All eyes are on the Kenyan media at this crucial time in the country’s history. Not only do readers, viewers and listeners want to be told the truth about the referendum campaigns, but they are equally eager to detect any bias among journalists who have so far been held in very high esteem. Unfortunately that respect is about to go down the drain, not because of lack of professionalism among the practitioners, but because of proprietorial interference in editorial decision making process.
Long before David Makali, the Media Institute Director, sounded an alarm bell in his column in The Star of June 28, observers were getting extremely disturbed about several conspicuous attempts to mislead the public about William Ruto’s popularity among Kenyans. According to Makali there is pressure being exerted “on editorial staff in some media houses to side with political affiliation of some shareholders.” Makali did not need to say that that pressure is probably being felt in The Standard, where Daniel arap Moi, a staunch opponent of the Proposed Constitution, is a powerful shareholder.
Newspaper readers did not need Makali to notice that The Standard of June 16 had a screaming headline accusing the government of “Double Standards” when prosecuting hate speech perpetrators. The splash story claimed “Government searchlight shone on leading opponents of the Proposed Constitution, among them Higher Education Minister William Ruto, an Assistant Minister and two MPs over claims of making hate speeches.” The tendentious Standard story was almost suggesting that the National Cohesion and Integration Commission was selectively picking up politicians from the “NO” camp and letting those in the “YES” camp get away with hate speech.
Readers must have seen the same story’s strap line claiming that “ ‘NO’ charges State biased as Ruto quizzed while Kapondi, Machage and Kutuny locked up over claims of hate speech”. To The Standard, these politicians were arrested, interrogated for framed up charges of hate speech. That is why they call them “claims of” hate speech, the publication of the same hate speeches in their own newspaper notwithstanding. As a matter of fact the hate speech by Machage was repeated by The Standard in the same story accusing the Government of double standard in charging hate speech perpetrators.
The Standard’s conspicuous support for the “NO” camp came out in the open on the June 27 issue when the paper’s Sunday edition purported to publish an analytical story it called “ Surprise as ‘Yes’, ‘NO’ step up campaign” . That gave the paper the excuse to publish a front page picture of William Ruto addressing a huge crowd next to a close-up picture of Raila Odinga accompanied by Musalia Mudavadi and Fred Gumo looking gloomy while walking towards a rally in Western Province. The Standard deliberately turned down the usage of a picture of one of the largest crowds at the Muliro Gardens in Kakamega addressed by the “YES” camp on Saturday 26th June. This was the case despite its timeliness news value.
If anyone had any doubt about The Standard’s stand on the referendum issue, then those doubts must have been put to rest on June 28, when it splashed a story it called “ ‘Yes’ back to the drawing board”. Superficially the story looked very innocent but when one turned to where it led the reader on page six then the paper’s intentions became clear. Pages six and seven were dominated by the pro “NO” stories and pages eight and nine were full of well displayed pictures of the Nakuru “NO” rally. That is a total of four full pages supporting the “NO” camp. No wonder when the “YES” team met yesterday at the Kenyatta Conference Centre they had to admit that the “NO” team had what they called “growing visibility”. This is a visibility that has been created by The Standard newspaper and KTN television station.
To make the matter worse, and to be fair to the Standard Group, this visibility was not made possible by The Standard alone. In some instances there were clear indications of the Daily Nation playing the same game. On the June 27, for example, the paper devoted two pages to the Constitution Debate. On one page was the picture of William Ruto addressing a well attended rally at Kibwezi and on the other page was a picture of Raila Odinga addressing exactly 20 people at what the paper describes in the caption as the “YES” rally at the Muliro Gardens in Kakamega.
When covering the referendum journalists at The Standard and the Daily Nation seem to have forgotten a number of ethical principles. Whether they are pressurized by proprietors or influenced by other factors they should know when their stories or treatment of pictures are less than accurate readers, viewers and listeners are so schooled and experienced as to discover the hidden intention . They are also able to deduce the possible reasons for the deliberate misguidance of the people. Readers know that a picture showing Raila addressing 20 people at a Kakamega “rally” is a mischievous and a deliberate attempt to deceive the people through contemptible hoodwinking method of picture cropping.
Whereas a picture tells a better story than a thousand words, it poses a number of questions in the readers’ minds when it is cropped in such unprofessional manner as to go against fundamental ethical principles of the Code of Conduct for Practice of Journalism on use of pictures and names which clearly says as a general rule, the media should apply caution in the use of pictures and names and should avoid publication when there is a possibility of harming the persons concerned.
The code further says manipulation of pictures in a manner that distorts reality should be avoided. The picture of Raila addressing 20 people at a “rally” in Kakamega was obviously intended to harm his popularity. Since it is a well known fact that the crowd at the Kakamega rally was among the biggest to be seen in that town recently, then the cropping of that picture was manipulating it in a manner that distorted the reality and was therefore professionally unethical.
The coverage of the referendum campaigns by the two papers, particularly The Standard, has been wanting in the ethical principles of Accuracy and Fairness. When, in 1922, ASNE first thought of Accuracy as an ethical principle, it was mainly thinking of getting the facts rights in all stories. Journalism scholars agree that the best way of getting the facts of any story right is getting all the five Ws and one H right. Even in investigative journalism the manipulation of the five Ws and one H plays a fundamental part in unearthing many more Ws from each W and as many Hs as possible from the obvious single one . For it is a fact that within any W there are many other Ws and within every H there are many more Hs.
In a desperate attempt of popularizing William Ruto Daily Nation journalists forget that principle which is so vital in interpretative journalism. When The Nation was reporting the “YES” camp’s plan to strategize its future campaigns in its 29th June edition, for example, the paper correctly balanced the “YES” views with the views of William Ruto who was quoted saying “They (Greens) have missed the point. The choice on August 4 will be voting ‘Yes’ for a divisive document with controversial clauses on religion, counties and devolution and ambiguous clauses. On the other hand voting ‘No’ will be to enable us give ourselves an opportunity to correct the clauses and enact the constitution that will Unite Kenyans.”
All that is good reporting. But it is reportorial, conveyor belt reporting. It is the obsolete type of reporting. Interpretative reporting, which is the most advanced type of reporting, demands that reporters should explain all the hidden meanings of a story. That is why it is called interpretative reporting. Given that fact, the reporter who injected William Ruto’s opinion in the story about the “YES” camp’s strategy would have been more professional by explaining to the readers what William Ruto’s suggestion entailed. This, the reporter should have done even without consulting William Ruto.
The interpretation would have demystified Ruto’s ambitious suggestion of correcting the Proposed Constitution and enacting it anew. The reporter was also professionally obliged to explain to the readers how that ambitious suggestion could be accomplished both financially and legally. After voting “NO” how much money would the country need to organize another referendum which William Ruto wants? What does the law say about the whole process? Can one just amend the Proposed Constitution and give it back to the people without going back to Parliament? What are the chances of Parliament passing the Ruto amendments? What does the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008 say about the whole issue? That way the ethical principle of Accuracy would have been achieved more professionally.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Kenyan tribes unite for referendum
Whenever Kenyans do anything political they resort to tribal methodology.With very few exceptions political parties are tribal institutions.Political candidates are nominated on tribal basis and MPs are , therefore, elected on tribal rather than party tickets. Political parties' popularities are concentrated in tribal areas and are mainly formed on ethnic rather than ideological basis. The current referendum tug-of-war between “YES” and “NO” teams are no exception. Tribal elements will play a major role in determining who the winners and losers will be.
For the time being the most conspicuous ethnic group in the two camps is the Kalenjin who have massively backed Higher Education Minister William Ruto’s “NO” camp even when they know their chances of winning are extremely slim. What then has made the Kalenjins isolate themselves from the rest of Kenyans in the forthcoming referendum? The answer to that question depends entirely on the interpretation or misinterpretation of the Proposed Constitution.
For some very strange reasons the Kalenjin people have been made to believe that their land would be very insecure when the Proposed Constitution is accepted. Despite the high numbers of highly educated Kalenjins, the ethnic group listens only to a few tribal leaders. It so happens that the two most important Kalenjin leaders , William Ruto and Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, both oppose the Proposed Constitution for some very personal reasons which are not dissimilar, despite the fact that the two leaders don’t see eye to eye on most issues.
