Implementation of the constitution must remain a paramount agenda in the year 2011. The Parliament should urgently put into place the necessary legislations to effect the process. However, there are some critical institutions which yearn for urgent reforms and reconstitution.
The institution of cabinet as currently constituted in size, credibility and integrity cries for urgent reconstitution at least to be in consonance with the spirit of the constitution. Kenyans deserve progressive and reformed institutions. Establishment of strong institution will earn citizens confidence and avoid embarrassing situations where foreigners have in the past intervened to give prescriptions on issues of governance and internal disputes resolution on matters such as PEV.
Public office holders must be men and women of integrity. President Kibaki should submit to the spirit of the constitution and appoints a dignified council of ministers. The new constitution calls for a lean, credible and efficient cabinet. Chapter 6 of the constitution provides that all public officers including ministers must be people of sound morals and integrity.
Individuals with retrogressive ideas: tainted morals, questionable history in public/private service or known disgraceful political records should exit the cabinet forthwith. It is despicable that people whose names are synonymous with corruption, nepotism and outright incompetence continue to sit in the government.
Cabinet ministers who are suspected of perpetrating mega scams have no business masquerading as leaders and should resign and or be forced out of office. Land grabbers, thieves of public monies, tribalists and other barbarians should be ejected from the cabinet.
It is ironical that a culture of stepping aside is creeping in the public service; suspected public office abusers must upon resigning must be replaced with men and women of honour.
Public servants must demonstrate high level of leadership both in their public and private engagements. They must remain patriotic and sensitive to real challenges facing the nation and its citizens. A leader who seems indifferent to plight affecting Wananchi and the nation has
no business sitting in a public office. Arrogant comments attributable to some members of cabinet leave one wondering whether they live in the same society with the rest of Kenyans.
Recently I read a documentary of a cabinet minister who was quoted priding himself of owning 1500 hectares ranch and several others in Nakuru, feeding a lion at 1.4 million shilling and shamelessly making joke of naming a cheeter cage in his ranch as Hague. Such a minister is in the same category as his colleague who rudely belches in an air condition office castigating poor workers for not remitting premiums for NHIF funds and announcing his lunch date worth 2500/= shillings.
This altitude is not good for public servants since public service is honour which should be courted with dedication, humbleness and patriotism.
Ours is a capitalist society and there is nothing wrong with leading affluent lifestyles, however in a country afflicted by IDP menace, landlessness, abject poverty, insecurity, alcoholism, unemployment and other myriads social economic and political challenges a sensible leader should keep to himself issues which would appear to ridicule ordinary citizens.
It is pertinent to remind such leaders that this country is seating on a time bomb as the social economic gap in our society continue to widen due to inequitable distribution of public resources and opportunities. Sound policies to narrow this social-economic gap must be found to avoid an imminent explosion.
As the country struggle with the best solution to address the PEV and how to redeem its image in the international forum particularly on issue of seeking justice for victims and suspects of PEV and enhancement of national reconciliation, peace and sovereignty. It is abominable for some leaders make dry jokes of The Hague issue and or celebrate the circumstances of the suspects. Rather such leaders should engage their minds in exploring suitable ways of settling this issue
including establishment a special domestic court
Politicians who wine tribalism, dine nepotism, dream corruption should be uprooted from the cabinet. Ministers who crusade against settlement of IDP at certain parts of the country represent dark days of yester politics. This is contrary to express constitutional provisions allowing citizens to live and coexist anywhere in the country. Equally disgraceful are ministers who hold misguided thinking that government tenders, contracts and appointments are a preserve of their kin and kith. Kenyan should be spared such people as their leaders..
As the country address itself to the issue of public service appointments, it will be repugnant to hold a belief that certain fellows have monopoly of occupying cabinet slots due to their political
associations, dynasties and affiliations. A casual observation reveals that at least three quotas of the sitting ministers are unsuitable for office.
Recently the country witnessed sound political contribution from first timer’s legislators in parliamentary committee. This is clear confirmation that this country is not short of capable leaders. Men and women who have in the past demonstrated impeccable credentials in the reform process should serve in the government and not otherwise.
George N. Kimani,(The author is an Advocate of the High Court, Email.gkihingo@yahoo.com)
Showing posts with label Grand Coalition Issues. Show all posts
A reformed progressive cabinet is what Kenyans need - Lawyer George N. Kimani
The Kenyan Maize Scandal Timeline
Early 2008
Maize yields and stocks significantly low due to the destruction of close to 3.5 million bags of maize during the post-election violence, which also reduced the area under maize production by 30 per cent.
Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) fertiliser skyrocket by 240%.
June 2008
High cost of petrol internationally results in high costs of transport and inputs, in turn causing the price of maize and related products to shoot up from Ksh48 (US cents 64) for a 2kg packet of flour to a high of Ksh130 ($1.73).
July 2008 - June 2009
The estimated shortfall in maize production over the period hits 11.5 million bags.
September 2008
Grain millers and traders ask the government to ease grain importation rules and taxes so as to bring down food prices.
November 2008
Cabinet approves the importation of 5 million bags of maize to mitigate the looming crisis. The first consignment arrives in Mombasa in October 2008. The maize originates from South Africa and US.
