditionality of "national security". Though stuck at the bottom of page five the Daily Nation story rang the alarm bell by warning that a serious anomaly had emerged in some copies of the Proposed Constitution currently in mass production and circulating across the country.
Though it rang the alarm bell, the story itself was not alarmist. It was neither used on the front page as a splash nor as a subject for any op-ed analytical story, commentary or editorial. The editor was being reasonable and all he told his readers was that the Government confirmed it had ordered the Government Printer to stop the production of the copies containing what it called “anomalies”.
The beauty of the Darwinian nature of the Fourth Estate is that the principle of survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence gives professional practitioners the ability of seeing a scoop even in the rivals’ stories. That is exactly what happened to the Editor of the Star who must have seen a real scoop in the Daily Nation filler of May 11th. She therefore went to town with the story the next day on May 12th when the paper professionally did a follow-up to the Daily Nation story, which the people at the Nation Centre missed. The splash of the Star’s Wednesday 12th edition was in a form of a question which every thinking Kenyan was asking: “WHO SMUGGLED CLAUSE INTO DRAFT”?”
As a splash of a national newspaper, which the Star has now rightfully become, no one could miss the gist of the story. The Star’s story was telling the people of Kenya that the Attorney General Amos Wako had hotly denied that he was the person who tried to smuggle an illegal clause into the Proposed Constitution. Though the Star’s story kept talking about section 21(1)(d) of the Proposed Constitution, which actually does not exist, everyone in the know realized that they actually were referring to the same part of the vandalized Proposed Constitution as the Daily Nation of 11th May was talking about, which is Article 24 (1) (d).
The Star took a further step and devoted their editorial to the same subject. In a punchy Leader titled “An attempted coup détat” the paper rightfully warned about what it called “the greatest threat to the stability of Kenya since the post election violence in 2008.” On that same day The Standard jumped on the bandwagon and wrote an editorial on the same subject with a headline saying “Address ‘errors’ in Proposed Constitution.” The Leader argued : “The alteration of Article 24, the clause limiting fundamental freedoms, to make an exception for issues that ‘prejudice national security’ is bound to be set up on as proof of ulterior motives by the State in pushing for adoption of this law” . According to the paper this alone could do much damage to the “yes” campaign by implying the Attorney General and Parliamentary Select Committee on review process were negligent or malicious in their duty.
Very strangely that is more or less the same conclusion made by William Ruto , the Minister for Higher Education , who is spearheading the “NO” camp. The only difference is that apart from blaming the Government for the mysterious and extremely damaging changes, Ruto was calling for stoppage of the entire exercise as the country would be confused with the publication of two versions of the Proposed Constitution. Whatever the case may be, a very serious crime has been committed against the people of Kenya and whoever is responsible should face the long arm of the law.
As the country curiously seeks to know the culprit, a number of questions come to mind: Who would be the people to benefit if the entire process of getting a new constitution is halted? Who were the people mostly uncomfortable with the section of the Proposed Constitution the hooligans want to change in a clandestine and illegal manner? As the country tries to answer those vital questions the Fourth Estate is admirably leading the country in exposing the truth. Now the story has become a national expose by all the papers, radio stations and television stations.
When all is said and done, however, William Ruto’s suggestion of stopping the entire exercise must be opposed by all Kenyans of goodwill. Except for the attempted defilement of the Proposed Constitution’s Article 24 (1) (d) which has been exposed by the Fourth Estate and has therefore miserably failed, the law of the land was followed to the letter in shaping the Proposed Constitution. The law is still being followed in educating the people about the Proposed Constitution. The crime that has been committed by trying to change it has not in any way altered the Proposed Constitution which legitimately is a legal document following a legal process which obviously does not please many people.