In opposing the Proposed Constitution , Moi has put all his eggs in the Rift Valley basket, where he has concentrated all his efforts to convince the Kalenjins , even the poorest and landless amongst them, that their land is about to be nationalized . As far as Moi is concerned the Kalenjin people must unite to reject the Proposed Constitution. But the Minister for Higher education thinks a little bit differently. He would rather some other tribes also joined the Kalenjins in rejecting the Proposed Constitution. Ruto’s crusade to establish an alliance with another tribe seems to be concentrated in Ukambani where Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka’s leadership is unchallenged.
His frequent visits to the area have been met with confused reception as the Vice President refuses to openly back the “NO” camp though he continues to talk of tolerance and unity in the country. His lukewarm support of the “YES” camp has made many believe he secretly supports Ruto’s Ukambani visits. If Kalonzo does not step in and forcefully denounce the Ruto visits the Kamba people will go to the referendum polls completely divided, though that division will have little effect on the final results.
Ruto’s efforts to get other tribes support the Kalenjin “NO” stand has made him take his campaign to the Western Province, where the majority of the people and political leaders are firmly in the “YES” camp. His attempts to get the support of the Miji Kenda people of the Coast seem to have boomeranged when Coastal Muslims accused him of trying to stirrup animosities between Christian and Muslims. The High Education Minister has since been grilled by NCIC on suspicion of spreading hate speech.
Ruto’s desperate attempts to get other tribes to back Kalenjins in rejecting the Proposed Constitution seem to have hit a brick wall as most other ethnic groups have now united under their various tribal leaders supporting the Proposed Constitution. On top of that list are the Luo people who, as usual, are solidly behind Prime Minister Raila Odinga in favour of the Draft law. That support is so strong that there has not been any need to organize campaign meetings urging the people of Nyanza to vote “YES”.
Judging by the number of Luhya MPs led by Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi supporting the Proposed Constitution, Ruto’s efforts to get some support in Western Province also seem to be an exercise in futility. Lugari MP, Cyrus Jirongo seems to be the only powerful Luhya leader supporting Ruto’s stand. Observers believe Ruto and Jirongo have many things in common. They are both former leaders of Youth for Kanu ’92 (YK ’92) and are also believed to be owners of huge tracts of land, which they see threatened by the Proposed Constitution.
Within the Rift Valley the Maasai people led William Ole Ntimama are all sworn supporters of the Proposed Constitution. Backing the Maasai are their cousins the Samburu people led by Simeon Saimanga Lesirma who has been campaigning seriously to make sure no Samburu vote will go to the “NO” camp.
In Central Province where Uhuru Kenyatta has been accused of leading the so called “Watermelon” group which, like the fruit, is green on the outside and red in the inside, the situation is now absolutely clear. The Province is strongly supporting the Proposed Constitution. After a secret meeting of the most important leaders of the Kikuyus, Embus and Merus, it was unanimously agreed that the Gema people would vote “YES” for the Proposed Constitution. The significance of that meeting is that for the first time the leader of the Mungiki, a clandestine organization with a million followers, Maina Njenga, was brought onboard.
Past experience proves that the Central Province always votes as an ethnic bloc with a formidable control of several million voters. Given the choice of either backing the Clergy which is seeking the “NO” vote or backing the ethnic leaders, the Kikuyus, Embus and Merus would always choose the later.
Another powerful ethnic group that must not be underestimated in the forthcoming referendum is made up of the Somali Communities to be found in the North Eastern and parts of Eastern Regions. Believing that their religion, Islam, is being threatened by the Clergy that is demanding the abolishment of the Kadhi courts, almost every single registered Somali voter will support the Proposed Constitution. All opinion polls have shown that well above 80% of the voters among the Somali people support the Proposed Constitution.
Because of its land policy, which calls for correction of historical injustices, the Miji Kenda people of the Coast are overwhelmingly supporting the Proposed Constitution. Their earlier misgivings based on the misconceptions that the Draft laws don’t provide for political and economic devolution have been corrected by civic education. Led by their tribal leaders who happen to be members of Parliament, the Miji Kenda have now been convinced that the liberation of their land depends entirely on voting “YES” for the proposed Constitution.
The lone coastal Member of Parliament who opposes the Proposed Constitution is Naomi Shaban who must have some personal reasons for backing the “NO” camp. Knowing that she faces the sack from the Cabinet after the referendum , the step she has taken could cost her political future given the fact a lot of her voters are squatters who stand to benefit from the Proposed Constitution. This means she may not even see Parliament against after the 2012 elections.
Whenever William Ruto has gone he has been saying how unfair it is for the people of Lamu, who have only two parliamentary constituencies, to be given a whole county in the Proposed Constitution when other deserving Kenyans have been given none. Inadvertently, he has antagonized the Bajuni people of Lamu who, backed by their neighbors the Pokomos of Tana River, are now determined to back the Proposed Constitution.
So much has been said about the contents of the Proposed Constitution. William Ruto and his team have moved in some well chosen areas trying to get support of some specific people. Church leaders have gone round the country quoting the Bible in opposition to the Proposed Constitution. They have dwelt on two major issues which they say upsets Christians in Kenya – abortion and Kadhi courts. President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga have moved their strong contingents addressing massive rallies in various parts of the country. But when all is said and done it is the tribe that will matter in the referendum. Like all other political activities in Kenya, the referendum will see Kenyans ganging up as tribes and making their final decision on whether to vote “YES” or “NO” on tribal considerations.
If the people we see moving around campaigning for and against have any backing of their tribes, then the “YES” vote is sure to carry the day on August 4th.This is mainly because the most powerful tribes, may be for completely different reasons , are supporting the Proposed Constitution. Kenya, being a country that makes her major political decisions on tribal basis, there is no way the Kikuyus,the Embus, the Merus,the Maasai, the Pokomos, the Luos, the Luhyas, the Miji Kendas,the Bajunis,the Samburus the Taitas, a large number of Kambas and the Somalis can unite to achieve a political goal and fail.
For the time being the most conspicuous ethnic group in the two camps is the Kalenjin who have massively backed Higher Education Minister William Ruto’s “NO” camp even when they know their chances of winning are extremely slim. What then has made the Kalenjins isolate themselves from the rest of Kenyans in the forthcoming referendum? The answer to that question depends entirely on the interpretation or misinterpretation of the Proposed Constitution.
For some very strange reasons the Kalenjin people have been made to believe that their land would be very insecure when the Proposed Constitution is accepted. Despite the high numbers of highly educated Kalenjins, the ethnic group listens only to a few tribal leaders. It so happens that the two most important Kalenjin leaders , William Ruto and Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, both oppose the Proposed Constitution for some very personal reasons which are not dissimilar, despite the fact that the two leaders don’t see eye to eye on most issues.
In opposing the Proposed Constitution , Moi has put all his eggs in the Rift Valley basket, where he has concentrated all his efforts to convince the Kalenjins , even the poorest and landless amongst them, that their land is about to be nationalized . As far as Moi is concerned the Kalenjin people must unite to reject the Proposed Constitution. But the Minister for Higher education thinks a little bit differently. He would rather some other tribes also joined the Kalenjins in rejecting the Proposed Constitution. Ruto’s crusade to establish an alliance with another tribe seems to be concentrated in Ukambani where Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka’s leadership is unchallenged.
His frequent visits to the area have been met with confused reception as the Vice President refuses to openly back the “NO” camp though he continues to talk of tolerance and unity in the country. His lukewarm support of the “YES” camp has made many believe he secretly supports Ruto’s Ukambani visits. If Kalonzo does not step in and forcefully denounce the Ruto visits the Kamba people will go to the referendum polls completely divided, though that division will have little effect on the final results.
Ruto’s efforts to get other tribes support the Kalenjin “NO” stand has made him take his campaign to the Western Province, where the majority of the people and political leaders are firmly in the “YES” camp. His attempts to get the support of the Miji Kenda people of the Coast seem to have boomeranged when Coastal Muslims accused him of trying to stirrup animosities between Christian and Muslims. The High Education Minister has since been grilled by NCIC on suspicion of spreading hate speech.
