Whenever Raila Odinga rocks the fragile ODM-PNU boat he has something up his sleeve. Last time he did so was last year at Kilaguni when he was demanding more powers as Kibaki’s equal partner. Now he has done it again for more or less the same reason. Section 15 (a) of the Constitution, and Section 4 (1) of the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, which he claims confer on him the powers to suspend ministers William Ruto and Samuel Ongeri for a period of three months do not vest him with such powers and Raila knows it.
Section 15 (a) of the Constitution legitimizes the office of the Prime Minister, making it protected by the supreme law of the land. Section 4. (1) of the National Accord and Reconciliation Act says the Prime Minister shall have authority to co-ordinate and supervise the execution of the Government, including those of Ministries. It does not specifically say that this supervision shall include the suspension of any Minister. The Constitution gives the powers to fire Ministers to the President. Obviously the Prime Minister is not happy with this state of affairs and, if anything, he has succeeded in making the issue a matter of national debate even though the Attorney General has ruled against him.
Kibaki’s rebuttal was indeed supported by the law. He said the basis of appointment, suspension and removal of a Minister under the Coalition Government as per the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya, the National Accord and Reconciliation Act and the Agreement on the Principles of Partnership of the Coalition government is full consultation and concurrence between the President and the Prime Minister. He added that there had been no consultation between him the Prime Minister on the suspension of Ruto and Ongeri as announced by Raila at his Press Conference.
Now the matter is so serious that the ODM has threatened to boycott Cabinet meetings – an act that obviously threatens the very existence of the coalition Government. Whether Raila should have powers to suspend Ministers or not, however, is beside the point. The question that concerns the majority of the people of Kenya is why Raila thought it necessary to suspend Ruto and Ongeri. His reasons are sound and convincing. He said he was taking this action because two recent investigations, the forensic audit by PwC on the maize scandal, and the Report of the Internal Auditor General on Free Primary Education, have laid credible foundations for the two ministers to be investigated.
The law may very well be on Kibaki’s side but the people on this issue of the fight against corruption are on Raila’s side. His determined resolution to expose corruption wherever it exits seems to be more focused than that of the President. People believe that the Prime Minister’s resolute and very strong willed fight against corruption ought to be backed by the law and probably the only way to do so is to renegotiate the National Accord to give him powers to suspend suspected corrupt Ministers. At the moment the law is not specific on this issue and those backing the Prime Minister are overstretching the meaning of the word “supervision”.
Sharing a platform with President Kibaki at a workshop of Permanent Secretaries on Strategies to eliminate corruption earlier this month the Prime Minister seemed to realize his position did not empower him to fire any Minister or Permanent Secretary. Talking about what he described as institutional credibility he simply “recommended” to the President to direct the Minister of Education and the Permanent Secretary to step down.
The Prime Minister then said he intended to direct the Permanent Secretary for Performance Contracting to revise all existing Contracts and insert a clause that stipulates that once the ministry as a whole or individual units in it are charged with serious malpractices, the person who heads the ministry or the units involved automatically and voluntarily step down, irrespective of whether he or she is directly implicated in that case.
This threat must have worried the President and his people in the PNU. Something had to be done as the Prime Minister appeared to be the leading light in the fight against corruption. Both internationally and locally he had totally overshadowed the President in that struggle. He was the people’s Prime Minister. To silence him the PNU faction of the Government leaked to the Media the PwC report implicating Raila’s Administrative Secretary, Karoli Omondi and his Permanent Secretary Dr. Mohammed Isahakia, in maize scandal. But instead of silencing Raila the move only made the Prime Minister even more unwavering. He asked his close associates in his office to step down to enable further investigations.
The move put Kibaki in a tight corner. Raila became an even greater hero to the people and the international community. Kibaki had to do something not to be left so far behind in the vital war against corruption. No sooner did Karoli Omondi and Mohammed Isahakia announce their stepping down than a terse statement issued from State House asked the two officials from the Prime Minister’s office to “step down” to facilitate investigations. Together with Karoli and Isahakia were six other officers asked by the President to step down, including the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Dr. Romano Kiome, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Special Programmes, Ali Mohamed, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, Prof. Karega Mutahi, Managing Director, National Cereals and Produce Board, Gideon Misoi, Mr. Boit, Sales and Marketing Manager - National Cereals and Produce Board, and Mr. Langat, General Manager -National Cereals and Produce Board, who is currently on suspension.
To remain in the lead in the fight against corruption Raila came up with a bombshell of suspending Ruto and Ongeri. That has not gone down well with the rebels in ODM backed by the PNU. The current debate about the powers of the Prime Minister is taking place in the manner in which Raila planned and executed. The nation can see clearly that he needs to have powers to discipline Ministers. The people can also see that corruption will soon be a thing of the past if Raila had the powers to suspend suspected corrupt Ministers. So whether the law is on his side or not the people would like him to have the powers to hire and fire.
The most puzzling question in the current PNU-ODM power struggle is whether it really threatens the coalition Government. All the ODM Ministers have categorically said they have no intention to resign. Kibaki has no Constitutional powers to fire them. All they want to do is create a crisis so that their grievances can be heard. And they have plenty of these. To begin with they are extremely unhappy with the outcome of the Naivasha consensus on the constitution. Though the party was fully represented at the Naivasha talks PNU, backed by ODM rebels had an upper hand. The outcome is a constitution that creates a monster of a dictator and a total disregard of some vital human rights.
If possible the ODM would like to see a hybrid Constitution which deliberately creates two centres of power which will automatically have checks and balances. The advantages of such centers of power can be seen today when Kibaki is forced to fire corrupt officials because the Prime Minister would simply not allow him to remain lackadaisical on such sensitive issue. The ODM knows it is the most popular party among the people and if the worst comes to the worst and the country is forced to go for early elections there are still very good chances that it will form the next Government.
At the moment Raila and his people would like Kofi Annan and his team to come and mediate in the current crisis. If that happens there is a very good chance of renegotiating the National Accord to give the Prime Minister equal powers with the President. That move however is likely to face a very vigorous opposition from PNU and ODM rebels. These two can make sure that even if Annan comes they will frustrate his efforts to arbitrate. The move to boycott Cabinet meetings, however, is not a wise one because it will only make Kibaki rule without checks and balances.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
CoE must rectify PSC’s bungles
The Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional Review has committed an unforgivable sin against the people of Kenya. Meeting in Naivasha ostensibly to reach a consensus on contentious issues, the MPs who constitute the PSC assigned themselves the responsibility to write a new constitution for the people of Kenya; and in that process they butchered the Nzamba Kitonga Draft in such a wicked manner as to end up with a Constitution to protect their own privileged positions, marginalize the poor and muzzle the Fourth Estate.
Of all the crimes they committed at Naivasha that of denying the people of Kenya access to information tops the list. Following the mutilation of that vital part of the Bill of Rights, the Committee hoodwinked the people by making a proposal for a watered down legislation that pretends to protect the rights of the people to know. Realizing the importance of access to information for Kenyans, Nzamba Kitonga had suggested in his first Harmonized Draft Constitution of November 17, 2009, to have a whole article dealing with that critical aspect of human rights.
He therefore suggested in Article 52. (1) that every citizen had the right of access to—(a) information held by the State; and (b) any information that was held by another person and that was required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. The significance of this part of the Nzamba Kitonga proposal is so important given the fact that until today the people of Kenya are kept in the dark about a lot of information they ought to know.
Kenyans’ money has been used to gather information about many mysterious events such as the death of Robert Ouko and the Goldenberg scandal; and yet when that information is obtained it is kept away from the people in the most unlawful and scandalous manner. Recently an expensive exercise of conducting national census was launched and the results are now the most tightly guarded secret of the Government. It is said the real reason is the fact that Somali nationals who have illegally acquired Kenyan citizenship now number two million and the Government is too embarrassed to announce the figure. Part (b) of that Article is important because there are many private institutions that hold vital information that may be needed for the protection of some fundamental rights. Such institutions or persons must not deny the people access to information they need.
In his first Draft, Nzamba Kitonga also suggests in Article 52.(2) that every person has the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or misleading information that affects that person. This is a fair demand in situations where there are both freedom of expression and freedom of information. Where information is circulating freely, factual errors are bound to occur, and when they do, the need for corrections should be protected by the Constitution. Another important suggestion made by Nzamba Kitonga is the need for the State to publish and publicize any important information affecting the nation. This was taken care of in Article 52.(3) of his first Draft.
It so happens that the people meeting in Naivasha have everything to gain by the continued secrecy of the Government on a number of issues. It is not, for example, in the political interest of Uhuru Kenyatta, for some facts about his father’s regime to be laid bare for all to see. Who, for instance, killed Tom Mboya and Pio Gama Pinto? What information does the Government have about those assassinations? It is not in the interest of William Ruto for certain information about Moi’s despotism to be made public because that is when the Agriculture Minister was among the most favoured boys of the dictator. Public land was grabbed and a lot of people become multibillionaires through sleaze, bribery and corruption. Ruto does not want that information out.
It is therefore not a wonder that Nzamba Kitonga’s Article 52 was not changed at all even after public debate. It was not considered a contentious issue. But due to the rearrangement of the articles of the Revised Harmonized Draft following the public debate, Article 52 was submitted to the PSC as Article 40 on 8th January 2010, completely unaltered. No even a comma was changed! At that time little did the CoE realize they were submitting their work to the butchers of Naivasha. What followed was a shocking mutilation of the people’s right to know. The entire Article on Access to Information was chopped off. Instead one line was added to the Article on the Freedom of Expression saying Parliament shall, by legislation, provide for the right to access of information. There is everything wrong with that suggestion which can lead to not only keeping the people in perpetual darkness and ignorance but also to limiting freedom of the media.