Allegations about possible shoddy dealings in the handling of maize start to emerge as a cabinet committee headed by the Prime Minister launches investigation.
December 2008
Media reports reveal that farmers are hoarding maize in protest against the government's decision to fix the price of the crop at a much lower rate than what is paid for imports. The government was paying about Kshs 3,000 ($40) for every sack of imported maize but paid KShs 1,950 ($26) to local farmers for the same quantity of grain.
The government designs a plan to supply cheap maize flour but the plan runs into trouble amid allegations of corruption.
Newspaper reports allege the loss of 100,000 bags of maize. The Cereal Millers Association spokesperson claims that only 40,000 bags pf the 144,000 bags of maize set aside by the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) had reached its members and queries the destination of the other 100,000 bags.
The government waives duty on imported maize as five out of six managers of the NCPB are sacked by Agriculture Minister William Ruto over allegations of corruption.
The grain shortage reaches emergency levels as over 10 million people are reported to be facing starvation.
February 2009
Special programmes Permanent Secretary Ali Mohamed announces that the government is set to release 200,000 bags of maize to the famine relief programme from the Strategic Grain Reserve (SGR).
Trustees of the SGR authorise allocations to millers reducing its stocks to levels far below the required 4 million bags, thus exposing the country to severe famine in case of any shortfalls in production.
Following press reports, MPs admit to buying maize from the NCPB as well as writing letters requesting for allocations to individuals known to them. Some of the MPs claimed that they requested for the allocations after hearing that their colleagues were doing the same.
Prime Minister Raila Odinga orders a forensic audit of the National Cereals and Produce Board to establish the magnitude of the maize scandal
March 2009
Maize imported by the government continues to arrive at the port of Mombasa.
April 2009
Parliament's Departmental on Agriculture, Lands and Natural Reosurces calls for investigations to be carried out on the alleged role played by the Prime Minister's family in the maize scandal.
May 2009
Controversy emerges about the suitability of part of the imported maize for human consumption amidst revelations that 6,000 tonnes of imported maize is contaminated
The Ministry of Public Health issues a public alert over the circulation of contamintaed maize reported missing from Grain Bulk Handlers Ltd
MPs absolve the Prime Minister, his family and his office from blame in the maize scandal by deleting clauses in the Departmental Committee on Agriculture, Lands and Natural Resources Report that had linked them to the scandal. The entire report is also rejected on grounds that it was "politically engineered" and was "absolutely clumsy"
June 2009
Government makes arrangements for the condemned maize to be shipped back to the country of origin.
February 2010
A government commissioned audit report by PriceWaterhouse Coopers reveals massive irregularities in the Subsidised Maize Scheme, This results in the sacking or resignation of eight top officials, including three Permanent Secretaries— Dr Romano Kiome (Agriculture), Ali Mohamed (Speciai Programmes), and Dr Mohammed Isahakia (Prime Minister's office) — as well as the PM's chief of staff Caroli Omondi, the managing director of the National Cereals and Produce Board Prof Gideon Misoi, NCPB sales and marketing manager James Boit and Mr Robert Langat
An attempt by the Prime Minister to suspend the Minister for Agriculture (and his Education for a separate, unrelated scandal) flops after President Kibaki declares that the PM has exceeded his authority Tensions within the governing coalition rise to breaking point.
Source: The East African
Miguna Miguna: Kibe wrong on Raila's powers - The Star
Only in Kenya would you have sound bites accompanied by one-line political utterances referred to as "legal opinion by the Attorney-General". It is equally sad, disappointing and quite embarrassing when one reads "opinions" by "legal experts" like Kibe Mungai, trying to trash clear constitutional provisions through misrepresentation: (See yesterday's the Star article on Page 15 headed, None has Powers to Suspend Ministers).
Mungai says "prior to the enactment of the National Accord Act the appointment and dismissal of ministers and their assistants was governed by Sections 16 and 19 of the constitution which allowed the President to remove them".
However, he argues that "when the National Accord happened on our shores this position was marginally altered through a new section 15A(3) to provide that Parliament may provide for the appointment and termination of office of the PM, DPM and ministers."
In other words, Mungai is acknowledging that a constitutional amendment was made that significantly reduced the President's power to appoint and dismiss ministers. He is also acknowledging it is that constitutional amendment that created the position of the PM, DPMs and ministers.
But Mungai then gets carried away and confuses the functions of the three arms of government.
He argues, unreasonably, that only Parliament can appoint or remove ministers. It is baffling why Mungai casually refers to the signing of the National Accord arid its entrenchment into the constitution as a "happening" on our shores.
Mungai argues further that "the legal changes... created three positions for Raila. First, under Section 15A(4) Raila is a minister although a first among equals. Secondly... the PM whose functions are to coordinate and supervise functions of government, including those of ministries. (Note the word used is ministries rather than minister).
"Thirdly, under Section 4(2), Raila is the parliamentary leader of ODM and it is in that capacity that he nominated half of the Cabinet."
Mungai tries to term constitutional changes as "legal" hoping this would limit their significance. He purports that the National Accord was only signed and entrenched in the constitution to give Raila a job in government; that Raila is a mere "minister" and that he is only authorised to supervise "ministries" not "ministers".