We must not forget there are some people in the current Government who do not hesitate to misuse their powerful governmental muscle to suppress peoples’ rights. These are the people who organized State-sponsored hooligans to invade The Standard newspaper and terrorized journalists in March 2006.Memories cannot be so short as to forget those who at that time said that if you rattle a snake you would have only yourself to blame if it bit you. Are these the same people who are now trying to strengthen the “State Security” at the expense of peoples’ most vital human rights?
According to Amos Wako the National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS) had wanted
the Article that has been tampered with to be changed in more or less the same manner in which the Proposed Constitution was altered secretly. It is therefore reasonable to suspect the NSIS to have had a hand in the crime that has been committed. The AG would categorically not point a finger at the spy institution resorting to vaguely telling journalists that their guess was as good as his. Besides that Wako challenged newsmen and women to embark on investigative journalism to unearth the truth. Obviously the AG realizes that the media have a very important role to play in the entire constitution making exercise. Sad will be the day when the NSIS starts behaving like the KGB in the defunct Soviet Union.
The other group that would be pleased to see the whole constitution making process in Kenya stopped is the "NO" group led by William Ruto who has said as much. Whatever happens the people of Kenya, who now desperately need a new constitution, must not be denied the opportunity of liberating this land by accepting the Proposed Constitution. The most difficult huddles have been jumped and the petty, though criminal, attempts of stopping the move to get a new constitution must now be stopped by all the forces the people can gather together.
Many must have wondered what the big deal was. After all the whole exercise was man made and it was human to err. But alas, the magnitude of the error was so gigantic that it changed the essence and spirit of whole Proposed Constitution. All the wonderful guarantees made by the Bill of Rights were subjected to conditionality of "national security". Though stuck at the bottom of page five the Daily Nation story rang the alarm bell by warning that a serious anomaly had emerged in some copies of the Proposed Constitution currently in mass production and circulating across the country.
Though it rang the alarm bell, the story itself was not alarmist. It was neither used on the front page as a splash nor as a subject for any op-ed analytical story, commentary or editorial. The editor was being reasonable and all he told his readers was that the Government confirmed it had ordered the Government Printer to stop the production of the copies containing what it called “anomalies”.
The beauty of the Darwinian nature of the Fourth Estate is that the principle of survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence gives professional practitioners the ability of seeing a scoop even in the rivals’ stories. That is exactly what happened to the Editor of the Star who must have seen a real scoop in the Daily Nation filler of May 11th. She therefore went to town with the story the next day on May 12th when the paper professionally did a follow-up to the Daily Nation story, which the people at the Nation Centre missed. The splash of the Star’s Wednesday 12th edition was in a form of a question which every thinking Kenyan was asking: “WHO SMUGGLED CLAUSE INTO DRAFT”?”
As a splash of a national newspaper, which the Star has now rightfully become, no one could miss the gist of the story. The Star’s story was telling the people of Kenya that the Attorney General Amos Wako had hotly denied that he was the person who tried to smuggle an illegal clause into the Proposed Constitution. Though the Star’s story kept talking about section 21(1)(d) of the Proposed Constitution, which actually does not exist, everyone in the know realized that they actually were referring to the same part of the vandalized Proposed Constitution as the Daily Nation of 11th May was talking about, which is Article 24 (1) (d).
The Star took a further step and devoted their editorial to the same subject. In a punchy Leader titled “An attempted coup détat” the paper rightfully warned about what it called “the greatest threat to the stability of Kenya since the post election violence in 2008.” On that same day The Standard jumped on the bandwagon and wrote an editorial on the same subject with a headline saying “Address ‘errors’ in Proposed Constitution.” The Leader argued : “The alteration of Article 24, the clause limiting fundamental freedoms, to make an exception for issues that ‘prejudice national security’ is bound to be set up on as proof of ulterior motives by the State in pushing for adoption of this law” . According to the paper this alone could do much damage to the “yes” campaign by implying the Attorney General and Parliamentary Select Committee on review process were negligent or malicious in their duty.