Ruto’s desperate attempts to get other tribes to back Kalenjins in rejecting the Proposed Constitution seem to have hit a brick wall as most other ethnic groups have now united under their various tribal leaders supporting the Proposed Constitution. On top of that list are the Luo people who, as usual, are solidly behind Prime Minister Raila Odinga in favour of the Draft law. That support is so strong that there has not been any need to organize campaign meetings urging the people of Nyanza to vote “YES”.
Judging by the number of Luhya MPs led by Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi supporting the Proposed Constitution, Ruto’s efforts to get some support in Western Province also seem to be an exercise in futility. Lugari MP, Cyrus Jirongo seems to be the only powerful Luhya leader supporting Ruto’s stand. Observers believe Ruto and Jirongo have many things in common. They are both former leaders of Youth for Kanu ’92 (YK ’92) and are also believed to be owners of huge tracts of land, which they see threatened by the Proposed Constitution.
Within the Rift Valley the Maasai people led William Ole Ntimama are all sworn supporters of the Proposed Constitution. Backing the Maasai are their cousins the Samburu people led by Simeon Saimanga Lesirma who has been campaigning seriously to make sure no Samburu vote will go to the “NO” camp.
In Central Province where Uhuru Kenyatta has been accused of leading the so called “Watermelon” group which, like the fruit, is green on the outside and red in the inside, the situation is now absolutely clear. The Province is strongly supporting the Proposed Constitution. After a secret meeting of the most important leaders of the Kikuyus, Embus and Merus, it was unanimously agreed that the Gema people would vote “YES” for the Proposed Constitution. The significance of that meeting is that for the first time the leader of the Mungiki, a clandestine organization with a million followers, Maina Njenga, was brought onboard.
Past experience proves that the Central Province always votes as an ethnic bloc with a formidable control of several million voters. Given the choice of either backing the Clergy which is seeking the “NO” vote or backing the ethnic leaders, the Kikuyus, Embus and Merus would always choose the later.
Another powerful ethnic group that must not be underestimated in the forthcoming referendum is made up of the Somali Communities to be found in the North Eastern and parts of Eastern Regions. Believing that their religion, Islam, is being threatened by the Clergy that is demanding the abolishment of the Kadhi courts, almost every single registered Somali voter will support the Proposed Constitution. All opinion polls have shown that well above 80% of the voters among the Somali people support the Proposed Constitution.
Because of its land policy, which calls for correction of historical injustices, the Miji Kenda people of the Coast are overwhelmingly supporting the Proposed Constitution. Their earlier misgivings based on the misconceptions that the Draft laws don’t provide for political and economic devolution have been corrected by civic education. Led by their tribal leaders who happen to be members of Parliament, the Miji Kenda have now been convinced that the liberation of their land depends entirely on voting “YES” for the proposed Constitution.
The lone coastal Member of Parliament who opposes the Proposed Constitution is Naomi Shaban who must have some personal reasons for backing the “NO” camp. Knowing that she faces the sack from the Cabinet after the referendum , the step she has taken could cost her political future given the fact a lot of her voters are squatters who stand to benefit from the Proposed Constitution. This means she may not even see Parliament against after the 2012 elections.
Whenever William Ruto has gone he has been saying how unfair it is for the people of Lamu, who have only two parliamentary constituencies, to be given a whole county in the Proposed Constitution when other deserving Kenyans have been given none. Inadvertently, he has antagonized the Bajuni people of Lamu who, backed by their neighbors the Pokomos of Tana River, are now determined to back the Proposed Constitution.
So much has been said about the contents of the Proposed Constitution. William Ruto and his team have moved in some well chosen areas trying to get support of some specific people. Church leaders have gone round the country quoting the Bible in opposition to the Proposed Constitution. They have dwelt on two major issues which they say upsets Christians in Kenya – abortion and Kadhi courts. President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga have moved their strong contingents addressing massive rallies in various parts of the country. But when all is said and done it is the tribe that will matter in the referendum. Like all other political activities in Kenya, the referendum will see Kenyans ganging up as tribes and making their final decision on whether to vote “YES” or “NO” on tribal considerations.
If the people we see moving around campaigning for and against have any backing of their tribes, then the “YES” vote is sure to carry the day on August 4th.This is mainly because the most powerful tribes, may be for completely different reasons , are supporting the Proposed Constitution. Kenya, being a country that makes her major political decisions on tribal basis, there is no way the Kikuyus,the Embus, the Merus,the Maasai, the Pokomos, the Luos, the Luhyas, the Miji Kendas,the Bajunis,the Samburus the Taitas, a large number of Kambas and the Somalis can unite to achieve a political goal and fail.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Ruto must be fired after referendum
The coalition Government of Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga is being threatened from within. Right inside the Cabinet there are people working against the achievement of Agenda Four. Yet without Agenda Four the coalition Government might as well breakup.
According to the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation (KNDR) Agenda Four identified what were considered the underlying issues that had caused the crisis in Kenya and which needed to be addressed because they threaten the existence of Kenya as a nation. Agenda Four, says KNDR, was designed to provide the framework for undertaking comprehensive constitutional and institutional reforms to address the root causes of the 2007 conflict and create a better, more secure and prosperous nation.
The Proposed Constitution is part and parcel of Agenda Four and whoever opposes it should have no business sitting in the coalition Government’s Cabinet. In any truly civilized and democratic country anyone who opposes such a major principle of the Government, as Kenya’s Agenda Four, would openly resign from any position in the Government. Apparently Kenya has yet to attain that level of civilization and democracy before leaders resign on matters of principle.
For that reason William Ruto, the Minister for Higher Education, Naomi Shaban, the Minister of State for Special Programmes and Samuel Poghisio, the Minister for Information and Communications want to be paid fat Government salaries, drive posh Government cars, be guarded by Government security as they move around the country condemning the most important Government policy, Agenda Four, which is highlighted by the Proposed Constitution, which they now have sworn to publicly undermine. That kind of tragicomedy can only take place in Kenya where politicians preach water and openly drink wine.
President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga must be the only heads of Government who tolerate such insubordination. Right now their hands might be tied by the referendum politics. Obviously they do not want to be accused of forcing any member of the Cabinet into the “YES” camp. Hence the ridiculous tolerance of people working against the very Government they claim to belong to and biting the hand that feeds them. That situation, however, should not be tolerated after the referendum. As soon as the referendum result are announced, the three ministers must be shown the door. This is regardless of whether the “YES” team wins or loses.
If, in the unlikely event the “NO” team wins, then the entire government must resign and the country should go for a general election. This is because a “NO” vote, like The Standard has very ably investigated, will, for all practical purposes, amount to a vote of no confidence in the Government.
As things stand at the moment, the main voices of the “NO” team, William Ruto and Samuel Poghisio have twisted the action taken by the NCIC against hate speech to mean repression of freedom of expression. The truth is that it is a fallacy to equate hate speech with free speech because one is a virtue while the other is a terrible evil. Poghisio and Ruto’s claim of being victimized for interpreting the Proposed Constitution has given the Clergy the courage to issue a Press Release that expounds that same misguided argument. In its Press statement, the Clergy ridiculously claims that those who should be charged with hate speech are members of the Committee of Experts for proposing some article “which when interpreted or explained may be considered to be hate speech by some people”.
The Clergy then goes ahead and misinterprets Article 63 (1) which states that Community land shall vest in and be held by communities identified on the basis of ethnicity, culture or similar community of interest. According to the Clergy the simple and direct interpretation of this article is that the tribal enclaves will be recognized in law, which is well and good, but then the “simple” interpretation of the Act by the Clergy becomes too simplistic when it claims that this means “in these areas, specific tribes will have preeminence over others”. The Clergy then misguidedly concludes this means “tribes wishing to evict ‘outsiders’ from their areas will only need to invoke the constitution once this draft is passed”. This is the most malicious misinterpretation of the Proposed Constitution.