Given the fact that the recommended legislation will be framed and shaped by the same people who were in Naivasha and others like them who happen to be Members of Parliament, there is very little hope that that legislation will be the Freedom of Information Act this country needs. To begin with the MPs seem to enjoy the current secrecy protected by the Official Secrets Act which legitimizes the criminal act of denying the people vital information they need to enhance democratic space in the country. Section 20 of this horrible law says any person who is guilty of an offence under this Act for which no penalty is specifically provided shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
This atrocious and most repulsive legislation goes against Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and TO SEEK, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Paradoxically this freedom to SEEK information does not exist in our current Constitution!
Section 79 of our current Constitution says except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence.
The word “seek” does not appear anywhere in Section 79 of our Constitution. That makes the work of the Fourth Estate extremely difficult. When the media have no information they are virtually muzzled. Given the fact that Kenya’s vibrant Fourth Estate is the only remaining institution that upholds the democratic right to free expression, the threat to deny it freedom of information is a threat to democracy itself. Nzamba Kitonga and his team must save this nation by reinstating Access to Information as a full Article in the Constitution the people of Kenya desire to have.
Of all the crimes they committed at Naivasha that of denying the people of Kenya access to information tops the list. Following the mutilation of that vital part of the Bill of Rights, the Committee hoodwinked the people by making a proposal for a watered down legislation that pretends to protect the rights of the people to know. Realizing the importance of access to information for Kenyans, Nzamba Kitonga had suggested in his first Harmonized Draft Constitution of November 17, 2009, to have a whole article dealing with that critical aspect of human rights.
He therefore suggested in Article 52. (1) that every citizen had the right of access to—(a) information held by the State; and (b) any information that was held by another person and that was required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. The significance of this part of the Nzamba Kitonga proposal is so important given the fact that until today the people of Kenya are kept in the dark about a lot of information they ought to know.
Kenyans’ money has been used to gather information about many mysterious events such as the death of Robert Ouko and the Goldenberg scandal; and yet when that information is obtained it is kept away from the people in the most unlawful and scandalous manner. Recently an expensive exercise of conducting national census was launched and the results are now the most tightly guarded secret of the Government. It is said the real reason is the fact that Somali nationals who have illegally acquired Kenyan citizenship now number two million and the Government is too embarrassed to announce the figure. Part (b) of that Article is important because there are many private institutions that hold vital information that may be needed for the protection of some fundamental rights. Such institutions or persons must not deny the people access to information they need.
In his first Draft, Nzamba Kitonga also suggests in Article 52.(2) that every person has the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or misleading information that affects that person. This is a fair demand in situations where there are both freedom of expression and freedom of information. Where information is circulating freely, factual errors are bound to occur, and when they do, the need for corrections should be protected by the Constitution. Another important suggestion made by Nzamba Kitonga is the need for the State to publish and publicize any important information affecting the nation. This was taken care of in Article 52.(3) of his first Draft.
It so happens that the people meeting in Naivasha have everything to gain by the continued secrecy of the Government on a number of issues. It is not, for example, in the political interest of Uhuru Kenyatta, for some facts about his father’s regime to be laid bare for all to see. Who, for instance, killed Tom Mboya and Pio Gama Pinto? What information does the Government have about those assassinations? It is not in the interest of William Ruto for certain information about Moi’s despotism to be made public because that is when the Agriculture Minister was among the most favoured boys of the dictator. Public land was grabbed and a lot of people become multibillionaires through sleaze, bribery and corruption. Ruto does not want that information out.
It is therefore not a wonder that Nzamba Kitonga’s Article 52 was not changed at all even after public debate. It was not considered a contentious issue. But due to the rearrangement of the articles of the Revised Harmonized Draft following the public debate, Article 52 was submitted to the PSC as Article 40 on 8th January 2010, completely unaltered. No even a comma was changed! At that time little did the CoE realize they were submitting their work to the butchers of Naivasha. What followed was a shocking mutilation of the people’s right to know. The entire Article on Access to Information was chopped off. Instead one line was added to the Article on the Freedom of Expression saying Parliament shall, by legislation, provide for the right to access of information. There is everything wrong with that suggestion which can lead to not only keeping the people in perpetual darkness and ignorance but also to limiting freedom of the media.
Given the fact that the recommended legislation will be framed and shaped by the same people who were in Naivasha and others like them who happen to be Members of Parliament, there is very little hope that that legislation will be the Freedom of Information Act this country needs. To begin with the MPs seem to enjoy the current secrecy protected by the Official Secrets Act which legitimizes the criminal act of denying the people vital information they need to enhance democratic space in the country. Section 20 of this horrible law says any person who is guilty of an offence under this Act for which no penalty is specifically provided shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
This atrocious and most repulsive legislation goes against Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and TO SEEK, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Paradoxically this freedom to SEEK information does not exist in our current Constitution!
Section 79 of our current Constitution says except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence.
The word “seek” does not appear anywhere in Section 79 of our Constitution. That makes the work of the Fourth Estate extremely difficult. When the media have no information they are virtually muzzled. Given the fact that Kenya’s vibrant Fourth Estate is the only remaining institution that upholds the democratic right to free expression, the threat to deny it freedom of information is a threat to democracy itself. Nzamba Kitonga and his team must save this nation by reinstating Access to Information as a full Article in the Constitution the people of Kenya desire to have.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Kenyans back Nzamba’s hybrid system
Nzamba Kitonga’s Revised Harmonized Constitution has at last been submitted to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional Review (PSC). His decision to recommend a hybrid form of Government is likely to come under heavy criticism. But this criticism will only come from a few individuals who are so used to the misuse of power provided to them by faulty Constitutions which have erroneously concentrated too much power in the hands of the dictators of Kenya.
Very soon the people who have been opposed to a new Constitution for Kenya will be exposed. Kenyans will have an opportunity to identify individuals who have benefited in the past due to a constitution that created a privileged class. The individuals will come up in arms against the Nzamba Kitoga proposals. They will claim it creates two centres of power that would confuse Kenyans. They will even make every effort to frustrate what has been achieved so far. This will be done in Parliament where all sorts of criticism will be made against the hybrid system recommended by the Committee of Experts (CoE).
Those piling up blame on Nzamba Kitonga and his team are being deliberately malicious. They are only attempting to change the subject of restructuring the Constitution of Kenya. They want to hoodwink the people to forget the most important changes that need to take place in the country to bring about the desired democracy. They know very well that none of the ideas expressed in the Harmonized Draft constitution and its revised form are originally Nzamba Kitonga’s.
All that Nzamba has done so far , as he is mandated to by Section 23 of the Constitution of Kenya Review Act 2008, is to articulate the respective merits and demerits of proposed options for resolving the contentious issues; he has also made recommendations to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the resolution of the contentious issues in the context of the greater good of the people of Kenya. Just as the law required him to, he has prepared a harmonized draft Constitution for presentation to the National Assembly. So far that is all that Nzamba Kitonga has done.
From now on the law allows him to facilitate civic education in order to stimulate public discussion and awareness of constitutional issues. Soon he will be required by law to liaise with the Electoral Commission of Kenya to hold a referendum on the Draft Constitution. The law also allows him to do such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and principles of the review process. To blame him for anything he has done so far is to lose sight of what the law has mandated the CoE to do. Rather than condemning them they should be congratulated for a job very well done so far.
Despite all these negative efforts by the privileged class, the struggle to get a new constitution in 2010 must continue. What Nzamba Kitonga has proposed so far agrees with the aspirations of the people of Kenya who have suffered untold misery due to despotism protected by faulty Constitutions. A purely Presidential system with a powerful Head of State who is also the head of Government will not solve the problem of despotism in Kenya. Likewise an extremely powerful Prime Minister could very easily end up just as despotic as the three Presidents who have misruled Kenya so far.
That is why Nzamba Kitoga suggests that a Presidential or a Parliamentary system would polarize the country. According to him, public preference for a President and a Prime Minister points to, and reinforces a collective executive system of government that accommodates these offices while maintaining a clear distinction between offices of State and offices of government as laid out in the Harmonized Draft Constitution. The proposal to have a hybrid system, therefore, does not come from Nzamba Kitonga. It comes from the people of Kenya who clearly recommended to Nzamba Kitoga to draft a Constitution that deliberately includes both a President and a Prime Minister.
The collective executive system Nzamba Kitonga is talking about is in fact the hybrid system. He says the notion of a collective executive has been further clarified by indicating that executive authority under the constitution derives from the people and shall be exercised by their elected representatives in accordance with the Constitution. According to Kitonga the executive is defined more clearly, with the authority of the State President in decision making delineated, and the holding of regular consultations between the State President and the Prime Minister elaborated. While the Prime Minister runs government, the State President has a supervisory role that is evident in the stated requirement that the Prime Minister reports to the President.
The people told Kitonga to come up with a Constitution that clearly defines the duties of the State President as opposed to the duties of a Prime Minister. They also told him to come up with very well defined duties of the Prime Minister which cannot be confused with the duties of the President. By creating a proper delineation of powers between the State President and the Prime Minister, Nzamba Kitonga was simply obeying the people of Kenya. The people of Kenya also recommended to Nzamba Kitonga to come up with a revised draft that creates a clear distinction between offices of the State and Offices of the Government and he has just done that. As a matter of fact he says in his statement that the CoE considered these views of the people before it decided to stand by its original proposal of a hybrid system of the Government.
