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 Led by Higher Education Minister William Ruto, the group does not want the fake Proposed Constitution to be withdrawn.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.