ICC: Kenyans want justice

There is something very hypocritical about the leadership of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto. They have been going round the Rift Valley and Central provinces urging people to “pray” for them before they left for the Hague to face criminal charges for the 2007/8 PEV. Yet they very cleverly failed to tell the people the causes of the violence that saw the death of well over 1,300 Kenyans and made well over 500,000 wananchi homeless.

Throughout the so-called prayer meetings not a word was mentioned about the fate of thousands of Kenyans still living in tents. There are Kenyans who have been unfortunate enough to be born in these camps. Uhuru and Ruto were quite happy to spend millions of shillings organizing fake prayer meetings to mobilize Kikuyus and Kalenjins against other Kenyans, when innocent Kikuyu and Kalenjin babies, born in the refugee camps, have no proper homes. And this because of the 2007/8 PEV caused by people who either wanted to grab political power or retain it. Luis Moreno-Ocampo thinks Uhuru and Ruto were among those people and that is why he has forced them to appear before the ICC.

Yet evidence shows that Uhuru and Ruto are not repentant at all. Given another chance they would still mobilize their Kikuyu and Kalenjin followers to cause havoc in this country, if they can’t get away with the alleged crimes they committed the last time Kenya went through a general election. Indeed they are now threatening to join hands and form a tribally inspired political party to win next year’s election under the KKK/PNU banner disguised as a political party they intend to form.

Fortunately the majority of Kenyans, including some very nationalistic Kalenjins and Kikuyus, can see through the new political ploy to mislead them. Kenyans know tribal political parties can only lead to yet another tribal confrontation. The wananchi today are so politically mature that they attended the Ruto-Uhuru “prayer” meetings in large numbers as they overwhelmingly supported Moreno-Ocampo’s charges against the two suspects.

The proof of this fact is the result of the latest opinion poll conducted by the respected Synovate research company whose objective was to establish Kenya’s level of awareness of the six post election violence suspects summoned to The Hague. The company explained that its other objective was to determine Kenyans’ preferred justice options for them as well as for other possible post-election violence suspects; to ascertain Kenyans’ views towards the recent ‘shuttle diplomacy’ efforts and to compare the positions of the followers of the main political ‘groupings’ currently in the country with regard to several of the above findings.

Realising that the Ruto-Uhuru camp will be the first to dispute the findings of the survey the company made special efforts to explain its methodology which it said had the the target population of all Kenyan adults aged 18 and above (voting age). The methodology included a sample size of 2,000 respondents which was drawn using a 32:68 urban to rural ratio. According to the company the margin of error attributed to sampling and other random effects of this latest poll’s sample size was +/- 2.2 % margin at 95% confidence level. This sample size, the company said, is large enough to make reliable estimates on the target population opinion. The fieldwork for this survey was conducted between 27th March-1st April, 2011.

To achieve this sample, Synovate explained, a randomized multi-stage stratified design using probability proportional to size (PPS) was used. This, it explained, ensures that districts with a higher population size had a proportionately higher sample size allocation. This survey was conducted in 56 administrative and geographical districts in Kenya. It also explained that the interviews were done at household level. Household interviews were preferred because they allowed for pure random sampling ensuring full representation of the various demographics and also for quality control.

In very plain words Synovate explained that these face-to-face in-home interviews were also preferred because they allowed for further probing as respondents had more time to respond to questions as compared to street interviews. It elaborates that the households were selected using the systematic random sampling procedure. In this case a random starting point was selected within a cluster of households. Synovate explained that from that point the interviewers mainly skipped 4 households until the sample size for that cluster in the district was achieved.

Making sure that the methodology was indeed transparent the company made it clear that one eligible respondent was then selected from each qualifying household through a household member randomization technique known as the Kish Grid. This, according to the company, was done to ensure that there was no bias related to household member selection. In cases where the eligible respondent was not available for interviewing, the field interviewers made at least 3 callbacks. If after the third callback the required respondent was still not available for the interview, the field interviewer substituted that household for another.

Synovate says the data collection involved the use of a semi-structured questionnaire having both open and closed ended questions. It says the poll questions were structured in a very open manner, with all possible options provided, including no opinion. This, according to the company, ensures that there is no bias at all with the way the questions are asked. In explaining the methodology Synovate concludes that strict quality control measures for data collection were applied. It verifies that the fieldwork supervisors made a minimum of 15% on-site back checks and accompanied a minimum of 10% of all interviewers’ calls, while the field managers made 2% back-checks.

These back-checks were made within the same day of interviewing.
With that very concrete explanation of the methodology Synovate then authoritatively says 61 per cent of Kenya would prefer trial in The Hague by the ICC if the ICC rules that they go forward. Only 24 per cent of the Kenyans prefer trial by a to- be- established special tribunal with international participation , even if this takes one full year to prepare. The company found that a pathetic 8 per cent of wananchi preferred the trials to be conducted by our regular court system. Those who thought there should be no trials and instead have amnesty and forgiveness were only 3 per cent.

That kind of finding clearly indicates that Kenyans are determined to have justice done and be done through a court that has international recognition which is truly independent. The huge attendance at the so called prayer meetings were an exercise in curiosity to find out what tricks the so called Kenyans leaders were up to this time. It also means when Uhuru and Ruto come back from The Hague and try to establish a tribal political party, it will hopelessly be rejected by the people.

As usual the one internationally respected leader who understands the feelings of the people of Kenya is the former UN secretary General Kofi Annan who very wisely advised all Kenyans, particularly leaders, to be wise in their use of language at this critical moment when the process regarding the case of six Kenyans before the International Criminal Court is running its course. In a statement issued on the 5th of April the Ghanaian leader said the procedural phase which begins this week was not a one-off event, but the start of a long process.

He said in any contentious judicial proceeding, tense moments will arise, which will test the patience of the parties but on the eve of the departure of the individuals summoned by the ICC to The Hague, “there is palpable tension in the air in Kenya, with the flames of hate language and ethnic incitement being fanned from various quarters.”

Annan wisely said words could soothe, as well as inflame and urged all Kenyans, particularly leaders, to be wise in their use of language at this critical moment. The respected leader who helped establish peace in Kenya when we were cutting each other’s throats urged wananchi to recall how Kenya pulled itself from the brink in early 2008 and embarked on a comprehensive process of reform, national healing and reconciliation. He said Kenyans were resolved to hold accountable the perpetrators of the post-election violence, just as they were determined to see genuine and far-reaching reforms instituted, as evidenced in the promulgation of the new Constitution on 27 August 2010.

According to Annan these are unprecedented achievements for Kenya and they should not be squandered. He also emphasized that neither Africa, nor Kenya, nor any ethnic group was on trial at the ICC. When he was in Kenya in December 2010, for the meeting to review progress in the implementation of the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation agreements, he had stressed that bringing to justice those responsible for the post-election violence was essential to help Kenya heal its wounds, and prevent such crimes from being committed again.

He said: “In doing so, we must understand that no single community or group is being targeted. It is about bringing individuals to account for crimes they may have committed and ensuring that the victims receive justice.” After all, justice was an essential component of the process of healing. The former UN boss said at this critical juncture, Kenyans, their leaders and the political elite must renew their commitment to the achievement of these goals, and abandon the language of hate and incitement and allow the ICC process to run its course.

Throughout the reform process, he said, the media and media owners had played a responsible role and he encouraged them to continue to do so. According to him a Kenya free of hate and fighting impunity will be a united and secure Kenya – a country that will prosper and ensure the welfare of all its people. With those very moving words, Annan was speaking for all Kenyans of goodwill.