According to the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008 the matter now is in the hands of the PSC which must not forget that Nzamba Kitonga has handed them the revised harmonized draft backed by the majority of the people of Kenya. According to Section 33. (1), of the Act, the PSC shall, within twenty-one days, resubmit the draft Constitution and report presented to it under section 32(c) to the Committee of Experts with the recommendations agreed upon as a result of its deliberations, and the Committee of Experts shall revise the draft Constitution taking into account the achieved consensus. Before that happens Kenyans will keenly want to know which members of the PSC will go against their wishes and oppose the Nzamba Kitonga proposals.
In the Committee there are a number of ODM MPs who are likely to back the Nzamba proposals even though originally they were for a Parliamentary system headed by a powerful Prime Minister. Kitonga’s proposals are most likely bound to be opposed by PNU MPs who have been vehemently opposed to what they blindly refer to as “two centres of power”. What the PNU MPs conveniently forget is that the establishment of two centres of powers is the wish of the people of Kenya who have had enough of dictatorial concentration of powers in the hands of the President. Those fears also make them reject too powerful a Prime Minister. Whatever revisions the PSC makes to the Nzamba proposals, they must bare in mind that Kenyans are scrutinizing what they are doing and waiting for them to answer for whatever sins they commit now. That will be in 2012. Whoever sits in the PSC will find it extremely difficult to convince the people of Kenya to reelected him or her to Parliament if he or she rejects the Nzamba Kitoga proposals now.
The responsibility in the hands of the PSC is big. They must put the interest of the country above those of their various political parties. Whatever changes they introduce to the Nzamba proposals, they must never forget the fact that the people of Kenya have spoken to the CoE and expressed their wishes to have two centres of power in the future Constitution of Kenya. The problem with some of the politicians in the PSC is that they look at the proposed constitution as an instrument to pave their way to political power that will protect both their positions and wealth. If there is any such a person in the PSC then he or she should be exposed to the people of Kenya as the stumbling block that stands on their way to establish a true democracy in the country.
It so happens that the major changes that are needed in Kenya before we can have such a democracy depend on constitutional reforms. The people of Kenya have, by and large, indicated in more ways than one, the type of constitution they want. It is a constitution that will guarantee that the political powers in Kenya belong to the people .Their leaders in Parliament must not be allowed to usurp those powers.
Very soon the people who have been opposed to a new Constitution for Kenya will be exposed. Kenyans will have an opportunity to identify individuals who have benefited in the past due to a constitution that created a privileged class. The individuals will come up in arms against the Nzamba Kitoga proposals. They will claim it creates two centres of power that would confuse Kenyans. They will even make every effort to frustrate what has been achieved so far. This will be done in Parliament where all sorts of criticism will be made against the hybrid system recommended by the Committee of Experts (CoE).
Those piling up blame on Nzamba Kitonga and his team are being deliberately malicious. They are only attempting to change the subject of restructuring the Constitution of Kenya. They want to hoodwink the people to forget the most important changes that need to take place in the country to bring about the desired democracy. They know very well that none of the ideas expressed in the Harmonized Draft constitution and its revised form are originally Nzamba Kitonga’s.
All that Nzamba has done so far , as he is mandated to by Section 23 of the Constitution of Kenya Review Act 2008, is to articulate the respective merits and demerits of proposed options for resolving the contentious issues; he has also made recommendations to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the resolution of the contentious issues in the context of the greater good of the people of Kenya. Just as the law required him to, he has prepared a harmonized draft Constitution for presentation to the National Assembly. So far that is all that Nzamba Kitonga has done.
From now on the law allows him to facilitate civic education in order to stimulate public discussion and awareness of constitutional issues. Soon he will be required by law to liaise with the Electoral Commission of Kenya to hold a referendum on the Draft Constitution. The law also allows him to do such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and principles of the review process. To blame him for anything he has done so far is to lose sight of what the law has mandated the CoE to do. Rather than condemning them they should be congratulated for a job very well done so far.
Despite all these negative efforts by the privileged class, the struggle to get a new constitution in 2010 must continue. What Nzamba Kitonga has proposed so far agrees with the aspirations of the people of Kenya who have suffered untold misery due to despotism protected by faulty Constitutions. A purely Presidential system with a powerful Head of State who is also the head of Government will not solve the problem of despotism in Kenya. Likewise an extremely powerful Prime Minister could very easily end up just as despotic as the three Presidents who have misruled Kenya so far.
That is why Nzamba Kitoga suggests that a Presidential or a Parliamentary system would polarize the country. According to him, public preference for a President and a Prime Minister points to, and reinforces a collective executive system of government that accommodates these offices while maintaining a clear distinction between offices of State and offices of government as laid out in the Harmonized Draft Constitution. The proposal to have a hybrid system, therefore, does not come from Nzamba Kitonga. It comes from the people of Kenya who clearly recommended to Nzamba Kitoga to draft a Constitution that deliberately includes both a President and a Prime Minister.
The collective executive system Nzamba Kitonga is talking about is in fact the hybrid system. He says the notion of a collective executive has been further clarified by indicating that executive authority under the constitution derives from the people and shall be exercised by their elected representatives in accordance with the Constitution. According to Kitonga the executive is defined more clearly, with the authority of the State President in decision making delineated, and the holding of regular consultations between the State President and the Prime Minister elaborated. While the Prime Minister runs government, the State President has a supervisory role that is evident in the stated requirement that the Prime Minister reports to the President.
The people told Kitonga to come up with a Constitution that clearly defines the duties of the State President as opposed to the duties of a Prime Minister. They also told him to come up with very well defined duties of the Prime Minister which cannot be confused with the duties of the President. By creating a proper delineation of powers between the State President and the Prime Minister, Nzamba Kitonga was simply obeying the people of Kenya. The people of Kenya also recommended to Nzamba Kitonga to come up with a revised draft that creates a clear distinction between offices of the State and Offices of the Government and he has just done that. As a matter of fact he says in his statement that the CoE considered these views of the people before it decided to stand by its original proposal of a hybrid system of the Government.
According to the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008 the matter now is in the hands of the PSC which must not forget that Nzamba Kitonga has handed them the revised harmonized draft backed by the majority of the people of Kenya. According to Section 33. (1), of the Act, the PSC shall, within twenty-one days, resubmit the draft Constitution and report presented to it under section 32(c) to the Committee of Experts with the recommendations agreed upon as a result of its deliberations, and the Committee of Experts shall revise the draft Constitution taking into account the achieved consensus. Before that happens Kenyans will keenly want to know which members of the PSC will go against their wishes and oppose the Nzamba Kitonga proposals.
In the Committee there are a number of ODM MPs who are likely to back the Nzamba proposals even though originally they were for a Parliamentary system headed by a powerful Prime Minister. Kitonga’s proposals are most likely bound to be opposed by PNU MPs who have been vehemently opposed to what they blindly refer to as “two centres of power”. What the PNU MPs conveniently forget is that the establishment of two centres of powers is the wish of the people of Kenya who have had enough of dictatorial concentration of powers in the hands of the President. Those fears also make them reject too powerful a Prime Minister. Whatever revisions the PSC makes to the Nzamba proposals, they must bare in mind that Kenyans are scrutinizing what they are doing and waiting for them to answer for whatever sins they commit now. That will be in 2012. Whoever sits in the PSC will find it extremely difficult to convince the people of Kenya to reelected him or her to Parliament if he or she rejects the Nzamba Kitoga proposals now.
The responsibility in the hands of the PSC is big. They must put the interest of the country above those of their various political parties. Whatever changes they introduce to the Nzamba proposals, they must never forget the fact that the people of Kenya have spoken to the CoE and expressed their wishes to have two centres of power in the future Constitution of Kenya. The problem with some of the politicians in the PSC is that they look at the proposed constitution as an instrument to pave their way to political power that will protect both their positions and wealth. If there is any such a person in the PSC then he or she should be exposed to the people of Kenya as the stumbling block that stands on their way to establish a true democracy in the country.
It so happens that the major changes that are needed in Kenya before we can have such a democracy depend on constitutional reforms. The people of Kenya have, by and large, indicated in more ways than one, the type of constitution they want. It is a constitution that will guarantee that the political powers in Kenya belong to the people .Their leaders in Parliament must not be allowed to usurp those powers.
Friday, December 25, 2009
KKK Alliance: Our greatest shame!
The year 2009 will go down in history as Kenya’s epoch of many shameful man-made disastrous calamities. Top on that list is the transgression of tribalism. Because of tribalism we have elected misfits into leadership positions, which have led to the establishment of a House of Nincompoops in place of a Parliament; because of tribalism we have killed our pregnant mothers and raped their young daughters; because of tribalism we have slaughtered hundreds of our own brothers and sisters. And now our chauvinistic leaders have come out in the open to establish an obnoxious tribal organization which they, either by design or by sheer ignorance, call the KKK alliance.
Once upon a time, as a young Managing Editor of the Daily Nation, I had the misfortune of interviewing one David Duke in New Orleans. He was then the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, commonly referred to as the KKK. I say the "misfortune" because of the most uncivil, if not barbaric, language used by the boss of the KKK during the interview. Words that came from his mouth were so horrific that I dare not repeat them here. Suffice it to say that he unsuccessfully tried to equate me to monkeys and baboons, which he describes as black people’s closest cousins. In his mind no Black man or woman was a fully developed human being and they, therefore, did not deserve being treated as such.