Very strangely that is more or less the same conclusion made by William Ruto , the Minister for Higher Education , who is spearheading the “NO” camp. The only difference is that apart from blaming the Government for the mysterious and extremely damaging changes, Ruto was calling for stoppage of the entire exercise as the country would be confused with the publication of two versions of the Proposed Constitution. Whatever the case may be, a very serious crime has been committed against the people of Kenya and whoever is responsible should face the long arm of the law.
As the country curiously seeks to know the culprit, a number of questions come to mind: Who would be the people to benefit if the entire process of getting a new constitution is halted? Who were the people mostly uncomfortable with the section of the Proposed Constitution the hooligans want to change in a clandestine and illegal manner? As the country tries to answer those vital questions the Fourth Estate is admirably leading the country in exposing the truth. Now the story has become a national expose by all the papers, radio stations and television stations.
When all is said and done, however, William Ruto’s suggestion of stopping the entire exercise must be opposed by all Kenyans of goodwill. Except for the attempted defilement of the Proposed Constitution’s Article 24 (1) (d) which has been exposed by the Fourth Estate and has therefore miserably failed, the law of the land was followed to the letter in shaping the Proposed Constitution. The law is still being followed in educating the people about the Proposed Constitution. The crime that has been committed by trying to change it has not in any way altered the Proposed Constitution which legitimately is a legal document following a legal process which obviously does not please many people.
We must not forget there are some people in the current Government who do not hesitate to misuse their powerful governmental muscle to suppress peoples’ rights. These are the people who organized State-sponsored hooligans to invade The Standard newspaper and terrorized journalists in March 2006.Memories cannot be so short as to forget those who at that time said that if you rattle a snake you would have only yourself to blame if it bit you. Are these the same people who are now trying to strengthen the “State Security” at the expense of peoples’ most vital human rights?
According to Amos Wako the National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS) had wanted
the Article that has been tampered with to be changed in more or less the same manner in which the Proposed Constitution was altered secretly. It is therefore reasonable to suspect the NSIS to have had a hand in the crime that has been committed. The AG would categorically not point a finger at the spy institution resorting to vaguely telling journalists that their guess was as good as his. Besides that Wako challenged newsmen and women to embark on investigative journalism to unearth the truth. Obviously the AG realizes that the media have a very important role to play in the entire constitution making exercise. Sad will be the day when the NSIS starts behaving like the KGB in the defunct Soviet Union.
The other group that would be pleased to see the whole constitution making process in Kenya stopped is the "NO" group led by William Ruto who has said as much. Whatever happens the people of Kenya, who now desperately need a new constitution, must not be denied the opportunity of liberating this land by accepting the Proposed Constitution. The most difficult huddles have been jumped and the petty, though criminal, attempts of stopping the move to get a new constitution must now be stopped by all the forces the people can gather together.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
“YES” votes may solve land problems
Land in Kenya has always been a political volcano about to erupt. From the moment colonialists decided to establish settlements they called “White Highlands”, land in Kenya has been the centre of political controversy that led to the Mau Mau war and racial hatred. Land in Kenya has also been a source of tribal conflict and many family disagreements. It is the hotbed of all sorts of political, social and economic disputes. There is therefore very little wonder that Chapter Five of the Proposed Constitution is among the most loathed by the big land owners who resist any political change that is likely to remove them from the privileged position they now occupy. Yet it is that same chapter that is likely to bring about permanent settlement to the land problems of Kenya.
Traditionally issues concerning land have tended to discriminate women who were treated by many African societies as mere properties of men alongside land itself. There are still a number of African societies in Kenya that don’t allow women to inherit land. The Proposed Constitution has boldly looked at that problem and suggested a solution which should make all women in Kenya support it. Article 60 (1) (f) , for example, calls for the elimination of gender discrimination in law, customs and practices related to land and property in land.