The Clergy’s deliberate misapprehension of Article 63 (1) of the Proposed Constitution borders on hate speech itself when it says this part of the “draft constitution deliberately set up the state of ethnic hatred and violence, and the Committee of Experts should be charged with hate speech for this.” The Clergy, very conveniently and maliciously says nothing in its Press Release of Article 63 (2) (a) which says Community land consists of land lawfully registered in the name of group representatives under the provision of the law and that (b) it shall be land lawfully transferred by a specific community by any process of law and (c) it shall be any other land declared to be Community land by an Act of Parliament. What the Clergy doesn’t want to accept is that Community land will be very well defined legally and therefore so easy to specifically identify.
Instead of discussing and accepting that the Proposed Constitution talks of all these lawful methods of identifying Community land the Clergy again maliciously jumps to Article 63 (2) (d) which it also deliberately and maliciously misinterprets. That Article describes Community land as ancestral lands and lands traditionally occupied by hunter-gatherer communities.
To any reasonable being there is absolutely nothing wrong with that description but to the Clergy the use of term “ancestral lands” is wrong. The Clergy claims by stating that ‘ancestral land’ will be classified as community land , “ then Kenyans will be at pains to identify their ancestral lands since that is where they will be expected to settle and live.” According to the Clergy the provision thus nullifies the right of Kenyans to move and buy land and settle anywhere in the country.
It is very difficult to know where the Clergy got that weird conclusion from. The Clergy conveniently ignores Article 40 (1) of the Proposed Constitution which says subject to Article 65, which deals with landholding by non-citizens, every person has the right, either individually, or in association with others, to acquire and own property (a) of any description and (b) in any part of Kenya. That notwithstanding it is only through the identification of ancestral land that the Miji Kenda at the Coast can hope to get beck their land that has been taken from them by foreign land grabbers well before independence.
The Clergy correctly says that all land clashes in the history of Kenya were premised on the notion that some people had settled on the “ancestral” land of others. It however fails to acknowledge that the best way to solve the problem permanently is to recognize its existence legally and constitutionally define it. The CoE has admirably just done that. Instead of accepting that great work by the CoE to solve a major land problem in Kenya, the Clergy absurdly claims that the provision will setup the country for “unending ethnic based land clashes.” The Clergy then has the impudence of claiming that for setting the stage for ethnic violence in our beloved nation , the Committee of Experts should be charged with hate speech.
According to the CoE’s website for beginners the chapter on land sets out principles for the use of land and for the management of the environment. The overriding goal, according to CoE, is to protect land and the environment for the benefit of all Kenyans. It requires the use of land to be equitable, efficient, productive and sustainable. These are principle no land gabber anywhere in the world would support and Kenya is no exception.
The Clergy’s idea of accusing the CoE is not original. It comes from the rebel Cabinet Ministers who are determined to wreck the entire referendum process until the Proposed Constitution is amended to protect the rich and foreigners who own so much land when the indigenous Kenyans own nothing in their own country. Among the foreigners who own huge tracts of unutilized land in Kenya are Churches now calling for the rejection of the Proposed Constitution.
Previously they claimed they rejected the Proposed Constitution because of Kadhi Courts and abortion. Now that the debate on land has come out in the open the churches have come out in their true colours. They are fighting for land which they own in abundance when the majority of Kenyans are landless. The cat is out of the bag!
According to the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation (KNDR) Agenda Four identified what were considered the underlying issues that had caused the crisis in Kenya and which needed to be addressed because they threaten the existence of Kenya as a nation. Agenda Four, says KNDR, was designed to provide the framework for undertaking comprehensive constitutional and institutional reforms to address the root causes of the 2007 conflict and create a better, more secure and prosperous nation.
The Proposed Constitution is part and parcel of Agenda Four and whoever opposes it should have no business sitting in the coalition Government’s Cabinet. In any truly civilized and democratic country anyone who opposes such a major principle of the Government, as Kenya’s Agenda Four, would openly resign from any position in the Government. Apparently Kenya has yet to attain that level of civilization and democracy before leaders resign on matters of principle.
For that reason William Ruto, the Minister for Higher Education, Naomi Shaban, the Minister of State for Special Programmes and Samuel Poghisio, the Minister for Information and Communications want to be paid fat Government salaries, drive posh Government cars, be guarded by Government security as they move around the country condemning the most important Government policy, Agenda Four, which is highlighted by the Proposed Constitution, which they now have sworn to publicly undermine. That kind of tragicomedy can only take place in Kenya where politicians preach water and openly drink wine.
President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga must be the only heads of Government who tolerate such insubordination. Right now their hands might be tied by the referendum politics. Obviously they do not want to be accused of forcing any member of the Cabinet into the “YES” camp. Hence the ridiculous tolerance of people working against the very Government they claim to belong to and biting the hand that feeds them. That situation, however, should not be tolerated after the referendum. As soon as the referendum result are announced, the three ministers must be shown the door. This is regardless of whether the “YES” team wins or loses.
If, in the unlikely event the “NO” team wins, then the entire government must resign and the country should go for a general election. This is because a “NO” vote, like The Standard has very ably investigated, will, for all practical purposes, amount to a vote of no confidence in the Government.
As things stand at the moment, the main voices of the “NO” team, William Ruto and Samuel Poghisio have twisted the action taken by the NCIC against hate speech to mean repression of freedom of expression. The truth is that it is a fallacy to equate hate speech with free speech because one is a virtue while the other is a terrible evil. Poghisio and Ruto’s claim of being victimized for interpreting the Proposed Constitution has given the Clergy the courage to issue a Press Release that expounds that same misguided argument. In its Press statement, the Clergy ridiculously claims that those who should be charged with hate speech are members of the Committee of Experts for proposing some article “which when interpreted or explained may be considered to be hate speech by some people”.
The Clergy then goes ahead and misinterprets Article 63 (1) which states that Community land shall vest in and be held by communities identified on the basis of ethnicity, culture or similar community of interest. According to the Clergy the simple and direct interpretation of this article is that the tribal enclaves will be recognized in law, which is well and good, but then the “simple” interpretation of the Act by the Clergy becomes too simplistic when it claims that this means “in these areas, specific tribes will have preeminence over others”. The Clergy then misguidedly concludes this means “tribes wishing to evict ‘outsiders’ from their areas will only need to invoke the constitution once this draft is passed”. This is the most malicious misinterpretation of the Proposed Constitution.
The Clergy’s deliberate misapprehension of Article 63 (1) of the Proposed Constitution borders on hate speech itself when it says this part of the “draft constitution deliberately set up the state of ethnic hatred and violence, and the Committee of Experts should be charged with hate speech for this.” The Clergy, very conveniently and maliciously says nothing in its Press Release of Article 63 (2) (a) which says Community land consists of land lawfully registered in the name of group representatives under the provision of the law and that (b) it shall be land lawfully transferred by a specific community by any process of law and (c) it shall be any other land declared to be Community land by an Act of Parliament. What the Clergy doesn’t want to accept is that Community land will be very well defined legally and therefore so easy to specifically identify.
Instead of discussing and accepting that the Proposed Constitution talks of all these lawful methods of identifying Community land the Clergy again maliciously jumps to Article 63 (2) (d) which it also deliberately and maliciously misinterprets. That Article describes Community land as ancestral lands and lands traditionally occupied by hunter-gatherer communities.
To any reasonable being there is absolutely nothing wrong with that description but to the Clergy the use of term “ancestral lands” is wrong. The Clergy claims by stating that ‘ancestral land’ will be classified as community land , “ then Kenyans will be at pains to identify their ancestral lands since that is where they will be expected to settle and live.” According to the Clergy the provision thus nullifies the right of Kenyans to move and buy land and settle anywhere in the country.
It is very difficult to know where the Clergy got that weird conclusion from. The Clergy conveniently ignores Article 40 (1) of the Proposed Constitution which says subject to Article 65, which deals with landholding by non-citizens, every person has the right, either individually, or in association with others, to acquire and own property (a) of any description and (b) in any part of Kenya. That notwithstanding it is only through the identification of ancestral land that the Miji Kenda at the Coast can hope to get beck their land that has been taken from them by foreign land grabbers well before independence.