Today, when I repeat that story to my students, a cold chill still runs down my spine. It was therefore my greatest shock to hear people in my own country, who consider themselves respected leaders, with titles such as the Vice President, Deputy Prime Minister and Honourable Minister, forming a political alliance with a name exactly the same as David Duke’s KKK. Kalonzo Musyoka, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto would like to tell us that their KKK stands for Kikuyu, Kamba and Kalenjin. But the aims and aspirations of their KKK are not different from David Duke’s xenophobic organization. Both are just as chauvinistic. They are also both shamelessly intolerant. The American organization is racist and the Kenya one is tribalist. So what is the difference? The American KKK seeks the supremacy of the White race headed by Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The Kenyan one wants to snatch political power in Kenya and establish a dictatorship headed by tribal chiefs. Honestly, I see no difference between the two.
Kenyans should just examine the political history of the leaders of the KKK alliance to get concrete evidence why it should be thrown into the dustbin of history. As the leader of the Orange Democratic Movement – Kenya (ODM-K), Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka has not sought permission from his party executive before pulling every member into an unholy alliance with the Deputy leader of ODM, William Ruto and the Chairman of Kanu, Uhuru Kenyatta. It was only a few short years ago when Kalonzo was denouncing, in the strongest possible words, the leadership of Ruto’s ODM and Kenyatta’s Kanu. What metamorphosis has the Vice President undergone to see his 2007 strongest political enemies as his strongest partners for the 2012 elections? Alternatively what changes have taken place in Ruto or Uhuru’s leadership to attract the Kamba leader?
Kalonzo has been a loyal member of Kanu, Liberal Democratic Party, the National Rainbow Coalition, and ODM-K. All within a short period of time since he joined politics in 1983 when he unsuccessfully tried to represent the people of Kitui North in Parliament as a supporter of the dreaded one party political system in Kenya. Strictly speaking, Kalonzo Musyoka does not have a political philosophy he believes in. He changes his political colours like a chameleon. Today he is preparing Kenyans to vote for him as the next President in the 2012 elections as the leader of the KKK Alliance in the country. But will the others in his group let him take the lead? Even more important than that, will the Kamba people be prepared to be led by their noses by a man who wants to isolate them from the rest of Kenyans?
To answer the last question first, the Kamba people , who overwhelmingly backed Kalonzo in 2007 as the leader of the ODM-K should ask their leader what philosophical changes have taken place in Kanu or ODM for Kalonzo to want to cooperate with Uhuru as the Kanu Chairman or Ruto as the Deputy Leader of the ODM? They should also want to know the significance of Kikuyu, Kamba and Kalenjin political alliance against the rest of the country? Why, for example , should the Kambas in Mariakani, consider themselves closer to the Kikuyus in the Central Province and Kalenjins in the Rift Valley than the Mijikenda people of Mariakani , Miritini , Changamwe, and Mombasa which are all close next door neighbours, and have been for decades?
As to the first question , which is extremely mind boggling, it is always amazing to see people who believe in no ideology at all ganging up together to form a political alliance based on tribal loyalty, when in fact they belong to three different tribes. None of the three leaders i.e. Kalonzo, Kenyatta and Ruto has shown a remote willingness to step down for the other, for the Presidency of Kenya after Kibaki. The only thing they have in common is the perception that they have the ability of putting their entire communities in their pockets. By the look of things the trio is in for a very big surprise this time.
The majority of the new generation of voters, whose number run into millions and are scattered all over the country, have two things in common: Poverty and unemployment. They all rightly believe they are in that predicament because of the greedy leadership of the likes of Ruto, Kalonzo and Kenyatta. They believe the only salvation they have is the use of the ballot, rather than the bullet, to bring about the desired change. After all, that method has succeeded in the most powerful country where a Black man was only considered a slave, and today he is the most powerful leader introducing changes that could only be confined to a dream world.
The story of Uhuru Kenyatta is basically the same as that of Kalonzo Musyoka. Though born with a silver spoon in his mouth, his only hope of succeeding Mwai Kibaki at State House is to be accepted as the official Presidential candidate of the KKK alliance. Uhuru erroneously believes he is the undisputed leader of the Kikuyu people, who have supported his family for a long time, even before he was born. What Uhuru forgets, or is incapable of comprehending, is that the majority of the Kikuyus of today, who are the majority of young voters in Central Province, believe the rich in their community have only become so by robbing their forefathers. The majority of the rich Kikuyus are the children of home guards who killed a lot of Mau Mau in the struggle for liberation before independence. The majority of the poor among the Kikuyus today are children of the Mau Mau freedom fighters who, until today, have never seen the fruits of independence. In the next election they too see the power of the ballot bringing justice into the political scenario of the country.
Of the three KKK leaders, it is only William Ruto who has the backing of his people in the Rift Valley. But if they remember the history of how Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, who made them back his hand picked Presidential candidature of Uhuru Kenyatta in 2002, led them to be isolated by the entire country, they may not support Ruto for long . After all the Kalenjins are the quickest people in changing their minds in the entire country. If you don’t believe me, ask Raila Odinga.
Once upon a time, as a young Managing Editor of the Daily Nation, I had the misfortune of interviewing one David Duke in New Orleans. He was then the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, commonly referred to as the KKK. I say the "misfortune" because of the most uncivil, if not barbaric, language used by the boss of the KKK during the interview. Words that came from his mouth were so horrific that I dare not repeat them here. Suffice it to say that he unsuccessfully tried to equate me to monkeys and baboons, which he describes as black people’s closest cousins. In his mind no Black man or woman was a fully developed human being and they, therefore, did not deserve being treated as such.
Today, when I repeat that story to my students, a cold chill still runs down my spine. It was therefore my greatest shock to hear people in my own country, who consider themselves respected leaders, with titles such as the Vice President, Deputy Prime Minister and Honourable Minister, forming a political alliance with a name exactly the same as David Duke’s KKK. Kalonzo Musyoka, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto would like to tell us that their KKK stands for Kikuyu, Kamba and Kalenjin. But the aims and aspirations of their KKK are not different from David Duke’s xenophobic organization. Both are just as chauvinistic. They are also both shamelessly intolerant. The American organization is racist and the Kenya one is tribalist. So what is the difference? The American KKK seeks the supremacy of the White race headed by Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The Kenyan one wants to snatch political power in Kenya and establish a dictatorship headed by tribal chiefs. Honestly, I see no difference between the two.
Kenyans should just examine the political history of the leaders of the KKK alliance to get concrete evidence why it should be thrown into the dustbin of history. As the leader of the Orange Democratic Movement – Kenya (ODM-K), Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka has not sought permission from his party executive before pulling every member into an unholy alliance with the Deputy leader of ODM, William Ruto and the Chairman of Kanu, Uhuru Kenyatta. It was only a few short years ago when Kalonzo was denouncing, in the strongest possible words, the leadership of Ruto’s ODM and Kenyatta’s Kanu. What metamorphosis has the Vice President undergone to see his 2007 strongest political enemies as his strongest partners for the 2012 elections? Alternatively what changes have taken place in Ruto or Uhuru’s leadership to attract the Kamba leader?
Kalonzo has been a loyal member of Kanu, Liberal Democratic Party, the National Rainbow Coalition, and ODM-K. All within a short period of time since he joined politics in 1983 when he unsuccessfully tried to represent the people of Kitui North in Parliament as a supporter of the dreaded one party political system in Kenya. Strictly speaking, Kalonzo Musyoka does not have a political philosophy he believes in. He changes his political colours like a chameleon. Today he is preparing Kenyans to vote for him as the next President in the 2012 elections as the leader of the KKK Alliance in the country. But will the others in his group let him take the lead? Even more important than that, will the Kamba people be prepared to be led by their noses by a man who wants to isolate them from the rest of Kenyans?
To answer the last question first, the Kamba people , who overwhelmingly backed Kalonzo in 2007 as the leader of the ODM-K should ask their leader what philosophical changes have taken place in Kanu or ODM for Kalonzo to want to cooperate with Uhuru as the Kanu Chairman or Ruto as the Deputy Leader of the ODM? They should also want to know the significance of Kikuyu, Kamba and Kalenjin political alliance against the rest of the country? Why, for example , should the Kambas in Mariakani, consider themselves closer to the Kikuyus in the Central Province and Kalenjins in the Rift Valley than the Mijikenda people of Mariakani , Miritini , Changamwe, and Mombasa which are all close next door neighbours, and have been for decades?
As to the first question , which is extremely mind boggling, it is always amazing to see people who believe in no ideology at all ganging up together to form a political alliance based on tribal loyalty, when in fact they belong to three different tribes. None of the three leaders i.e. Kalonzo, Kenyatta and Ruto has shown a remote willingness to step down for the other, for the Presidency of Kenya after Kibaki. The only thing they have in common is the perception that they have the ability of putting their entire communities in their pockets. By the look of things the trio is in for a very big surprise this time.
The majority of the new generation of voters, whose number run into millions and are scattered all over the country, have two things in common: Poverty and unemployment. They all rightly believe they are in that predicament because of the greedy leadership of the likes of Ruto, Kalonzo and Kenyatta. They believe the only salvation they have is the use of the ballot, rather than the bullet, to bring about the desired change. After all, that method has succeeded in the most powerful country where a Black man was only considered a slave, and today he is the most powerful leader introducing changes that could only be confined to a dream world.