In Kenya domestic tyrants kick out their wives from matrimonial homes whenever they decide to take new wives even if the old ones contributed in buying and building the homes .The Proposed Constitution intends to make a correction to that serious injustice against women who, in my view, should all support it. In Article 68 (1) (c) (iii) , for example,it says when the “YES” votes win Parliament shall enact a legislation to regulate the recognition and protection of matrimonial property and in particular the matrimonial home during and on the termination of marriage.
Among the people making a lot of noise against Chapter Five of the Proposed Constitution is Daniel arap Moi who, as the President of this republic, used to dispose of public land by dishing it to his political supporters. The manner in which influential politicians acquired public land came close to becoming serious crimes against the landless people of Kenya. The vote “YES” for the Proposed Constitution will make illegal acquisition of public land a thing of the past for its Article 62 (4) says public land shall not be disposed of or otherwise used except in terms of an Act of Parliament specifying the nature and terms of that disposal. The Proposed Constitution makes similar protection of community land against unscrupulous people who would attempt to dispose of it for their gainful ends.
One of the most controversial aspects of land policy in Kenya concerns land ownership by non-citizens. These are foreigners who own such huge plantations that it would take hours to drive through them in high speed vehicles. They include tea plantations in Kericho and pineapple farms in Thika. To the wananchi living in Kericho and Thika the land there will never belong to them or their children and even their children’s children. To them independence never came and will never come for more than ten generations to come. The reason is simple. The foreigners who own land there have been given leasehold tenures, or to be more precise, gave themselves leasehold tenures of 999 years when Kenya was still a colony.
Fortunately the Proposed Constitution corrects that serious colonial injustice through Article 65 (1) which says a person who is not a citizen may hold land on the basis of leasehold tenure only and in such lease, however granted, shall not exceed 99 years. Article 65 (2) says if a provision of any agreement , deed, conveyance or document of whatever nature purports to confer on a person who is not a citizen an interest in land greater than 99 year lease, the provision shall be regarded as conferring on the person a 99 year leasehold interest and no more. That part of the Proposed Constitution has brought real independence to the people of Thika and Kericho. Indeed it liberates the entire country from the colonial chains which remained behind in the form of 999 year leaseholds to foreigners.
What should shock all Kenyans is the attempt on March 30, 2010 by the MP for Chepalungu, Mr. Isaac Ruto, to prevent the true liberation of Thika and Kericho . Ruto will go down in history as the African who made a spirited effort in Parliament to reject the suggestion by the Proposed Constitution to change the 999 year leaseholds to 99 years for foreigners. In fact Mr. Ruto wanted the whole Article in the Proposed Constitution on landholding by foreigners to be truck off. What led Mr. Ruto to take such a firm stand against his own people is not hard to imagine. The foreigners owning the huge tracts of land are extremely wealthy people and the manner in which they made Mr. Ruto to fight for them is also not hard to imagine.
The part of the Proposed Constitution Mr. Ruto is opposing makes it difficult for foreign owned body corporate to own huge lands in Kenya for the ridiculous periods of 999 years. It says the body corporate owning land shall be regarded as a citizen only if it is wholly owned by one or more citizens and property held in trust shall be regarded as being held by a citizen only if all the beneficial interest of the trust is held by persons who are citizens. For some very strange reasons Isaac Ruto is against these noble proposals meant to truly liberate Kenya. The “YES” votes will mean Isaac Ruto and those who think like him will be legally corrected.
The very fact that a colonial laws can still allow a foreigner to own huge tracts of land in Kenya for 999 years when there are hundreds of thousands of Kenyans who are landless means a lot of injustices on land issues are still being done against the wananchi of Kenya. The Proposed Constitution is planning to look into, and correct, the injustices through National Land Commission which, according to Article 67 (2) (e), shall initiate investigations, on its own initiative or on complaint, into present or historical land injustices, and recommend appropriate redress.