The Clergy correctly says that all land clashes in the history of Kenya were premised on the notion that some people had settled on the “ancestral” land of others. It however fails to acknowledge that the best way to solve the problem permanently is to recognize its existence legally and constitutionally define it. The CoE has admirably just done that. Instead of accepting that great work by the CoE to solve a major land problem in Kenya, the Clergy absurdly claims that the provision will setup the country for “unending ethnic based land clashes.” The Clergy then has the impudence of claiming that for setting the stage for ethnic violence in our beloved nation , the Committee of Experts should be charged with hate speech.
According to the CoE’s website for beginners the chapter on land sets out principles for the use of land and for the management of the environment. The overriding goal, according to CoE, is to protect land and the environment for the benefit of all Kenyans. It requires the use of land to be equitable, efficient, productive and sustainable. These are principle no land gabber anywhere in the world would support and Kenya is no exception.
The Clergy’s idea of accusing the CoE is not original. It comes from the rebel Cabinet Ministers who are determined to wreck the entire referendum process until the Proposed Constitution is amended to protect the rich and foreigners who own so much land when the indigenous Kenyans own nothing in their own country. Among the foreigners who own huge tracts of unutilized land in Kenya are Churches now calling for the rejection of the Proposed Constitution.
Previously they claimed they rejected the Proposed Constitution because of Kadhi Courts and abortion. Now that the debate on land has come out in the open the churches have come out in their true colours. They are fighting for land which they own in abundance when the majority of Kenyans are landless. The cat is out of the bag!
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Referendum exposes hate speech perpetrators
Kenya has some extremely dangerous perpetrators of hate speech. Whenever they succeed, like they did at the end of 2007 and at the beginning of 2008, the country experiences serious internal conflicts between communities that have lived together harmoniously for a very long time. Though the country lost well over 1,500 people as a result of hate speech during the 2007 election campaigns, the perpetrators of hate speech ended up in the coalition Government’s cabinet as beneficiaries of the country’s notorious impunity.
Short of the efforts by the ICC, which saw the bloodbath of 2007-2008 as a crime against humanity, Kenyan authorities did not bother to prosecute the masterminds of the mass murders that took place in this country as a result of the hate mongers’ calls for tribal wars. The action by the ICC therefore has the support of the majority of the people of Kenya; but it seriously embarrasses the Kenyan leaders both locally and internationally.
The embarrassing Government inaction against the war mongers of the post 2007 elections was unnecessary because the law in Kenya is so strict against anyone who prepares for war unlawfully. According to Section 44 of the Penal Code any person who, without lawful authority, carries on, or makes preparation for carrying on, or aids in or advises the carrying on of, or preparation for, any war or warlike undertaking with, for, by or against any person or body or group of persons in Kenya, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life. If the law was followed to the letter a number of Ministers in Kibaki’s Government would today be serving life sentences.
Jailing the war mongers in the Government, however, would not only have collapsed Kibaki’s regime, as it would have heightened the ethnic tensions that existed at that time, but it would also not really have solved the conflict of 2007. No conflict can be solved without understanding its root causes. And the causes of hate speeches that led to the post election bloodbath were really based on tribal animosity that was rampant in many parts of the country. So to solve the problem at its roots the Government came up with the National Cohesion and Integration Act of 2008 which was operationalised on March 9 last year.
The act deals with many aspects of tribal animosity that can cause trouble in the country. These include ethnic discrimination, discrimination by way of victimization, harassment on the basis of ethnicity and hate speech. Section 13(1) of the Act says a person who (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material;(b) publishes or distributes written material; (c) presents or directs the performance the public performance of a play; (d) distributes, shows or plays, a recording of visual images; or (e) provides, produces or directs a programme; which is threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour commits an offence if such person intends thereby to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up. Section 13 (2) says any person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
It is under this law that the Chairman of the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, Dr. Mzalendo Kibunja , recommended the prosecution for hate speech of the suspended Road Assistant Minister, Wilfred Machage , Mt. Elgon MP, Fred Kapondi and Cherangani MP, Joshua Kutuny together with Christine Nyagitha Miller , the wife of the late former Chief Justice Cecil Miller . Armed with the evidence televised throughout the country showing the accused people committing the crime while campaigning for the “NO” team, the prosecution has the task of proving the charged people’s utterances stirred up ethnic hatred.
Whether the accused people are found guilty or not it is obvious that the referendum has helped to expose the new breed of people in Kenya who are out to propagate hate speech. It so happens that before the National Cohesion and Integration Act, some unscrupulous people stirred up ethnic hatred to become tribal heroes in their villages. That way they ended up in Parliament, and if they were lucky enough, they became cabinet Ministers, depending on the sizes of their tribes and the seriousness of the hate speeches they made. The larger the tribe and the more serious the threat the greater the chances of the perpetrator of hate speech being appointed to the Cabinet. Fear made them get what they wanted. There are at least two members of the Kibaki Cabinet who rose to power through that dirty channel.
Realizing that the Proposed Constitution has no room for the promotion of tribal chiefs to the Cabinet of the country, the hate mongers have resorted to another tactic to remain village heroes. They are using extremely dangerous language to threaten the stability of the country so as to deliberately provoke the NCIC to take them to court with hate speech charges. The act of being taken to court itself would hopefully win them the sympathy of fellow tribesmen who would conclude the charged men were only suffering as defenders of the betterment of the tribe. Many tribal demagogues rose to power through that path.
Little do the villagers realize that the people prosecuted for hate speech are only fighting for their own personal gains. The so called heroes realize, to their great disappointment, that Article 152 (2)of the Proposed Constitution clearly says the President shall nominate Cabinet Secretaries who he or she can only appoint to the Cabinet with the approval of the National Assembly. The hate mongers would stand no chance what so ever of getting that approval from the National Assembly which will only be looking for technocrats rather than politicians to sit in the next Cabinet.
The hate mongers also realize that Article 152(3) of the Proposed Constitution also clearly says that Cabinet Secretaries shall not be members of Parliament. That proposal would completely eliminate village heroes who get elected to Parliament in order to sit in the Cabinet and get all the chances to loot the country from the position of political power.
Since the prosecution of the suspected MPs, the hate speech is now directed to Mzalendo Kibunja and his NCIC. William Ruto devoted his “NO” campaign speech in Kitale on Saturday June 19th to a vehement attack on the NCIC chairman whom he accused of being used by the “YES” camp to harass the “NO” camp leaders.
When the attacks and counter attacks are made by both the “NO” and the “YES” camps journalists have the most difficult job to report the events where hate speech is used in the attacks. Faced by that professional challenge journalists must make sure that they do not either deliberately or inadvertently spread hate speech through their publications or broadcast stations. If it becomes absolutely necessary to draw the attention of readers, viewers and listeners to the hate speeches then all the journalistic skills must be used to present the story without repeating the hate speech and then openly condemning it in editorial columns.
By the time the referendum comes to the end Kenyans will have a very good idea about the people who want to occupy top positions in this country through hate speeches. Hopefully the referendum itself will effectively be used by the people to reject those dangerous leaders. The only way to do so is to vote “YES” on August 4th.
Short of the efforts by the ICC, which saw the bloodbath of 2007-2008 as a crime against humanity, Kenyan authorities did not bother to prosecute the masterminds of the mass murders that took place in this country as a result of the hate mongers’ calls for tribal wars. The action by the ICC therefore has the support of the majority of the people of Kenya; but it seriously embarrasses the Kenyan leaders both locally and internationally.
The embarrassing Government inaction against the war mongers of the post 2007 elections was unnecessary because the law in Kenya is so strict against anyone who prepares for war unlawfully. According to Section 44 of the Penal Code any person who, without lawful authority, carries on, or makes preparation for carrying on, or aids in or advises the carrying on of, or preparation for, any war or warlike undertaking with, for, by or against any person or body or group of persons in Kenya, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life. If the law was followed to the letter a number of Ministers in Kibaki’s Government would today be serving life sentences.
Jailing the war mongers in the Government, however, would not only have collapsed Kibaki’s regime, as it would have heightened the ethnic tensions that existed at that time, but it would also not really have solved the conflict of 2007. No conflict can be solved without understanding its root causes. And the causes of hate speeches that led to the post election bloodbath were really based on tribal animosity that was rampant in many parts of the country. So to solve the problem at its roots the Government came up with the National Cohesion and Integration Act of 2008 which was operationalised on March 9 last year.