Mungai then says Raila only became PM because he was the leader of ODM. What cheek?
Mungai knows that the sections he deliberately cites without quoting deal with the formation of the coalition government, which clearly stipulates that the "leader of the largest political party in the National Assembly" would become PM. Isn't it desperate for a lawyer to assert that the word "ministries" excludes "ministers"?
Mungai goes on: "The unadulterated truth is that the PM is vested with statutory powers. I readily concede the fact this revelation begs several questions in view of Section 15A(5) which provides that the National Accord Act shall be read as part of the constitution".
So what is Mungai's unadulterated truth? That the National Accord's entrenchment in the constitution amounts to a statute? Is he implying that Section 15A(5), which actually says the National Accord takes precedence over provisions of the constitution that contradict it, isn't applicable?
Mungai's argument is fundamentally incompetent and both logically and legally defective.
Everyone knows that the accord is part and parcel of the constitution and that its provisions must be read with the rest of the constitution. Mungai contradicts himself when, having stated before and after that only Parliament can suspend or dismiss ministers, he then argues that the President can, after consulting the PM.
Mungai exposes either his limited legal knowledge or obvious bias in this statement: "The constitution does not expressly authorise Kibaki with or without the consultations with or consent of the PM to suspend ministers. If the constitution does not provide for the exercise of any power that does not mean that the ambitious can claim or usurp such powers."
If the constitution does not give Kibaki power to suspend or fire ministers, why did he purport to rescind the PM's order of suspension?
From Isaiah Kabira's statement that Kibaki is Raila's boss, to Mungai's utterance that Raila is a mere minister, one sees a logical thread: That Kibaki and his PNU brigade have refused to accept, respect and come to terms with the National Accord. They have also refused to accept the tenets of a coalition government.
The writer is the PM's adviser on coalition affairs and joint secretary to the Permanent Committee on the Management of Coalition Affairs. The opinions expressed here are his own.
Kibe Mungai: None has power to suspend ministers - The Star
The dispute provoked by Raila Odinga's decision to suspend two ministers goes beyond the question of whether or not he consulted President Kibaki. The real issue is whether ministers can be suspended from office either under the constitution or the National Accord.
Prior to the enactment of the National Accord Act the appointment and dismissal of ministers and their assistants was governed by Sections 16 and 19 of the constitution which allowed the President to remove them. When the National Accord happened on our shores this position was marginally altered through a new Section 15A(3) to provide that Parliament may provide for the appointment and termination of office of the PM, DPMs and ministers.
The legal changes to establish the coalition created three positions for Raila. First, under Section 15A(4) Raila is a minister although the first among equals. Secondly under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the accord, Raila is the Prime Minister whose functions are to co-ordinate and supervise the functions of government, including those of ministries. (Note the word used is ministries rather than ministers). Thirdly, under Section 4(2), Raila is the parliamentary leader of ODM and it is in that capacity that he nominated half of the Cabinet.
By now the keen reader must have noticed the inconvenient truth that lawyers such as Miguna Miguna have been trying to mask or muddle with litres of ink over the last two years, namely that the so-called constitutional powers of the PM are nothing but legal fiction.
The unadulterated truth is that the PM is vested with statutory powers. I readily concede the fact this revelation begs several questions in view of Section 15A(5) which provides that the National Accord Act shall be read as part of the constitution.
However, there are three quick rejoinders to the envisaged counter-argument. First, the words that an Act of Parliament "shall be read as part of this constitution" does not make a given statute a part of the constitution or confer its provisions the same status as constitutional provisions but simply requires that the same be read jointly with the constitution to give its full meaning and effect.
Secondly, in anticipation of the National Accord, Section 3 of the constitution was amended to give it constitutional immunity from challenge in court on the grounds of inconsistency with the constitution. Thirdly, the Act was actually passed using simple majority voting rules and can be repealed in the same way just like other statutes.
Viewed this way, the question as to whether the PM can lawfully suspend ministers is easy to answer. First as PM, Raila has no such power because according to Section 51 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act Cap 2, the powers to suspend arise from the power of appointment.
Secondly, as the parliamentary leader of ODM, Raila cannot dismiss or remove ministers — including those from ODM — because Section 4(5) of the Act recognises that the removal of ministers shall be by the President except that he must be consulted when it comes to ODM ministers. Even after the enactment of the Act, the appointment and removal of ministers remains the constitutional function of the President.
Finally it is doubtful whether the President himself with or without the consultation with or consent of Raila can suspend ministers. At the technical level, so long as appointment and dismissal of ministers is government by the constitution, Section 51 of the Interpretation Act (Cap 2) does not apply and so the fact that the President appoints and dismisses ministers does not give him the power to suspend them.
The Act does not apply to the constitution because, unlike the National Accord Act and other statutes, the constitution is not considered a statute.
Secondly, there is no such thing as disciplining of ministers which would entail powers of suspension. In the nature of their functions ministers are either in office or out — there is no middle ground. There are good reasons why this is so.
Since suspension creates no vacancy in the Cabinet there would be a constitutional vacuum if the President could exercise such powers because one man rule could easily be created through suspension of ministers. In short, as integral components of government, ministers are never suspended, they are removed and replaced to ensure smooth government.