Among the most controversial suggestions made by the Proposed Constitution on land is that of limiting the acreages of ridiculously huge land tracts by some individuals who don’t even know what to do with it. It is the part of the Proposed Constitution opposed by people like the former President Daniel arap Moi and Mr. John Michuki. This is Article 68 (1) (c) which says Parliament shall enact legislation to prescribe minimum and maximum land holding acreages in respect to private land. This part of the Proposed Constitution is bound to make both the local and foreign moneyed land owners, which include the Church, gang up to oppose the wishes of the wananchi to see justice done on the land issue. As a matter of fact it is this issue, rather than the Kadhi courts and the Articles on abortion, that make the churches so much opposed to the Proposed Constitution.
When the “YES” votes win wananchi will feel safe about public land which has been systematically grabbed by corrupt politicians and the so-called private developers. Public parks and beaches have been systematically grabbed to the extent that in many urban residential areas children have nowhere to play or swim. When the Proposed Constitution goes through, that will be a thing of the past as its Article 68 (1) (c) (iii) says Parliament shall enact a legislation to protect and conserve and provide access to all public land.
On the issue of environment and natural resources Isaac Ruto is opposed to the State taking the responsibility to ensure that the processes and activities that are likely to endanger the environment are eliminated. On Tuesday March 30th 2010 he proposed an amendment in Parliament to the Proposed Constitution’s Article 69 (1) (g) which is seeking to do exactly that i.e. to ensure the State has an obligation to protect the endangered environment. Again it is not difficult to imagine why Isaac Ruto is taking such a negative stand against the protection of the environment. He obviously is among the people who see nothing wrong with the destruction of the Mau Forests. Fortunately the ball is now in the hands of the people and their many “YES” votes are bond to correct all the above mistakes that have introduced a lot of injustices on the land issue.
Traditionally issues concerning land have tended to discriminate women who were treated by many African societies as mere properties of men alongside land itself. There are still a number of African societies in Kenya that don’t allow women to inherit land. The Proposed Constitution has boldly looked at that problem and suggested a solution which should make all women in Kenya support it. Article 60 (1) (f) , for example, calls for the elimination of gender discrimination in law, customs and practices related to land and property in land.
In Kenya domestic tyrants kick out their wives from matrimonial homes whenever they decide to take new wives even if the old ones contributed in buying and building the homes .The Proposed Constitution intends to make a correction to that serious injustice against women who, in my view, should all support it. In Article 68 (1) (c) (iii) , for example,it says when the “YES” votes win Parliament shall enact a legislation to regulate the recognition and protection of matrimonial property and in particular the matrimonial home during and on the termination of marriage.
Among the people making a lot of noise against Chapter Five of the Proposed Constitution is Daniel arap Moi who, as the President of this republic, used to dispose of public land by dishing it to his political supporters. The manner in which influential politicians acquired public land came close to becoming serious crimes against the landless people of Kenya. The vote “YES” for the Proposed Constitution will make illegal acquisition of public land a thing of the past for its Article 62 (4) says public land shall not be disposed of or otherwise used except in terms of an Act of Parliament specifying the nature and terms of that disposal. The Proposed Constitution makes similar protection of community land against unscrupulous people who would attempt to dispose of it for their gainful ends.
One of the most controversial aspects of land policy in Kenya concerns land ownership by non-citizens. These are foreigners who own such huge plantations that it would take hours to drive through them in high speed vehicles. They include tea plantations in Kericho and pineapple farms in Thika. To the wananchi living in Kericho and Thika the land there will never belong to them or their children and even their children’s children. To them independence never came and will never come for more than ten generations to come. The reason is simple. The foreigners who own land there have been given leasehold tenures, or to be more precise, gave themselves leasehold tenures of 999 years when Kenya was still a colony.