The act deals with many aspects of tribal animosity that can cause trouble in the country. These include ethnic discrimination, discrimination by way of victimization, harassment on the basis of ethnicity and hate speech. Section 13(1) of the Act says a person who (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material;(b) publishes or distributes written material; (c) presents or directs the performance the public performance of a play; (d) distributes, shows or plays, a recording of visual images; or (e) provides, produces or directs a programme; which is threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour commits an offence if such person intends thereby to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up. Section 13 (2) says any person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
It is under this law that the Chairman of the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, Dr. Mzalendo Kibunja , recommended the prosecution for hate speech of the suspended Road Assistant Minister, Wilfred Machage , Mt. Elgon MP, Fred Kapondi and Cherangani MP, Joshua Kutuny together with Christine Nyagitha Miller , the wife of the late former Chief Justice Cecil Miller . Armed with the evidence televised throughout the country showing the accused people committing the crime while campaigning for the “NO” team, the prosecution has the task of proving the charged people’s utterances stirred up ethnic hatred.
Whether the accused people are found guilty or not it is obvious that the referendum has helped to expose the new breed of people in Kenya who are out to propagate hate speech. It so happens that before the National Cohesion and Integration Act, some unscrupulous people stirred up ethnic hatred to become tribal heroes in their villages. That way they ended up in Parliament, and if they were lucky enough, they became cabinet Ministers, depending on the sizes of their tribes and the seriousness of the hate speeches they made. The larger the tribe and the more serious the threat the greater the chances of the perpetrator of hate speech being appointed to the Cabinet. Fear made them get what they wanted. There are at least two members of the Kibaki Cabinet who rose to power through that dirty channel.
Realizing that the Proposed Constitution has no room for the promotion of tribal chiefs to the Cabinet of the country, the hate mongers have resorted to another tactic to remain village heroes. They are using extremely dangerous language to threaten the stability of the country so as to deliberately provoke the NCIC to take them to court with hate speech charges. The act of being taken to court itself would hopefully win them the sympathy of fellow tribesmen who would conclude the charged men were only suffering as defenders of the betterment of the tribe. Many tribal demagogues rose to power through that path.
Little do the villagers realize that the people prosecuted for hate speech are only fighting for their own personal gains. The so called heroes realize, to their great disappointment, that Article 152 (2)of the Proposed Constitution clearly says the President shall nominate Cabinet Secretaries who he or she can only appoint to the Cabinet with the approval of the National Assembly. The hate mongers would stand no chance what so ever of getting that approval from the National Assembly which will only be looking for technocrats rather than politicians to sit in the next Cabinet.
The hate mongers also realize that Article 152(3) of the Proposed Constitution also clearly says that Cabinet Secretaries shall not be members of Parliament. That proposal would completely eliminate village heroes who get elected to Parliament in order to sit in the Cabinet and get all the chances to loot the country from the position of political power.
Since the prosecution of the suspected MPs, the hate speech is now directed to Mzalendo Kibunja and his NCIC. William Ruto devoted his “NO” campaign speech in Kitale on Saturday June 19th to a vehement attack on the NCIC chairman whom he accused of being used by the “YES” camp to harass the “NO” camp leaders.
When the attacks and counter attacks are made by both the “NO” and the “YES” camps journalists have the most difficult job to report the events where hate speech is used in the attacks. Faced by that professional challenge journalists must make sure that they do not either deliberately or inadvertently spread hate speech through their publications or broadcast stations. If it becomes absolutely necessary to draw the attention of readers, viewers and listeners to the hate speeches then all the journalistic skills must be used to present the story without repeating the hate speech and then openly condemning it in editorial columns.
By the time the referendum comes to the end Kenyans will have a very good idea about the people who want to occupy top positions in this country through hate speeches. Hopefully the referendum itself will effectively be used by the people to reject those dangerous leaders. The only way to do so is to vote “YES” on August 4th.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Blasts: Referendum must not be postponed
Criminals plotting against the referendum have struck again. This time they have hit where it hurts most. They have pierced right through the hearts of Kenyans leaving us all bleeding with sorrow and a lot of bitterness. Their deafening unspoken aim is to wreck or stop the referendum. But the criminals must not be allowed to win and the referendum for the Proposed Constitution must take place as planned. Postponing the exercise because of the unfortunate grenade attacks at Uhuru Park would be a terrible mistake.
People who have always denied this country any opportunity to bring about the desired political reforms will be among the first to call for the postponement of the referendum due to the tragedy. But postponing the referendum would be even more tragic as it would make the criminals triumphant.
At this time when the country is moaning the deaths of six innocent people killed by the criminals, it would be unwise to engage in speculation or in pointing accusing fingers at one another. Indeed those who are the first to apportion blame for the heinous crime must be viewed with suspicion as all they are doing is to try and gain political capital out of an extremely tragic event. Their finger-pointing accusations must be condemned by all the peace-loving Kenyans.
Having said that, it is absolutely necessary for Kenyans to examine a number of recent events and facts and pose a number of questions as food for thoughts for those engaged in the tough task of investigating the crime. The first question that needs to be asked is why did a crusade for prayers that attracted a number of innocent people, including children, who are not even interested in the referendum , leave alone the “YES” and “NO” camps, turn into a “NO” campaign rally? Did the organizers of the crusade for prayers want to hoodwink Kenyans to attend their “NO” meetings through deceit? How did the fiery politicians opposed to the Proposed Constitution become main speakers at the so called crusade for prayers?
The second most important question to ask is how connected are the grenade attacks to the previous referendum related crime of altering the Proposed Constitution in a clandestine manner? Is it possible that the secret powerful people opposed to the Proposed Constitution are the same criminals who want to stop the whole process by killing innocent Kenyans?
Another pertinent question concerning the crime of altering the Proposed Constitution regards the length of time it is taking the CID to prosecute the suspects. Why has no one been charged for trying to alter the Proposed Constitution despite the reassurances that no stone would be left unturned to arrest and prosecute the planters of deliberate “errors” in the Proposed Constitution? Have the planters of “errors” now become the throwers of grenades? If no stone would be left unturned then all the possible criminals opposed to the referendum must now become suspects and should be interrogated by the CID.
Soon after the blasts that killed innocent Kenyans the police started interrogating suspects who have made hate speeches in public. Wananchi are now eagerly waiting to see when the makers of hate speeches would be prosecuted. Some of the hate speech makers are not repentant at all. William Ruto is still talking about how dangerous the Proposed Constitution is to the peaceful coexistence between the Muslims and the Christians. He has made a trip to the Coast to make that criminal call. Why has he not been prosecuted despite serious complaints from the Muslim leaders?
Killing innocent Kenyans for political expediency has been used before by ruthless politicians now said to be in the wanted list of the International Criminal Court. It is a bloody method used to achieve political goals. In the past whenever such crimes were committed the culprits were sacred cows who lived above the law in this country. It is only now, when the crimes they committed after the 2007 general elections have attracted the international community, that Luis Moreno-Ocampo is after their blood. Before that they killed and got away with it.
Given the facts that the above sad incidents used to take place in Kenya in the Rift Valley after almost every election, it is not so far fetched to advise whoever is investigating the Uhuru Park grenade attacks of last Sunday, to probe the people implicated in past mass murders as possible instigators of the latest crime. After all some of the people who sadistically killed or ordered others to be killed after the 2007 elections are still living among us. People know them but they are scared stiff to reveal their names to Moreno-Ocampo.
The simple questions that need to be asked now by the CID while investigating last Sunday’s murders is whether the murderers of post election clashes, who still live amongst us, have an axe to grind in the current controversy concerning the Proposed Constitution? How many of the people involved in the mass murders of post 2007 elections have publicly warned of possible bloodbath if the Proposed Constitution is adopted?
Following threats of bloodshed and other hate speeches concerning possible Muslim-Christian conflicts, Kenyans must now watch vigilantly against people who seem to be still bent of causing a lot of problems in our country. That is why anyone with information about the grenade attacks must come out and inform the CID.