The story of Uhuru Kenyatta is basically the same as that of Kalonzo Musyoka. Though born with a silver spoon in his mouth, his only hope of succeeding Mwai Kibaki at State House is to be accepted as the official Presidential candidate of the KKK alliance. Uhuru erroneously believes he is the undisputed leader of the Kikuyu people, who have supported his family for a long time, even before he was born. What Uhuru forgets, or is incapable of comprehending, is that the majority of the Kikuyus of today, who are the majority of young voters in Central Province, believe the rich in their community have only become so by robbing their forefathers. The majority of the rich Kikuyus are the children of home guards who killed a lot of Mau Mau in the struggle for liberation before independence. The majority of the poor among the Kikuyus today are children of the Mau Mau freedom fighters who, until today, have never seen the fruits of independence. In the next election they too see the power of the ballot bringing justice into the political scenario of the country.
Of the three KKK leaders, it is only William Ruto who has the backing of his people in the Rift Valley. But if they remember the history of how Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, who made them back his hand picked Presidential candidature of Uhuru Kenyatta in 2002, led them to be isolated by the entire country, they may not support Ruto for long . After all the Kalenjins are the quickest people in changing their minds in the entire country. If you don’t believe me, ask Raila Odinga.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Harmonized Draft Constitution disturbs tribalists
Nothing is disturbing the tribalists, who have ruled Kenya for the last four decades, more than the Harmonized Draft Constitution, which threatens to move the centre of power from a few despots to the people. The three imperial Presidents who have misruled the people of Kenya since independence have made sure the wealth of the nation benefited only a few privileged classes from their own areas. The process created the evils of nepotism, tribalism and corruption which can only be corrected by a complete overhaul of the political systems established by the dictators in Kenya, which is what the new draft is trying to do. No wonder the tribalists are ganging up to form ethnic political cabals to protect their ill gotten wealth and, if they succeed, they hope to establish a formidable tribal faction to win the 2012 election.
Under Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya saw the creation of a real gap between the haves and the have-nots with the haves apportioning themselves huge tracks of the most fertile land from the former White Highlands in the Rift Valley. The servant-master relationship between the people and the colonialists continued in a different form. The new masters were Jomo Kenyatta’s closest relatives and a few selected people who occupied top positions in his regime.
President Daniel arap Moi did exactly the same as his predecessor and went further to break the law through the most colossal robbery of public funds known as the Goldenberg scandal. Apart from the scandal, Moi committed further crimes of annexing fertile land from the country’s largest water reservoirs on the Mau forest and giving it to his closest family members as well as his most obedient servants from his own community. Today the land grabbers are fighting tooth and nail to retain their looted land against the wishes of the rest of Kenyans.
Mwai Kibaki on his part came in with his own type of scandal known as Anglo Leasing. The scandal was so disgraceful that a few heads in his regime had to roll. His efforts to introduce his own form of nepotism have been vehemently opposed by the entire country. Now his regime hangs on a thin thread kept alive by the coalition he has established with Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Should the coalition collapse the chances of his serving the rest of his term comfortably are extremely remote.
What the three regimes have in common is to wish for a future government that would protect their huge ill-gotten wealth through a despotic government established by one of their own. The Kikuyu-Kalenjin-Kamba alliance is supposed to achieve that goal. A government of Uhuru Kenyatta, Kalonzo Musyoka and William Ruto would make sure the gap between the haves and the have-nots would grow even wider. The so called KKK alliance will therefore do everything possible to oppose the parts of the Harmonized Draft Constitution calling for a paradigm shift that removes the power from a few privileged families to the people.
The relevant part of the Draft constitution which gives the tribal despots sleepless nights concerns land. The proposed law says in Chapter Seven , Article 77 that land is Kenya’s primary resource and the basis of livelihood for the people, and shall be held, used and managed in a manner which is equitable , efficient, productive and sustainable. It further says the national Government shall define and keep under review a national land policy ensuring the principles of equitable access to land and associated resources. That part of the proposed Constitution can bring together Uhuru, Ruto and Balala despite their past differences. Now they all paddle in the same canoe as they symbolize the elite who own unfairly huge tracks of land while the majority of the people of Kenya have nothing at all. Some of the huge pieces of land owned by Balala’s people down at the Coast have been left idle by absentee landlords who live in the Middle East while the true owners of the land , the Mijikenda people, are still treated as squatters,forty years after independence.
Tribalists will also be most disturbed by the section of the proposed Constitution which deals with basic requirements for political parties. Article 114 requires every political party to promote the objects and principles of the rule of law by promoting and upholding national unity. In the past tribalists have survived politically by forming parochial ethnic political parties which they have used as ladders to high national positions. If the Harmonized Draft Constitution goes through, political parties will have national character as prescribed by the Political Parties Act of 2007 which , among other things,prohibits the registration of political parties founded on ethnic, age , tribal, racial , gender, regional, linguistic,corporatist, professional or religious basis or which seeks to engage in propaganda .
Tribalists will particularly oppose this part of the proposed draft because it demands political parties to have a democratically elected governing body; and abide by the democratic principles of good governance, promote and practise democracy through regular, fair and free elections within the party, and promote discipline within it. That particular demand of the draft Constitution simply means the ownership of tribal political parties as personal properties will be a thing of the past. It may also mean democracy will be introduced in political parties’ nomination process making the obnoxious hand picking of favorite candidates by despotic leaders, also a thing of the past. Personally I would have liked the Harmonized draft to go even further and demand primary elections for all political parties to be supervised by the IIEC.
It is my hope that that proposal will be taken seriously by the CoE while drafting the final version. After all, the Harmonized Draft demands political parties to conduct their affairs in a manner that promotes democracy and peaceful politics. It also demands them to respect the right of others to participate in the political process, including, persons with disabilities and other minorities. Well organized, transparent and democratic primary elections in Kenya will ensure that the Harmonized Draft’s demand for political parties to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, and gender equality and equity, will be achieved very easily.
Tribalists in the past have survived politically by engaging in tribal warfare. They have remained at the top leadership of their parties by terrorizing their local opponents as well as their national rivals. The Harmonized Draft Constitution prohibits political parties from engaging in or encouraging violence by, or intimidation of, its members, supporters, opponents or any other person. It also criminalizes the establishment or maintenance of paramilitary forces, militia or similar organizations. If the Harmonized Draft Constitution is passed then engaging in bribery or other forms of corruption in political parties will be the thing of the past.
The other part of the Harmonized Draft Constitution which will be vehemently opposed by the tribalists concerns the Executive. For forty years since independence tribalists have benefited from an imperial president with so much powers that only rewarded his own people. To continue to enjoy the fruits of independence exclusively as members of the privileged elite the tribalists will fight to maintain power through an imperial president whom they hope will come from one of the three tribal grouping of the so called KKK.
The part of the Harmonized Draft Constitution which they would like to get rid of is Article 179 which says the Prime Minister shall be the head of the Government and shall preside at the meetings of the Cabinet. This is something extremely hard for the tribalists to swallow because they know none of them, as leaders of tribal organizations masquerading as political parties, can succeed in accumulating enough members of Parliament to qualify to be appointed Prime Minister. So they spread lies that it would be most unfair to give so much powers to a prime minister “who is not elected by the people.”
They conveniently forget what Article 180 of the Harmonized Constitution says. That part of the Draft demands that within seven days following the summoning of the National Assembly after a general election, or whenever necessary to fill a vacancy in the office of Prime Minister, other than on the occasion of a vote of no confidence, the State President shall appoint as Prime Minister in a manner that clearly indicates the people have a major say in that appointment.
First the State President has to consider the member of the National Assembly who is the leader of the largest political party or coalition of parties, represented in the
National Assembly. Tribalists forget that no one becomes the leader of the largest political party in the National Assembly without the consent of the voters, who, for all practical purposes, are the people of Kenya.
The Draft Constitution says if the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties has been unable to command the confidence of the National Assembly, the member of the National Assembly who is the leader of the second largest political party or coalition of parties represented in the National Assembly will be the next candidate for Premiership to be considered by the State President. No one becomes the leader of the second largest party in the National Assembly without the consent of the people.
There can be no confusion as to who the leaders of these parties are because the Harmonized Draft Constitution clearly says each party participating in a general election of the National Assembly shall designate a person as the leader of that party for purposes of being selected for the appointment of the Prime Minister.
Anticipating possible disagreements in this sensitive issue of the appointment of the Prime Minister, the Draft gives the State President a third option where neither of the persons contemplated in the first option or the second option has been able to command or retain the confidence of the National Assembly. This third option says that the State President shall propose to the National Assembly the name of a member who, in the State President’s opinion, may be able to command the confidence of the National Assembly.
According to the Draft on receiving that proposal from the State President under clause (3), the Speaker shall summon the National Assembly and introduce the proposal from the State President. The Draft says within seven days of the Speaker receiving a proposal from the State President, the Speaker shall call a vote in the National Assembly to
confirm the appointment of the person proposed by the State President. And if that process also fails then the National Assembly shall by a vote supported by a majority of members present and voting nominate a member of the National Assembly for appointment as the Prime Minister. Parliament will therefore vote to elect a Prime Minister when all the other options have failed. But tribalists like to trumpet this aspect loudest magnifying the none participation of the people. The tribalists don’t like the people to know that the first option proposed by the Harmonized Draft Constitution reflects the wishes of the people.