Thirdly, the constitution does not expressly authorise Kibaki with or without the consultations with or consent of the PM to suspend ministers.
If the constitution does not provide for the exercise of any power that does not mean that the ambitious can claim or usurp such powers. In democracies the law enumerates all the powers of the governors — unenumerated powers vests in the people and is not exercisable by whoever claims such powers.
Finally, so long as the constitutional status of Raila is that of minister of the government, law, reason and common sense dictate that he has no power to suspend, let alone remove, fellow ministers. It is really this simple when you think about it without blinkers!
Mungai is a lawyer.
Rachel Sbebesh: Big 2 fight is about Kibaki succession - The Star
It is political high season following the clash between the two principals over the "suspension" of ministers William Ruto and Sam Ongeri.
Our self-serving "experts" now subject us to treatises interpreting the coalition powers. There is a media frenzy with lopsided intellectual arguments, conspiracy theories and juvenile debate.
Wananchi share the discourse huddled in estate corners, pubs and village barazas. Politicians, myself included, engage in bare-knuckled exchanges, cheerleading and seek to outdo each other at funerals and harambees.
This impasse between the two principals is no longer about who is right or wrong over Ruto and Ongeri. Plainly said, it is about the intertwined forces of corruption and succession politics.
The ordinary mwananchi may not appreciate the magnitude of corruption and its capacity to fight back as alluded to by former anti-corruption czar John Githongo and Aaron Ring'era.
The lack of political will to fight corruption is a fact. If Raila is politically responsible for the misdeeds of a government whose operations he supervises and coordinates, then Kibaki is equally culpable for denying him the tools (read power) to right the wrongs.
The most recent scandals — Grand Regency, maize, free primary funds and Triton, politically speaking, all belong to ministries under the PNU wing of the coalition (even though maize was partly administered by a parastatal under Agriculture).
It is difficult not to read mischief into the power play against Raila by Kibaki. When Kibaki rescinded Raila's decision, he barely scratched the surface on the substantive issue of corruption.
And Kibaki suspended the various PSs because he wanted to share the moral high ground after officials in Raila's office had resigned.
Kibaki has been lukewarm towards Mau which is a "Raila" project. You can see revenge and succession proxy wars being played out. If a schism can be wedged between the PM and the Kalenjin, or any other community for that matter, then Kibaki's succession plan gains.
How can the Prime Minister exercise responsibility without authority? Clearly the management chain and unity of command have been redefined. Kibaki is encouraging anarchy and insubordination in the management of government affairs.
The timing of Raila's suspension of Ruto and Ongeri may be treated with suspicion, considering the fallout with some Rift Valley leaders and pressure from donors on the free primary education. I accept it may have been politically expedient for Raila to play to the gallery with a selective war against corruption.
But the battle lines are drawn. I don't believe the deep rooted rifts between the two principals can be resolved by Kofi Annan. In fact it is not in Kibaki's interests to have them resolved because they afford the opportunity to exercise his perceived imperial presidency.
Notwithstanding, the culture of holding leaders to account must start immediately.
The current stalemate between Kibaki and Raila is a red herring meant to distract Kenyans from the issues that safeguard their future and that of their grand-children. Many leaders will want this debate to last forever while they preserve the status quo of deals, ill-gotten gains, and power sharing.
The only reason Kenya has not slid into a failed state is through the resolve and resilience of the wananchi. If only they realised how much people power they wield, yote ingewezekana.
Kenyans, let us now give the constitution making process top priority. Do not be derailed from this process and do not let politi-cians dictate when you should have it. With its minimum acceptable safeguards, demand it now and let's modify it as we move along. But the end game of that document should be a General Election not later than mid 2011.
Kenyans, don't accept lip service on comprehensive institutional reforms. Clamour for them at every opportunity. Use all public events and national days to agitate both for this and the constitution. Let your national leaders appreciate the urgency. Boycott functions if necessary. It will be pointless to achieve the constitution and still meet an inept judiciary or security organs headed by individuals heavily implicated in the post-election violence.
Let us force compliance of a once and for all settlement of all IDPs by mid-2010.The current bickering is callous when victims of political violence still languish in makeshift homes.
Hopefully, by the time we go for the elections next year under a new constitution, the answers we seek today will be answered. Who holds the moral high ground? Who do Kenyans trust most? Who is playing politics? Who are the mavericks? Who are the vultures in our midst? But when we do make that choice, let's agree to live with it. As they say, leaders mirror their society.
Shebesh is an ODM nominated MP and a member of the PanAfrican Parliament.
Miguna Miguna: What would trigger an end to coalition? - The Star
What triggers the dissolution of the grand coalition government and with what legal, constitutional and political consequences? These are the questions Kenyans are asking and pundits are falling over themselves to understand and explain.
Embarrassingly, PNU and their sympathisers are positing that if the coalition government dissolves, then President Kibaki and the party will "continue" with the government "as it was before" with the only difference being that the Prime Minister and ODM would not be part of that government. The PNU has belligerently threatened to bring a censure motion against the PM to prepare ground for such an eventuality.