When everyone is wondering who is behind the grenades that rocked Uhuru Park last Sunday, the privileged class that has benefited so much under the current constitution is busy trying to make the sad occasion as the reason for the postponement of the Constitution. They disregard the fact that postponing the referendum at this stage would be quite unlawful as the entire process is governed by the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008. Suggestions have also been made to amend the law in order to postpone the referendum lawfully.
Orchestrated TV opinion polls conducted through KTN have tried to prove that the majority of Kenyans want the referendum postponed. Postponing the referendum is delaying the reforms, which this country desperately needs. Apart from trying to get the referendum postponed the station is also making attempts to accuse the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) of favouring the “YES” team by condemning only the “NO” group for hate speech. This again was done through an orchestrated TV opinion poll.
What KTN fails to understand is that the hate speeches were all made in public and some of them were televised by the same station. What is worrying people is not the fact that some MPs and an Assistant Minister are about to be prosecuted; but why William Ruto is not among them. Some media houses have evidence proving that Ruto tried to incite people on religious basis, which is by definition hate speech.
People who have always denied this country any opportunity to bring about the desired political reforms will be among the first to call for the postponement of the referendum due to the tragedy. But postponing the referendum would be even more tragic as it would make the criminals triumphant.
At this time when the country is moaning the deaths of six innocent people killed by the criminals, it would be unwise to engage in speculation or in pointing accusing fingers at one another. Indeed those who are the first to apportion blame for the heinous crime must be viewed with suspicion as all they are doing is to try and gain political capital out of an extremely tragic event. Their finger-pointing accusations must be condemned by all the peace-loving Kenyans.
Having said that, it is absolutely necessary for Kenyans to examine a number of recent events and facts and pose a number of questions as food for thoughts for those engaged in the tough task of investigating the crime. The first question that needs to be asked is why did a crusade for prayers that attracted a number of innocent people, including children, who are not even interested in the referendum , leave alone the “YES” and “NO” camps, turn into a “NO” campaign rally? Did the organizers of the crusade for prayers want to hoodwink Kenyans to attend their “NO” meetings through deceit? How did the fiery politicians opposed to the Proposed Constitution become main speakers at the so called crusade for prayers?
The second most important question to ask is how connected are the grenade attacks to the previous referendum related crime of altering the Proposed Constitution in a clandestine manner? Is it possible that the secret powerful people opposed to the Proposed Constitution are the same criminals who want to stop the whole process by killing innocent Kenyans?
Another pertinent question concerning the crime of altering the Proposed Constitution regards the length of time it is taking the CID to prosecute the suspects. Why has no one been charged for trying to alter the Proposed Constitution despite the reassurances that no stone would be left unturned to arrest and prosecute the planters of deliberate “errors” in the Proposed Constitution? Have the planters of “errors” now become the throwers of grenades? If no stone would be left unturned then all the possible criminals opposed to the referendum must now become suspects and should be interrogated by the CID.
Soon after the blasts that killed innocent Kenyans the police started interrogating suspects who have made hate speeches in public. Wananchi are now eagerly waiting to see when the makers of hate speeches would be prosecuted. Some of the hate speech makers are not repentant at all. William Ruto is still talking about how dangerous the Proposed Constitution is to the peaceful coexistence between the Muslims and the Christians. He has made a trip to the Coast to make that criminal call. Why has he not been prosecuted despite serious complaints from the Muslim leaders?
Killing innocent Kenyans for political expediency has been used before by ruthless politicians now said to be in the wanted list of the International Criminal Court. It is a bloody method used to achieve political goals. In the past whenever such crimes were committed the culprits were sacred cows who lived above the law in this country. It is only now, when the crimes they committed after the 2007 general elections have attracted the international community, that Luis Moreno-Ocampo is after their blood. Before that they killed and got away with it.
Given the facts that the above sad incidents used to take place in Kenya in the Rift Valley after almost every election, it is not so far fetched to advise whoever is investigating the Uhuru Park grenade attacks of last Sunday, to probe the people implicated in past mass murders as possible instigators of the latest crime. After all some of the people who sadistically killed or ordered others to be killed after the 2007 elections are still living among us. People know them but they are scared stiff to reveal their names to Moreno-Ocampo.
The simple questions that need to be asked now by the CID while investigating last Sunday’s murders is whether the murderers of post election clashes, who still live amongst us, have an axe to grind in the current controversy concerning the Proposed Constitution? How many of the people involved in the mass murders of post 2007 elections have publicly warned of possible bloodbath if the Proposed Constitution is adopted?
Following threats of bloodshed and other hate speeches concerning possible Muslim-Christian conflicts, Kenyans must now watch vigilantly against people who seem to be still bent of causing a lot of problems in our country. That is why anyone with information about the grenade attacks must come out and inform the CID.
When everyone is wondering who is behind the grenades that rocked Uhuru Park last Sunday, the privileged class that has benefited so much under the current constitution is busy trying to make the sad occasion as the reason for the postponement of the Constitution. They disregard the fact that postponing the referendum at this stage would be quite unlawful as the entire process is governed by the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008. Suggestions have also been made to amend the law in order to postpone the referendum lawfully.
Orchestrated TV opinion polls conducted through KTN have tried to prove that the majority of Kenyans want the referendum postponed. Postponing the referendum is delaying the reforms, which this country desperately needs. Apart from trying to get the referendum postponed the station is also making attempts to accuse the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) of favouring the “YES” team by condemning only the “NO” group for hate speech. This again was done through an orchestrated TV opinion poll.
What KTN fails to understand is that the hate speeches were all made in public and some of them were televised by the same station. What is worrying people is not the fact that some MPs and an Assistant Minister are about to be prosecuted; but why William Ruto is not among them. Some media houses have evidence proving that Ruto tried to incite people on religious basis, which is by definition hate speech.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Referendum: Kibaki’s challenge to journalists
President Mwai Kibaki’s Madaraka Day challenge to media houses to play an objective watchdog role by naming and shaming those people who engage in hate speech, lies and negative ethnic persuasion, was a challenge to journalistic professionalism. Kibaki was obviously asking journalists in Kenya to take a professional stand. No sooner did the President make the challenge than the Daily Nation published a story on page five of Wednesday June 2nd’s paper headlined “Ruto: New law will legalize gay union”.
Keen observers wanted to test the Daily Nation’s professional standards vis-à-vis the President’s challenge. Ruto’s claim was definitely a lie but it was a newsworthy lie since prominence, proximity, timeliness, human interest and even consequences were its news values. It is a story no journalist worth his salt could ignore. The best way to handle it was to engage in interpretative reporting and the Daily Nation did so in the most admirable manner.
The story started by saying the Higher Education Minister William Ruto claimed gay marriages will be legal if the Proposed Constitution is passed into law. But the paper was quick to point out to its readers that the new constitution specifically outlaws gay marriages and quoted the Proposed Constitution’s Chapter Four, Article 45 (2) which says that every adult has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This manner of reporting, which actually obeys the ethical principle of accuracy, exposed Ruto as a politician whose utterances suffer from a serious deficiency in truth.
In his speech the President made quite a number of references to the Proposed Constitution. He said the road to a new constitution had been long and bumpy. Kenyans had, however, covered much ground and what now remained was the referendum vote on August the 4th. Kibaki wished to remind Kenyans that a new constitution meant change, in the personal lives of each one of us. The constitution would usher in a new order of social, economic and political interactions. As the referendum date approached, therefore, the President urged Kenyans to make an effort to read and understand the proposed law carefully.
He advised Kenyans to attend civic education forums where matters pertaining to articles in the proposed constitution would be explained. This would enable Kenyans to make informed and independent decisions during the referendum. An informed citizen, said the President, was an empowered voter who would not be misled by falsehoods that may be peddled on the proposed constitution. As the President spoke the Higher Education Minister William Ruto was already spreading a serious falsehood about gay marriages. He had the impudence of quoting from the Proposed Constitution and twisting it in such a manner as to suit his own convenience.