The role of the people in appointing the Prime Minister is so important that if, within sixty days of the State President first appointing a person to be Prime Minister, no person has been confirmed or nominated for appointment, the National Assembly shall stand dissolved and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall conduct a fresh general election for the National Assembly. That is what the tribalists don’t want to hear.
Under Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya saw the creation of a real gap between the haves and the have-nots with the haves apportioning themselves huge tracks of the most fertile land from the former White Highlands in the Rift Valley. The servant-master relationship between the people and the colonialists continued in a different form. The new masters were Jomo Kenyatta’s closest relatives and a few selected people who occupied top positions in his regime.
President Daniel arap Moi did exactly the same as his predecessor and went further to break the law through the most colossal robbery of public funds known as the Goldenberg scandal. Apart from the scandal, Moi committed further crimes of annexing fertile land from the country’s largest water reservoirs on the Mau forest and giving it to his closest family members as well as his most obedient servants from his own community. Today the land grabbers are fighting tooth and nail to retain their looted land against the wishes of the rest of Kenyans.
Mwai Kibaki on his part came in with his own type of scandal known as Anglo Leasing. The scandal was so disgraceful that a few heads in his regime had to roll. His efforts to introduce his own form of nepotism have been vehemently opposed by the entire country. Now his regime hangs on a thin thread kept alive by the coalition he has established with Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Should the coalition collapse the chances of his serving the rest of his term comfortably are extremely remote.
What the three regimes have in common is to wish for a future government that would protect their huge ill-gotten wealth through a despotic government established by one of their own. The Kikuyu-Kalenjin-Kamba alliance is supposed to achieve that goal. A government of Uhuru Kenyatta, Kalonzo Musyoka and William Ruto would make sure the gap between the haves and the have-nots would grow even wider. The so called KKK alliance will therefore do everything possible to oppose the parts of the Harmonized Draft Constitution calling for a paradigm shift that removes the power from a few privileged families to the people.
The relevant part of the Draft constitution which gives the tribal despots sleepless nights concerns land. The proposed law says in Chapter Seven , Article 77 that land is Kenya’s primary resource and the basis of livelihood for the people, and shall be held, used and managed in a manner which is equitable , efficient, productive and sustainable. It further says the national Government shall define and keep under review a national land policy ensuring the principles of equitable access to land and associated resources. That part of the proposed Constitution can bring together Uhuru, Ruto and Balala despite their past differences. Now they all paddle in the same canoe as they symbolize the elite who own unfairly huge tracks of land while the majority of the people of Kenya have nothing at all. Some of the huge pieces of land owned by Balala’s people down at the Coast have been left idle by absentee landlords who live in the Middle East while the true owners of the land , the Mijikenda people, are still treated as squatters,forty years after independence.
Tribalists will also be most disturbed by the section of the proposed Constitution which deals with basic requirements for political parties. Article 114 requires every political party to promote the objects and principles of the rule of law by promoting and upholding national unity. In the past tribalists have survived politically by forming parochial ethnic political parties which they have used as ladders to high national positions. If the Harmonized Draft Constitution goes through, political parties will have national character as prescribed by the Political Parties Act of 2007 which , among other things,prohibits the registration of political parties founded on ethnic, age , tribal, racial , gender, regional, linguistic,corporatist, professional or religious basis or which seeks to engage in propaganda .
Tribalists will particularly oppose this part of the proposed draft because it demands political parties to have a democratically elected governing body; and abide by the democratic principles of good governance, promote and practise democracy through regular, fair and free elections within the party, and promote discipline within it. That particular demand of the draft Constitution simply means the ownership of tribal political parties as personal properties will be a thing of the past. It may also mean democracy will be introduced in political parties’ nomination process making the obnoxious hand picking of favorite candidates by despotic leaders, also a thing of the past. Personally I would have liked the Harmonized draft to go even further and demand primary elections for all political parties to be supervised by the IIEC.
It is my hope that that proposal will be taken seriously by the CoE while drafting the final version. After all, the Harmonized Draft demands political parties to conduct their affairs in a manner that promotes democracy and peaceful politics. It also demands them to respect the right of others to participate in the political process, including, persons with disabilities and other minorities. Well organized, transparent and democratic primary elections in Kenya will ensure that the Harmonized Draft’s demand for political parties to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, and gender equality and equity, will be achieved very easily.
Tribalists in the past have survived politically by engaging in tribal warfare. They have remained at the top leadership of their parties by terrorizing their local opponents as well as their national rivals. The Harmonized Draft Constitution prohibits political parties from engaging in or encouraging violence by, or intimidation of, its members, supporters, opponents or any other person. It also criminalizes the establishment or maintenance of paramilitary forces, militia or similar organizations. If the Harmonized Draft Constitution is passed then engaging in bribery or other forms of corruption in political parties will be the thing of the past.
The other part of the Harmonized Draft Constitution which will be vehemently opposed by the tribalists concerns the Executive. For forty years since independence tribalists have benefited from an imperial president with so much powers that only rewarded his own people. To continue to enjoy the fruits of independence exclusively as members of the privileged elite the tribalists will fight to maintain power through an imperial president whom they hope will come from one of the three tribal grouping of the so called KKK.
The part of the Harmonized Draft Constitution which they would like to get rid of is Article 179 which says the Prime Minister shall be the head of the Government and shall preside at the meetings of the Cabinet. This is something extremely hard for the tribalists to swallow because they know none of them, as leaders of tribal organizations masquerading as political parties, can succeed in accumulating enough members of Parliament to qualify to be appointed Prime Minister. So they spread lies that it would be most unfair to give so much powers to a prime minister “who is not elected by the people.”
They conveniently forget what Article 180 of the Harmonized Constitution says. That part of the Draft demands that within seven days following the summoning of the National Assembly after a general election, or whenever necessary to fill a vacancy in the office of Prime Minister, other than on the occasion of a vote of no confidence, the State President shall appoint as Prime Minister in a manner that clearly indicates the people have a major say in that appointment.
First the State President has to consider the member of the National Assembly who is the leader of the largest political party or coalition of parties, represented in the
National Assembly. Tribalists forget that no one becomes the leader of the largest political party in the National Assembly without the consent of the voters, who, for all practical purposes, are the people of Kenya.
The Draft Constitution says if the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties has been unable to command the confidence of the National Assembly, the member of the National Assembly who is the leader of the second largest political party or coalition of parties represented in the National Assembly will be the next candidate for Premiership to be considered by the State President. No one becomes the leader of the second largest party in the National Assembly without the consent of the people.
There can be no confusion as to who the leaders of these parties are because the Harmonized Draft Constitution clearly says each party participating in a general election of the National Assembly shall designate a person as the leader of that party for purposes of being selected for the appointment of the Prime Minister.
Anticipating possible disagreements in this sensitive issue of the appointment of the Prime Minister, the Draft gives the State President a third option where neither of the persons contemplated in the first option or the second option has been able to command or retain the confidence of the National Assembly. This third option says that the State President shall propose to the National Assembly the name of a member who, in the State President’s opinion, may be able to command the confidence of the National Assembly.
According to the Draft on receiving that proposal from the State President under clause (3), the Speaker shall summon the National Assembly and introduce the proposal from the State President. The Draft says within seven days of the Speaker receiving a proposal from the State President, the Speaker shall call a vote in the National Assembly to
confirm the appointment of the person proposed by the State President. And if that process also fails then the National Assembly shall by a vote supported by a majority of members present and voting nominate a member of the National Assembly for appointment as the Prime Minister. Parliament will therefore vote to elect a Prime Minister when all the other options have failed. But tribalists like to trumpet this aspect loudest magnifying the none participation of the people. The tribalists don’t like the people to know that the first option proposed by the Harmonized Draft Constitution reflects the wishes of the people.
The role of the people in appointing the Prime Minister is so important that if, within sixty days of the State President first appointing a person to be Prime Minister, no person has been confirmed or nominated for appointment, the National Assembly shall stand dissolved and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall conduct a fresh general election for the National Assembly. That is what the tribalists don’t want to hear.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Draft Constitution boosts Raila’s chances
The Draft Constitution is the closest Kenya has come to establishing a truly democratic society. It obviously favours those who have been struggling to establish such a society where political leadership is transparent and accountable to the people. One such person is Raila Odinga. His long struggle to demolish an imperial presidency has been fulfilled by Nzamba Kitonga’s success in coming up with a document that eradicates all the past despotic evils of dictatorial presidents. The evils came in the form of concentrating too much power in the hands of the demigod Presidents.
In a country where political survival has, for a long time, depended on tribal hegemony of ethnic supremacists, Nzamba Kitonga and the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, Mutula Kilonzo, as the two people who steered the formulation of the Draft, would have been accused of boosting their own tribe if Raila Odinga was a Kamba. The fact that both Mutula and Nzamba happen to be Kambas is a sheer coincidence. Similarly the accusations of the Draft Constitution appearing to support Raila are misconceived perceptions based on ignorance and lack of understanding of recent political development in Kenya.
An unbiased examination of those developments will clearly reveal that political parties in Kenya are by and large ethnic institutions under the leadership of ambitious tribal chiefs camouflaged as national leaders. That is with the exception of the Raila’s Orange Democratic Party which, though personally controlled by the Prime Minister, is a national party with leaders from all corners of the country. Sure enough, the most powerful political position in Kenya, if the draft Constitution is accepted by the people, will be that of the Prime Minister. But no one can dream of becoming a Prime Minister in Kenya if he or she does not lead a powerful political party capable of winning the majority of seats in the Legislature.