However, before we get lost in the jungle of PNU's partisan political posturing, let's examine what the law that brought this government into being says.
Section 6 of the National Accord and Reconciliation Act (2008) says the coalition stands dissolved if any of the three things happen: if the Tenth Parliament is dissolved; or if the coalition parties agree in writing; or if one coalition partner withdraws from the coalition by a resolution of the highest decision-making organ of that party in writing. A censure motion is not one of those triggers.
Under a coalition arrangement, Parliament can only be dissolved under two distinct circumstances: firstly, if the two coalition principals agree in writing that Parliament should be dissolved and elections called; or secondly, if the two coalition parties — ODM and PNU — agree through resolutions, in writing, by their respective highest decision-making organs to dissolve Parliament.
There is no legal allowance for either of the principals to act precipitously in dissolving Parliament or declaring a withdrawal from the coalition. Nor can either principal act alone. And despite a lot of noise by self-declared legal experts on these issues, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the above conditions are likely to occur. Strictly speaking, those conditions don't currently exist.
There exists no written agreement on the dissolution of the coalition. Neither ODM nor PNU has suggested that they contemplate summoning their respective national delegates' conferences to individually and separately resolve, in writing, to withdraw from the coalition. It is highly unlikely that both parties will agree in writing to dissolve the coalition.
If the coalition was dis-solved, its dissolution would result in fresh elections because the coalition is a constitutional creature brought into being by the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, which is entrenched in the constitution.
The President and Prime Minister derive their mandates from the National Accord. If the National Accord is repealed by a two thirds majority vote in the Parliament, both principals will become jobless except for positions they hold in their respective political parties.
In a democratic and constitutional democracy, the mandate to govern is granted by the people through elections. Yet the 2007 presidential elections were indeterminate and therefore gave neither the PM nor the President the mandate to govern alone. They both acknowledge this in the Preamble of the National Accord. However, the 2007 elections gave a mandate on the ODM to govern by virtue of being the largest parliamentary party.
Without the authority derived from the National Accord, both principals have no other source of legal or constitutional authority. With the dissolution of the coalition, fresh elections would be triggered so that whichever party wins the polls can govern alone.
Legally, neither party can chase the other from the coalition either through a censure motion, vote of no confidence or impeachment. The only way both principals can be replaced and the coalition government continue is if they voluntarily resign, cease to be MPs or if their political parties replace them. Is that likely to happen?
By signing the accord and declaring that "given the disputed elections and the divisions in Parliament and the country, neither side can govern without the other" and that "there needs to be real power sharing to move the country forward," both principals recognised that (a) President Kibaki's first term ended on December 30, 2007; (b) the 2007 elections resulted in no mandate being granted to any party or person; and (c) that the only mandate the coalition principals and the government have was granted by the accord, whose termination would result in the termination of the entire.government.
Under the circumstances, a vote of no confidence would be a waste of time. It would have no legal or constitutional consequence whatsoever. And to dissolve the coalition government, one must repeal the National Accord and Reconciliation Act. Such action would trigger fresh elections to enable the people to choose their leaders.
The writer is PM's adviser, coalition affairs and joint secretary to the Permanent Committee on the Management of Grand Coalition Affairs. The opinions expressed here are his own.
Wycliffe Muga: Kibaki, Raila cant work in harmony - The Star
On the one hand we have Raila Odinga, backed by his ODM party, insisting that he acted well within his constitutional powers, in "suspending" the minister for Education Sam Ongeri and Agriculture minister William Ruto, both of whose ministries have featured prominently in corruption scandals.
On the other, we have President Kibaki, supported by his PNU party and their affiliates, arguing that the PM has no such powers at all.
Now, if you wish to understand why something of this kind was inevitable and also why there is really no reason to worry about it, the question you should ask concerning the two principals is: Who are these men, and what do they want?
I do not mean what they want in the long term, as the answer to that I imagine is "eternal life in heaven". Rather, what do they want to see happen over the next few years, leading up to the 2012 General Election?
And when you consider this, it becomes obvious not only why their paths had to diverge at some point, but also why this divergence is merely harmless political posturing.
First the President: I think it is reasonable to say that the he has long given up hope of going down in history as the President who ended corruption that has for so many years plagued the country. There have simply been too many corruption scandals, too much of business as usual under his watch for this to even remotely feature in a realistic assessment of his presidency.
Then of course there was the matter of his doubtful "victory" in December 2007, and the post-election violence that followed on it.
But he does not have to worry about reelection. And finally, and in many ways by far the most significant factor, there is his continued poor health which limits him to only the bare minimum of exertion in the conduct of his official duties.
All this suggests a man who is really just biding his time, waiting for the day when he will leave all this behind him and take a well-deserved rest; a man who has no stomach for any aggressive steps or for making hard decisions.
The PM is the precise opposite of this. He seems convinced that he has a rendezvous with destiny and that he is possibly the only man who can turn this country around and bring about fundamental change, whether it be in ending corruption, or in transforming Kenya from a low-income country into a newly industrialised country.
More significant yet, for his relationships with the president, Raila obviously believes that he won the December 2007 presidential election, and that he only gave way to President Kibaki for the good of the country. And he plainly intends to be either president or PM after 2012, depending on which office will have real power at that time.