Fortunately the Proposed Constitution corrects that serious colonial injustice through Article 65 (1) which says a person who is not a citizen may hold land on the basis of leasehold tenure only and in such lease, however granted, shall not exceed 99 years. Article 65 (2) says if a provision of any agreement , deed, conveyance or document of whatever nature purports to confer on a person who is not a citizen an interest in land greater than 99 year lease, the provision shall be regarded as conferring on the person a 99 year leasehold interest and no more. That part of the Proposed Constitution has brought real independence to the people of Thika and Kericho. Indeed it liberates the entire country from the colonial chains which remained behind in the form of 999 year leaseholds to foreigners.
What should shock all Kenyans is the attempt on March 30, 2010 by the MP for Chepalungu, Mr. Isaac Ruto, to prevent the true liberation of Thika and Kericho . Ruto will go down in history as the African who made a spirited effort in Parliament to reject the suggestion by the Proposed Constitution to change the 999 year leaseholds to 99 years for foreigners. In fact Mr. Ruto wanted the whole Article in the Proposed Constitution on landholding by foreigners to be truck off. What led Mr. Ruto to take such a firm stand against his own people is not hard to imagine. The foreigners owning the huge tracts of land are extremely wealthy people and the manner in which they made Mr. Ruto to fight for them is also not hard to imagine.
The part of the Proposed Constitution Mr. Ruto is opposing makes it difficult for foreign owned body corporate to own huge lands in Kenya for the ridiculous periods of 999 years. It says the body corporate owning land shall be regarded as a citizen only if it is wholly owned by one or more citizens and property held in trust shall be regarded as being held by a citizen only if all the beneficial interest of the trust is held by persons who are citizens. For some very strange reasons Isaac Ruto is against these noble proposals meant to truly liberate Kenya. The “YES” votes will mean Isaac Ruto and those who think like him will be legally corrected.
The very fact that a colonial laws can still allow a foreigner to own huge tracts of land in Kenya for 999 years when there are hundreds of thousands of Kenyans who are landless means a lot of injustices on land issues are still being done against the wananchi of Kenya. The Proposed Constitution is planning to look into, and correct, the injustices through National Land Commission which, according to Article 67 (2) (e), shall initiate investigations, on its own initiative or on complaint, into present or historical land injustices, and recommend appropriate redress.
Among the most controversial suggestions made by the Proposed Constitution on land is that of limiting the acreages of ridiculously huge land tracts by some individuals who don’t even know what to do with it. It is the part of the Proposed Constitution opposed by people like the former President Daniel arap Moi and Mr. John Michuki. This is Article 68 (1) (c) which says Parliament shall enact legislation to prescribe minimum and maximum land holding acreages in respect to private land. This part of the Proposed Constitution is bound to make both the local and foreign moneyed land owners, which include the Church, gang up to oppose the wishes of the wananchi to see justice done on the land issue. As a matter of fact it is this issue, rather than the Kadhi courts and the Articles on abortion, that make the churches so much opposed to the Proposed Constitution.
When the “YES” votes win wananchi will feel safe about public land which has been systematically grabbed by corrupt politicians and the so-called private developers. Public parks and beaches have been systematically grabbed to the extent that in many urban residential areas children have nowhere to play or swim. When the Proposed Constitution goes through, that will be a thing of the past as its Article 68 (1) (c) (iii) says Parliament shall enact a legislation to protect and conserve and provide access to all public land.
On the issue of environment and natural resources Isaac Ruto is opposed to the State taking the responsibility to ensure that the processes and activities that are likely to endanger the environment are eliminated. On Tuesday March 30th 2010 he proposed an amendment in Parliament to the Proposed Constitution’s Article 69 (1) (g) which is seeking to do exactly that i.e. to ensure the State has an obligation to protect the endangered environment. Again it is not difficult to imagine why Isaac Ruto is taking such a negative stand against the protection of the environment. He obviously is among the people who see nothing wrong with the destruction of the Mau Forests. Fortunately the ball is now in the hands of the people and their many “YES” votes are bond to correct all the above mistakes that have introduced a lot of injustices on the land issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