The only way to make sure that Raila does not become the first powerful executive Prime Minister after the 2012 elections is to remove him from the leadership of the ODM in a democratic manner. The other way is to establish a powerful non tribal political party to rival the ODM in every part of the country before 2012. Such an undertaking would be an uphill task for leaders who are already stigmatized as both tribal and hegemonic monsters.
Given the fact that there have been two Presidents from the Central Province there is little wonder that MPs from that area are still lamentably calling for an imperial President. Arguing that because the Draft Constitution demands that the President gets the mandate of the people before occupying State House, and therefore the elected President deserves to have more powers than what they call “unelected” Prime Minister, the MPs’ hope is to confuse Kenyans and make them reject Nzamba’s proposals. In that confusion may be a man from Central Province, hopefully Uhuru Kenyatta, could end up the third Kikuyu President for Kenya. Such a wishful thinking is building castles in the air. It would take an unusually clever conjurer’s trick to convince Kenyans that the next executive President should come from Kiambu.
The claim that the Draft Constitution favours a Prime Minister who is not elected by the people is as misleading as it is malicious. To qualify to be a Prime Minister one has to be the leader of the largest political party or coalition parties represented in the national assembly. Political parties don’t become the largest parties in the national assembly without the consent of the people. As a matter of fact to achieve that goal, a political party has to be national and acceptable to diverse people of Kenya, which is far more difficult than receiving more than half of all the vote cast in the presidential election even though it also requires at least twenty five percent of the vote cast in the majority of the regions.
It is also wrong and most misleading to claim that the Draft Constitution crates an office of a figurehead President. The elected President of Kenya after 2012 would be a very powerful person with very well elaborated State functions as well as Legislative functions which can hardly be described as duties of an impotent Head of State. For anyone to exercise those powers he or she should rightly get the consent of the people. By getting his or her many candidates win elections in the majority of the constituencies in various parts of the country the Prime Minister would have demonstrated clearly to have the support of the people.
There are many possible positive outcomes of the Draft Constitution. One of them would be the establishment of national political parties that are not parochially tribal. These would be parties that would compete on ideological differences rather than ethnic diversity. Briefcase political parties will be a thing of the past. The demand by the Draft Constitution to have regular elections in political parties would also introduce badly needed internal democracy in political parties. Being the most favoured person by the new Draft, Raila is likely to spend more time revamping and strengthening the ODM. Holding the already powerful position of Prime Minister he is likely to perform that duty so magnificently that very soon ODM will have offices where there will be long queues of people seeking party membership.
Knowing very well the power of the Kikuyu vote in any election in Kenya, a special recruitment ODM team is likely to be formulated in Central Province to fish for Kikuyu membership, particularly among the Kikuyu youth and even among the members of the Mungiki clandestine organization. Raila’s friendly approach in dealing with the Mungiki menace is a very well calculated political maneuver which Agwambo is a master of.
Despite its popularity ODM has its own internal problems caused by the rebellious William Ruto and Najib Balala. Their departure from the party means Raila will pay special attention to the party development in both the Rift Valley and the Coast provinces. In both places the Prime Minister has identified people who can easily step into Ruto and Balala’s shoes. Raila’s job in doing this will be made very easy by national mobilization against tribal politics. Stigmatizing Ruto as a tribal leader, however, may be a lot easier than disgracing the non tribal Arab Balala who can only be fought by reminding the coastal Mijikenda people of the dishonorable historical role of the Arabs in that part of the world. That Raila can do most effectively through his charismatic public attraction.
To get the massive support of the Luhya people Raila is likely to groom Musalia Mudavadi as the country’s next President. It will not be surprising at all if Raila starts grooming some young man or woman for the position of Deputy President. Very much like Moi, Raila will soon start using top Government positions, including that of the Deputy Prime Minister as political baits to win popular support from all parts of the country. This method is likely to work wonders for Raila who is sure to be the Prime Minister of Kenya from 2012 for a very long time to come because, unlike the position of the President, there is no limited term of office for the premier.
In a country where political survival has, for a long time, depended on tribal hegemony of ethnic supremacists, Nzamba Kitonga and the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, Mutula Kilonzo, as the two people who steered the formulation of the Draft, would have been accused of boosting their own tribe if Raila Odinga was a Kamba. The fact that both Mutula and Nzamba happen to be Kambas is a sheer coincidence. Similarly the accusations of the Draft Constitution appearing to support Raila are misconceived perceptions based on ignorance and lack of understanding of recent political development in Kenya.
An unbiased examination of those developments will clearly reveal that political parties in Kenya are by and large ethnic institutions under the leadership of ambitious tribal chiefs camouflaged as national leaders. That is with the exception of the Raila’s Orange Democratic Party which, though personally controlled by the Prime Minister, is a national party with leaders from all corners of the country. Sure enough, the most powerful political position in Kenya, if the draft Constitution is accepted by the people, will be that of the Prime Minister. But no one can dream of becoming a Prime Minister in Kenya if he or she does not lead a powerful political party capable of winning the majority of seats in the Legislature.
The only way to make sure that Raila does not become the first powerful executive Prime Minister after the 2012 elections is to remove him from the leadership of the ODM in a democratic manner. The other way is to establish a powerful non tribal political party to rival the ODM in every part of the country before 2012. Such an undertaking would be an uphill task for leaders who are already stigmatized as both tribal and hegemonic monsters.
Given the fact that there have been two Presidents from the Central Province there is little wonder that MPs from that area are still lamentably calling for an imperial President. Arguing that because the Draft Constitution demands that the President gets the mandate of the people before occupying State House, and therefore the elected President deserves to have more powers than what they call “unelected” Prime Minister, the MPs’ hope is to confuse Kenyans and make them reject Nzamba’s proposals. In that confusion may be a man from Central Province, hopefully Uhuru Kenyatta, could end up the third Kikuyu President for Kenya. Such a wishful thinking is building castles in the air. It would take an unusually clever conjurer’s trick to convince Kenyans that the next executive President should come from Kiambu.
The claim that the Draft Constitution favours a Prime Minister who is not elected by the people is as misleading as it is malicious. To qualify to be a Prime Minister one has to be the leader of the largest political party or coalition parties represented in the national assembly. Political parties don’t become the largest parties in the national assembly without the consent of the people. As a matter of fact to achieve that goal, a political party has to be national and acceptable to diverse people of Kenya, which is far more difficult than receiving more than half of all the vote cast in the presidential election even though it also requires at least twenty five percent of the vote cast in the majority of the regions.
It is also wrong and most misleading to claim that the Draft Constitution crates an office of a figurehead President. The elected President of Kenya after 2012 would be a very powerful person with very well elaborated State functions as well as Legislative functions which can hardly be described as duties of an impotent Head of State. For anyone to exercise those powers he or she should rightly get the consent of the people. By getting his or her many candidates win elections in the majority of the constituencies in various parts of the country the Prime Minister would have demonstrated clearly to have the support of the people.
There are many possible positive outcomes of the Draft Constitution. One of them would be the establishment of national political parties that are not parochially tribal. These would be parties that would compete on ideological differences rather than ethnic diversity. Briefcase political parties will be a thing of the past. The demand by the Draft Constitution to have regular elections in political parties would also introduce badly needed internal democracy in political parties. Being the most favoured person by the new Draft, Raila is likely to spend more time revamping and strengthening the ODM. Holding the already powerful position of Prime Minister he is likely to perform that duty so magnificently that very soon ODM will have offices where there will be long queues of people seeking party membership.
Knowing very well the power of the Kikuyu vote in any election in Kenya, a special recruitment ODM team is likely to be formulated in Central Province to fish for Kikuyu membership, particularly among the Kikuyu youth and even among the members of the Mungiki clandestine organization. Raila’s friendly approach in dealing with the Mungiki menace is a very well calculated political maneuver which Agwambo is a master of.
Despite its popularity ODM has its own internal problems caused by the rebellious William Ruto and Najib Balala. Their departure from the party means Raila will pay special attention to the party development in both the Rift Valley and the Coast provinces. In both places the Prime Minister has identified people who can easily step into Ruto and Balala’s shoes. Raila’s job in doing this will be made very easy by national mobilization against tribal politics. Stigmatizing Ruto as a tribal leader, however, may be a lot easier than disgracing the non tribal Arab Balala who can only be fought by reminding the coastal Mijikenda people of the dishonorable historical role of the Arabs in that part of the world. That Raila can do most effectively through his charismatic public attraction.
To get the massive support of the Luhya people Raila is likely to groom Musalia Mudavadi as the country’s next President. It will not be surprising at all if Raila starts grooming some young man or woman for the position of Deputy President. Very much like Moi, Raila will soon start using top Government positions, including that of the Deputy Prime Minister as political baits to win popular support from all parts of the country. This method is likely to work wonders for Raila who is sure to be the Prime Minister of Kenya from 2012 for a very long time to come because, unlike the position of the President, there is no limited term of office for the premier.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Carson should have hit harder
Johnnie Carson’s ban on a senior Kenyan official is both timely and effective. The official has been stopped from visiting America. The US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs’ threat to 15 prominent Kenyans in September to ban them from visiting the US unless they stopped their systematic opposition to political reforms in Kenya, has now started to work. Since then the 15 have gone underground and don’t want to talk about the issue in public. They feel like lepers isolated from the rest of the community.