So when you combine a very passive president like Kibaki with a supremely dynamic PM like Raila under these specific circumstances, what do you expect?
I believe you get a situation in which the PM will constantly be "pushing the envelope"; flexing his muscles; seeing how far he can push the president to fall in with his priorities.
As for what these priorities are, I would say it seems Raila has his eyes unwaveringly focused on a future election. Despite all his talk about being willing to give up politics and "sell mandazi" if that should be the price for doing the right thing, in whatever steps he takes, his guiding principle seems to be, "How will this look in 2012?"
For the PM faces a huge problem when it comes to that election: He has always had his most remarkable electoral successes when he has been able to present himself as a reformist outsider competing with entrenched insiders, who have betrayed the legitimate expectations of Kenyans.
But in 2012, he will not be an outsider: as the PM, he will be very much an insider. So how can he then claim to be the virtuous outsider who is out to evict the corrupt insiders from the throne of power?
In the final part of this analysis, I will explain what I think the PM is trying to do, in order to ensure that despite being very much at the centre of power right now he will be able to present himself as a champion of the people against the corrupters inside government come 2012.
Muga comments on topical issues.
Did Raila Plot the Crisis - By Star Reporter
DID Prime Minister Raila Odinga and some of his ODM colleagues start plotting long to paralyse the government?
Or did the overturned suspension of Agriculture minister William Ruto and Education minister Sam Ongeri last Sunday unexpectedly precipitate a crisis in the coalition?
Raila wrote the African Union on February 8 requesting the return of Chief Mediator Kofi Annan to Kenya because the failure to tackle corruption could lead to "a complete paralysis in government". That was a full six days before the fateful suspension.
But three months ago, when Annan was in Kenya in November, the PM verbally complained that President Kibaki had refused his request to reshuffle ministers.
"Dr Annan confirmed that he had raised the issue with President Kibaki who promised to have the changes made early in January," said a source in Raila's office, Raila reportedly wanted a mini reshuffle with Ruto demoted to a junior ministry and Sports minister Hellen Sambili sacked.
Yesterday Gem MP Jakoyo Midiwo, a close confidant of Raila's insisted that Kibaki had refused Raila's request to reshuffle the Cabinet.
Agriculture minister Ruto issued a statement yesterday saying there was no crisis in government "except that which had been orchestrated by a few individuals which exists in their scheme".
"These leaders should not be allowed to create despair in the country through orchestrated disputes, fermented paralysis or engineered confusion and Kenyans should treat their schemes with the contempt it deserves," said Ruto.
He said the escalation of hostilities was linked to ODM's changed position on the Naivasha draft and "the crisis has been orchestrated to derail efforts to have a new constitution".
The PNU supporters are claiming that Raila plotted long ago to cause a crisis within the Cabinet to shift attention from the maize scandal to power sharing and the National Accord.
Last night ODM secretary general Anyang Nyong'o dismissed claims by PNU that the crisis was manufactured.
"PNU is crazy and illogical. They argue with their bellies and not their heads," said Nyong'o.
The ODM chief whip Jakoyo Midiwo also denied that Raila planned the crisis and instead accused the PNU side of disrespect.
"To say that we planned the crisis is utter rubbish," said Midiwo.
To prove its conspiracy theory, PNU has questioned why Raila wrote to the AU on February 8 predicting a breakdown in government well before he purported to suspend Ruto and Ongeri last Sunday.
"There exists a serious dispute between the parties with regard to the functioning of the cabinet. The parties are unable to agree on how to tackle cases of corruption affecting the government as a whole and some ministers. There may soon be a complete paralysis of the government," Raila wrote in his letter.
After upsetting the Kenyan political cart, Raila flew out to Japan on Sunday evening.
On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi announced that the PM was officially declaring there was a crisis in the Cabinet and that the ODM wanted Annan back for mediation.
When asked by reporters if ODM had officially written to the AU, Musalia did not mention Raila's letter but said the party was in the process of writing a formal letter to AU.
The PNU operatives claim that Raila elaborately stage-managed the whole scenario.
They claimed that Raila was next in the firing line as he chaired the Cabinet Ad Hoc committee that handled the importation and distribution of subsidised maize in 2008 when Kenya was suffering a serious food deficit.
"The grandstanding and fomenting of a crisis is a well organised plan that started three weeks ago. Indeed, we are aware that Kofi Annan was invited to come to Kenya to settle a dispute, way before there was any dispute," said Kibaki's adviser on constitution and coalition affairs Prof Kivutha Kibwana.
However the conspiracy theory is undermined by the fact that Raila first publicly recommended on February 5 that Ongeri and his PS Karega Mutahi step down in the presence of President Kibaki at KIA. That was three days before he wrote to the AU.
And the idea that Raila wanted a crisis is further undermined by his statement on February 12 when he chaired a National Economic Social Council meeting in Naivasha whose participants included Mudavadi, Head of Public Service Francis Muthaura, and business people from the private sector.
He told them to forget about politics and build Kenya's economy.
"He was very categorical that the government needed to work together to realize Vision 2030. The two health ministers Anyang Nyong'o and Beth Mugo made presentations and were even calling each other by their first names. There was no indication whatsoever that ODM and PNU had issues," said a senior government official who attended the Naivasha meeting.