People who are out to cheat the wananchi and make sure their side would win at whatever cost can be very dangerous. These are the same people who caused a lot of trouble soon after the 2007 elections which led to the death of 1,500 Kenyans. No wonder President Kibaki this time says as debate on the proposed constitution continues, the rule of law must also be upheld. Kibaki correctly said campaigns have to be conducted within the law. The Government would provide security to all Kenyans, irrespective of their affiliation in the constitutional debate. The country must have totally backed him when he directed the National Integration and Cohesion Commission and all security agencies to take firm and decisive action against those who may engage in acts of violence, hate speech or other forms of lawlessness regardless of one’s status in society.
Apart from the lies being spread by the opponents of the Proposed Constitution, journalists must be particularly careful about hate speech geared to make people reject the Proposed Constitution on tribal grounds. Papers have already exposed the ganging up of politicians along tribal lines. The group that is dividing Kenyans comes from the so called KKK.
Authorities must therefore pay special attention to vernacular FM stations which are manned by people who have hardly been to any journalism school. The so called broadcasters in these stations know nothing about journalistic ethics and they don’t know anything about media law which is a core subject at universities where journalism is taught. Many of these untrained broadcasters will soon put their stations into a lot of trouble.
According to Section 13(1) (a) of the National Cohesion and Integration Act for example, a person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material or (b) publishes or distributes any written material (c) presents or directs the performance of a play (d) distributes, show or plays, a recording of visual images, or (e) provides, produces or directs programme; which is threatening, abusive or insults or
involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, commits an offence if such person intends thereby to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up.
Section 13(2) says any person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. And Section 13 (3) says in this section, “ethnic hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
Because the law this time is stricter than during the 2007 elections it is the responsibility of people working for the security forces to be vigilant and arrest anyone who is planning to cause trouble during the referendum. There are unsubstantiated stories about hate leaflets being distributed in the Rift Valley in more or less the same manner as in 2007. Journalists must also do some investigative work to expose the people behind such leaflets if at all they exist.
The law this time is also clear about media houses that spread hate speech. They too can be prosecuted as they are not immune to the National Cohesion and Integration Act. Apart from that the Minister for information and Communications, Mr. Samuel Poghisio recently published Legal Notice No.187/2010 which ensures that no broadcasts shall contain the use of offensive language, including profanity and blasphemy. The Legal Notice also prohibits any broadcast that is likely to incite, perpetuate hatred, and vilify any person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual preference, age, disability, religion or culture of that person or section of the community.
Poghisio must have taken that step following the Waki report which said there were many wananchi who gave evidence before the Commission and condemned the role of the media in exacerbating the post 2007 election conflict. The Report says there were many people who recalled with horror, fear, and disgust the negative and inflammatory role of vernacular radio stations in their testimony and statements to the Commission. In particular, according to the report, they singled out KASS FM as having contributed to a climate of hate, negative ethnicity, and having incited violence in the Rift Valley.
Journalists this time have a specific responsibility to make sure they do not repeat the mistakes some of them made during the coverage of the 2007 elections. They should be particularly careful when covering political leaders in the Rift Valley including the former President Daniel arap Moi who was reported by the Kenya Times of May 19 as having predicted bloodshed and social instability if the new Proposed Constitution is implemented. Those in charge of security should probably have a quiet word with the former Head of State and make him stop inciting the people.
Keen observers wanted to test the Daily Nation’s professional standards vis-à-vis the President’s challenge. Ruto’s claim was definitely a lie but it was a newsworthy lie since prominence, proximity, timeliness, human interest and even consequences were its news values. It is a story no journalist worth his salt could ignore. The best way to handle it was to engage in interpretative reporting and the Daily Nation did so in the most admirable manner.
The story started by saying the Higher Education Minister William Ruto claimed gay marriages will be legal if the Proposed Constitution is passed into law. But the paper was quick to point out to its readers that the new constitution specifically outlaws gay marriages and quoted the Proposed Constitution’s Chapter Four, Article 45 (2) which says that every adult has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This manner of reporting, which actually obeys the ethical principle of accuracy, exposed Ruto as a politician whose utterances suffer from a serious deficiency in truth.
In his speech the President made quite a number of references to the Proposed Constitution. He said the road to a new constitution had been long and bumpy. Kenyans had, however, covered much ground and what now remained was the referendum vote on August the 4th. Kibaki wished to remind Kenyans that a new constitution meant change, in the personal lives of each one of us. The constitution would usher in a new order of social, economic and political interactions. As the referendum date approached, therefore, the President urged Kenyans to make an effort to read and understand the proposed law carefully.
He advised Kenyans to attend civic education forums where matters pertaining to articles in the proposed constitution would be explained. This would enable Kenyans to make informed and independent decisions during the referendum. An informed citizen, said the President, was an empowered voter who would not be misled by falsehoods that may be peddled on the proposed constitution. As the President spoke the Higher Education Minister William Ruto was already spreading a serious falsehood about gay marriages. He had the impudence of quoting from the Proposed Constitution and twisting it in such a manner as to suit his own convenience.
People who are out to cheat the wananchi and make sure their side would win at whatever cost can be very dangerous. These are the same people who caused a lot of trouble soon after the 2007 elections which led to the death of 1,500 Kenyans. No wonder President Kibaki this time says as debate on the proposed constitution continues, the rule of law must also be upheld. Kibaki correctly said campaigns have to be conducted within the law. The Government would provide security to all Kenyans, irrespective of their affiliation in the constitutional debate. The country must have totally backed him when he directed the National Integration and Cohesion Commission and all security agencies to take firm and decisive action against those who may engage in acts of violence, hate speech or other forms of lawlessness regardless of one’s status in society.
Apart from the lies being spread by the opponents of the Proposed Constitution, journalists must be particularly careful about hate speech geared to make people reject the Proposed Constitution on tribal grounds. Papers have already exposed the ganging up of politicians along tribal lines. The group that is dividing Kenyans comes from the so called KKK.
Authorities must therefore pay special attention to vernacular FM stations which are manned by people who have hardly been to any journalism school. The so called broadcasters in these stations know nothing about journalistic ethics and they don’t know anything about media law which is a core subject at universities where journalism is taught. Many of these untrained broadcasters will soon put their stations into a lot of trouble.
According to Section 13(1) (a) of the National Cohesion and Integration Act for example, a person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material or (b) publishes or distributes any written material (c) presents or directs the performance of a play (d) distributes, show or plays, a recording of visual images, or (e) provides, produces or directs programme; which is threatening, abusive or insults or
involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, commits an offence if such person intends thereby to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up.
Section 13(2) says any person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. And Section 13 (3) says in this section, “ethnic hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
Because the law this time is stricter than during the 2007 elections it is the responsibility of people working for the security forces to be vigilant and arrest anyone who is planning to cause trouble during the referendum. There are unsubstantiated stories about hate leaflets being distributed in the Rift Valley in more or less the same manner as in 2007. Journalists must also do some investigative work to expose the people behind such leaflets if at all they exist.
The law this time is also clear about media houses that spread hate speech. They too can be prosecuted as they are not immune to the National Cohesion and Integration Act. Apart from that the Minister for information and Communications, Mr. Samuel Poghisio recently published Legal Notice No.187/2010 which ensures that no broadcasts shall contain the use of offensive language, including profanity and blasphemy. The Legal Notice also prohibits any broadcast that is likely to incite, perpetuate hatred, and vilify any person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual preference, age, disability, religion or culture of that person or section of the community.
Poghisio must have taken that step following the Waki report which said there were many wananchi who gave evidence before the Commission and condemned the role of the media in exacerbating the post 2007 election conflict. The Report says there were many people who recalled with horror, fear, and disgust the negative and inflammatory role of vernacular radio stations in their testimony and statements to the Commission. In particular, according to the report, they singled out KASS FM as having contributed to a climate of hate, negative ethnicity, and having incited violence in the Rift Valley.
Journalists this time have a specific responsibility to make sure they do not repeat the mistakes some of them made during the coverage of the 2007 elections. They should be particularly careful when covering political leaders in the Rift Valley including the former President Daniel arap Moi who was reported by the Kenya Times of May 19 as having predicted bloodshed and social instability if the new Proposed Constitution is implemented. Those in charge of security should probably have a quiet word with the former Head of State and make him stop inciting the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