The Carson tactic could work wonders. When African politicians are stopped from traveling to Europe or America they feel completely disoriented and absolutely insulted. What good is money if it can’t buy all the goodies to be found in Western capitals? That is why many of them send their children to America and Western Europe for both secondary and university education though Kenya has more universities today than at any other time in history. A lot of our leaders have no trust in the country they lead. That is why many of them have their real bank accounts in either America and or in Western Europe.
Carson should therefore not only have banned a nameless influential individual Kenyan official, but he should also have named all the other 15 he had written to a month ago. And what is more he should have frozen all their bank accounts which contains money they have looted from the people of Kenya. Furthermore he should have announced that the children and other relatives of the named people now living in America were going to be deported back to Kenya. That is the language our leaders understand.
More than anyone else, Carson, who has served his country as the Ambassador in Nairobi, understands all the tricks in subterfuge that Kenyan leaders engage in while dealing with the international community. He knows, for example, when Kofi Annan visited the country recently, attempts were made to mislead him and make him believe the country was really serious in implementing Agenda Four reforms. Carson knows Annan found a lot of rotten skeletons in Kenyan leaders’ cupboards.
The visit by Kafi Annan to review reform progress, Carson knows, exposed Kenyan leaders as the most hypocritical people who can go as far as spending public funds to cheat and hoodwink wananchi into believing that the coalition Government was serious about Agenda Four. On October 4th when the former UN Secretary General landed on Kenya, the Government chose to shamelessly tell the people a complete lie through an advertisement in all the national newspapers by the Government spokesman, Dr. Alfred Mutua, who must obviously be underestimating the intelligence of the people of Kenya.
As if he was addressing primary school kids, Mutua imprudently told Kenyans that the Government had achieved what he called a “reform performance” Grade “A” or 90 per cent. The very thought of coming up with such a wicked propaganda, and in such thoughtless format, proved that the Government spokesman, and the people he speaks for, live in a completely different world from that in which the wananchi of this country dwell.
It took Kofi Annan a very short time to realize that the so called leaders of Kenya were planning for yet another bloodbath in the Rift Valley where Kikuyu Mungiki hooligans and Kalenjin militias are collecting dangerous military guns in preparation for another confrontation between them in 2012. Depending on a South Consulting report the former UN Secretary General warned that serious crimes in Kenya were going up and that warlords, who have always won elections in Kenya through threats and bloodshed, hadn’t gone to sleep, but were indeed still preparing to kill more Kenyans in three year’s time.
The South Consulting October report says although post-election violence ended with the signing of the National Accord in February 2008, new forms of crime have arisen in different parts of the country. In areas affected by post election violence, threats against certain communities perceived as ‘outsiders’ persist. Kenyans must be wondering why it took Kofi Annan to come all the way from Europe to expose a heinous plot by our leaders to remain in power through mass murders.
Carson is also aware that on October 6th Raila and Kibaki tried to sanitize Mutua’s dirty propaganda by paying for full page advertisements in all the national papers, and telling the people a story closer to the truth regarding the progress Kenya was making in achieving Agenda Four reforms. But up and above Agenda Four, Carson is likely to raise the issue of insecurity in the country, with the two principals. It is amazing that neither President Kibaki nor Prime Minister Odinga has come up with convincing truth about the security situation in the country. None of them has come up with a clear condemnation on the preparation for war between Kikuyus and Kalenjins in the Rift Valley.
While in Kenya, Carson will most certainly raise the issue with the two principals and demand that the two become more open to the people about the dangerous issue. He must have read the South Consulting October report which says there is a continuation of old illegal armed groups and the emergence of new ones. According to the report some of the new ones have mutated from the old groups. Further, the report says, the groups are emboldened by the failure to successfully prosecute members suspected to have taken part in criminal activities in the past. As reported in the past reports, says the report, lack of policy guidelines on how to deal with organized crime and the fact that some groups enjoy the backing of powerful political leaders have combined to limit actions that would eliminate these groups. This notwithstanding, adds the report, criminal groups have no support among Kenyans -- many people prefer the police to these groups.
The news about constant meetings among Kalenjin Leaders must be extremely worrying. They claim to be meeting about “social and cultural issues”. If that is the case then why are the agendas of these meetings not made public? Why are journalists not invited to the meetings? Another group of leaders engaged in clandestine meetings is that from the Central Province. They claim to be planning “one man one vote” in the next general election. The relationship between the Kalenjins and the Kikuyus has been disturbingly cool ever since the last general election when the two ethnic groups were virtually engaged in a civil war. What is the Government doing to harmonize the relationship between these vital ethnic groups in the country? When Kofi Annan warns of planned conflict in 2012 whom exactly did he have in mind? And why do journalists not write exposes on these national stories? What has happened to investigative journalism in this country?
The Carson tactic could work wonders. When African politicians are stopped from traveling to Europe or America they feel completely disoriented and absolutely insulted. What good is money if it can’t buy all the goodies to be found in Western capitals? That is why many of them send their children to America and Western Europe for both secondary and university education though Kenya has more universities today than at any other time in history. A lot of our leaders have no trust in the country they lead. That is why many of them have their real bank accounts in either America and or in Western Europe.
Carson should therefore not only have banned a nameless influential individual Kenyan official, but he should also have named all the other 15 he had written to a month ago. And what is more he should have frozen all their bank accounts which contains money they have looted from the people of Kenya. Furthermore he should have announced that the children and other relatives of the named people now living in America were going to be deported back to Kenya. That is the language our leaders understand.
More than anyone else, Carson, who has served his country as the Ambassador in Nairobi, understands all the tricks in subterfuge that Kenyan leaders engage in while dealing with the international community. He knows, for example, when Kofi Annan visited the country recently, attempts were made to mislead him and make him believe the country was really serious in implementing Agenda Four reforms. Carson knows Annan found a lot of rotten skeletons in Kenyan leaders’ cupboards.
The visit by Kafi Annan to review reform progress, Carson knows, exposed Kenyan leaders as the most hypocritical people who can go as far as spending public funds to cheat and hoodwink wananchi into believing that the coalition Government was serious about Agenda Four. On October 4th when the former UN Secretary General landed on Kenya, the Government chose to shamelessly tell the people a complete lie through an advertisement in all the national newspapers by the Government spokesman, Dr. Alfred Mutua, who must obviously be underestimating the intelligence of the people of Kenya.
As if he was addressing primary school kids, Mutua imprudently told Kenyans that the Government had achieved what he called a “reform performance” Grade “A” or 90 per cent. The very thought of coming up with such a wicked propaganda, and in such thoughtless format, proved that the Government spokesman, and the people he speaks for, live in a completely different world from that in which the wananchi of this country dwell.
It took Kofi Annan a very short time to realize that the so called leaders of Kenya were planning for yet another bloodbath in the Rift Valley where Kikuyu Mungiki hooligans and Kalenjin militias are collecting dangerous military guns in preparation for another confrontation between them in 2012. Depending on a South Consulting report the former UN Secretary General warned that serious crimes in Kenya were going up and that warlords, who have always won elections in Kenya through threats and bloodshed, hadn’t gone to sleep, but were indeed still preparing to kill more Kenyans in three year’s time.
The South Consulting October report says although post-election violence ended with the signing of the National Accord in February 2008, new forms of crime have arisen in different parts of the country. In areas affected by post election violence, threats against certain communities perceived as ‘outsiders’ persist. Kenyans must be wondering why it took Kofi Annan to come all the way from Europe to expose a heinous plot by our leaders to remain in power through mass murders.
Carson is also aware that on October 6th Raila and Kibaki tried to sanitize Mutua’s dirty propaganda by paying for full page advertisements in all the national papers, and telling the people a story closer to the truth regarding the progress Kenya was making in achieving Agenda Four reforms. But up and above Agenda Four, Carson is likely to raise the issue of insecurity in the country, with the two principals. It is amazing that neither President Kibaki nor Prime Minister Odinga has come up with convincing truth about the security situation in the country. None of them has come up with a clear condemnation on the preparation for war between Kikuyus and Kalenjins in the Rift Valley.
While in Kenya, Carson will most certainly raise the issue with the two principals and demand that the two become more open to the people about the dangerous issue. He must have read the South Consulting October report which says there is a continuation of old illegal armed groups and the emergence of new ones. According to the report some of the new ones have mutated from the old groups. Further, the report says, the groups are emboldened by the failure to successfully prosecute members suspected to have taken part in criminal activities in the past. As reported in the past reports, says the report, lack of policy guidelines on how to deal with organized crime and the fact that some groups enjoy the backing of powerful political leaders have combined to limit actions that would eliminate these groups. This notwithstanding, adds the report, criminal groups have no support among Kenyans -- many people prefer the police to these groups.
The news about constant meetings among Kalenjin Leaders must be extremely worrying. They claim to be meeting about “social and cultural issues”. If that is the case then why are the agendas of these meetings not made public? Why are journalists not invited to the meetings? Another group of leaders engaged in clandestine meetings is that from the Central Province. They claim to be planning “one man one vote” in the next general election. The relationship between the Kalenjins and the Kikuyus has been disturbingly cool ever since the last general election when the two ethnic groups were virtually engaged in a civil war. What is the Government doing to harmonize the relationship between these vital ethnic groups in the country? When Kofi Annan warns of planned conflict in 2012 whom exactly did he have in mind? And why do journalists not write exposes on these national stories? What has happened to investigative journalism in this country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