That was the day before his PS Isahakia and Secretary Caroli Omondi resigned, prompting President Kibaki to formally suspend them along with three other PSs and top NCPB officials.
At that stage, it looked like the two principals had finally come together to fight corruption.
On Sunday February 14, the day after, Raila announced he was suspending Ongeri and Ruto. Kibaki overturned that order and it then looked like the two principals had finally split on corruption.
But the PNU still insists that it is all a plot by Raila.
"Instead of the country focusing on the maize scandal and other pressing national issues, the Prime Minister's advisers want to take the country back to an interpretation of the National Accord," he said. "Kenyans should not accept to be derailed from the ongoing constitutional review, which is the most important agenda now."
"What is the Prime Minister's office really up to? What are they really covering up?" asked Kibwana.
PNU coalition spokesman Moses Kuria claimed his party has "credible information that the Prime Minister is planning to quit the coalition government immediately he returns from his overseas trip."
Wycliffe Muga: Kibaki Raila were bound to clash - The Star
In January 2008, I received a commission from an American magazine to write a 1,000 word opinion column explaining what on earth was happening in Kenya, and how it had come that this "island of peace" located in "one of the world's most turbulent areas" had descended into such chaos and madness.
That time, I had recently returned to the country after many months in the US, and was in fact not writing a regular column for any local newspaper.
And looking back, I suppose my perspective back then was really one of "the casually objective outsider" than what I might call "the passionately engaged and deeply disappointed Kenyan pundit", which was the tone of most political commentators at the time.
For what I wrote may easily have been interpreted to mean that I did not really care what happened to the country.
I wrote that in a country like Kenya something of this kind was bound to have happened sooner or later.
That Kenya usually stood out only because it was of geo-strategic interest to the great powers of our time, but it was basically just another poor African country: hopelessly riddled with inequality and tribalism; and that having an all-or-nothing electoral system along with a street culture of instant retributive violence had made it inevitable that sooner or later, political differences would take this extreme form that was now being displayed before our eyes.
I added that we could only hope that the fact that Kenyans had enjoyed about 40 years of uninterrupted tranquility would count for something and that Kenyans' long-nourished taste for peace would in the end prove to be stronger than the bitter tribal hatreds which then seemed to be assuming Rwandan proportions.
It turned out that this was not at all the kind of thing this magazine had expected. I was politely turned down, and the editors found some other Kenyan writer, whose article clinging to the myth of Kenyan exceptionalism was basically an extravagant lamentation at what was so unexpectedly happening to "our beloved country where for over 40 years we have lived as brothers and sisters", etc (Or so I seem to recall for there were so many highly emotional articles of that kind written by Kenyans for Western publications at that time that I may be confusing the article which replaced mine with something I read elsewhere.)
The happy ending to this story (at least where I was concerned) is that, apparently, these top American magazines, if they contract you to write for them, and do not like what you have written, will pay you 50 per cent of the contract sum anyway. This was my first experience of being paid for not having my work published.
And I have often thought since then that if I could regularly receive such useful amounts of money from publishers who had categorically rejected my work, it would be a perfect world.
But the reason I mention all this is that when I look at the current political storm-in-a-teacup that has upset so many observers both here and overseas, I find that the same unfashionable conclusion ("This was bound to happen sooner or later") is the one that presents itself.
I refer, of course, to the current rift in the coalition government over the Prime Minister Raila Odinga, having "suspended" Education minister Prof Sam Ongeri and Agriculture minister William Ruto, following scandals touching on their respective ministries and President Kibaki promptly "rescinding" that suspension, and stating that the PM in fact does not have any such powers to ask a Cabinet minister to vacate office, even if only for three months.
This is an event which has thrust Kenya back into international headlines (e.g, "Kenya's government teeters on collapse" in the Christian Science Monitor).
Admittedly not to the same degree as our unforgettable post-election violence, but still, enough to get foreign observers deliciously speculating if perhaps this is it; if there will once again be an opportunity for the massed cameras of the international media to return to Kenya, one of the few African nations where it is possible to cover a near-civil-war situation by day, and order room service while relaxing in a Jacuzzi in your five-star hotel by night.
So, why do I say that this kind of thing was bound to happen? Well, it is because the personal psychology of each of the two principals, as well as their immediate priorities at this time, made this inevitable. This I will explain in tomorrow's column.
Wycliffe Muga comments on topical issues.
Mwalimu Mati: Ultimate crisis will be poll with no register
Ignore him dear Kenyans, he's just trying to scare the political class straight and to get them to see their common interest in the perpetuation of the grand coalition status quo.
The legal opinion of the chief legal adviser of the Government of Kenya is weighty but incomplete. The context is missing, and those who would vote in such early elections are not whom Amos Wako is concerned about. Opinion polls show that levels of public support and satisfaction with the grand coalition are at an all-time low.
An early election is actually what many Kenyans want. Kenyans are fed up with the quarreling, crooked, bloated government that resulted from the National Accord and are ready to vote the bums out from presidential to parliamentary levels.
The government, which Amos Wako works so loyally for, has failed to re-enfranchise Kenyans with their vote. The voters' register was nullified by amendments to the constitution in 2008 and the new interim election commission has done nothing to start the registration process since it was formally established in 2009.
The only Kenyans who have valid voter's cards are in Shinyalu and Bomachoge constituencies; and they number less than 100,000 out of the 15 million who should be able to vote.
The old voter's cards that so many Kenyans still keep safe at home, just in case, may as well be burnt as they are of no use to us anymore because Parliament invalidated them. You can't vote with the old cards; but Amos Wako has never mentioned that, has he?
As things stand in February 2010, all but 100,000 Kenyans cannot vote because we do not have a national voters register.
Instead of dwelling on conflict potentiality in the draft constitution, or even endlessly debating about whom between Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga should discipline the many rotten ministers within the largest and most corrupt Cabinet in Kenyan history, Kenyans should be agitating for their existing constitutional right to vote to be immediately returned to them.
And the Attorney General if he is an honest legal adviser should be telling the political class that it has no option but to ensure immediate and comprehensive national voter registration to avoid the ultimate constitutional crisis — the collapse of the grand coalition government without a voter's register. This would then provide a basis for the democratic replacement of the grand coalition government which Kenyans no longer want.
With no voting mechanisms in place we are on a daily basis courting disaster as warlords reorganise themselves for the next shot at power — without a ballot. And all because we Kenyans have failed to demand the implementation of the National Accord to the letter and have started attending political rallies like sheep in ever increasing numbers to support the same tired politicians who took us to the brink of a precipice in 2007.
Wake up Kenyans, you cannot guarantee, and really have no stake in, the outcome of this game between Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki. You can't win or break even — you must get out of the game.
This is not a constitutional crisis for ordinary Kenyans, it is a great opportunity for us to demand the right to vote and secure our democratic freedom of choice.
We should ignore Amos Wako's scare tactics. He's only trying to maintain the status quo he benefits from, a status quo in which Mwai Kibaki is even claimed to be eligible for a third term; or is it second term? Was Mwai Kibaki elected in the December 2007 presidential election?
Kenyans must have greater ambitions for their future than the tired leadership which Amos Wako, using sophistry, defends, and if we get the voter registration process completed as soon as possible we will be ready to elect a lean, clean, honest government for the Republic of Kenya. Keep the faith, change is coming.
Mati is the chief executive officer of Mars Group.
Kenya Grand Coalition Government must be Kicked Out: New Order Party Of Kenya
Kikuyu Tribe and Kenya Politics Today: New Order Party of Kenya
Kikuyu community is one amongst the most blessed communities in Kenya. Kikuyus are very hard working, honest, courageous and principled community. Kikuyus cherish freedom, peace and harmony amongst and within communities.
Since pre-independence, the Kikuyus have co-existed peacefully with many communities in many parts of the country. Unfortunately, Kikuyus are the least understood in the context of Kenyan politics.
Today, thanks to tribal politics, Kikuyus are viewed in the eyes of few hyenas and criminals that have vandalized the country in the name of the community. The 2007 post election violence put to the fore venom harboured by some communities against the Kikuyu community.
Some foolish leaders went even a step further of giving Lesotho and Swaziland analogies in reference of where Kikuyus in Living in Central Kenya should be put. In public Barazas it was common to hear some people casually say that Kikuyus in Rift Valley “wanauawa Kama majibwa”. Prior to 2007 during the skirmishes between the security forces and some vigilantes in Central Kenya, and between the vigilante and the community, it was common to hear some individuals saying “wacha wamalizane wenyewe”.
In 2007 ethnically targeted post election violence, so many Kikuyus lost their lives. So many lost their life times’ possessions. So many children lost their parents and their future. So many Kikuyus’ were incapacitated, disabled and reduced to beggers. So many were humiliated and condemned into the miserable lives of being IDPs. May their souls rest in eternal peace – those that were incinerated in that Kiambaa Church. This must and shall never be allowed to happen again.
Why did these have to die? Who in the Kenya today had a say on where to be born? What is so wrong being a Kikuyu? What is so special about Kikuyus that other communities hate, demonize and victimize them? Is it true the propaganda that Kikuyus are hated by other communities? And why? Should Kikuyus apologize for being Kikuyus?
The naked fact is that Kikuyus are in Kenya because God wanted them to be in Kenya. Kikuyus owes nobody apology for being Kikuyus.
Kikuyus dominate street families in all major towns of this country, no body raises their finger. Kikuyus dominate Commercial Sex Workers in pubs in many parts of this country, no one raises the finger. Kikuyus form a very significant population of all Kenyan jails, no body raises a finger. Kikuyus form the bulk of touts and “manambas” in this country, no body raises a finger. Kikuyus form the bulk of the hawking fraternity and jua - kali artisans. No body raises a finger.
Central Kenya like any other rural setup has many regions without water, electricity even mobile telephone network coverage. Central Kenya languishes from landlessness, falling academic standards, dilapidated infrastructure, insecurity, food shortages and drought just like anywhere else in the country. Central province just like other provinces suffers from environmental degradation, AIDS/HIV, falling health standards and lately even jiggers.
It is therefore not a secret that there is nothing special being from Central Kenya. If somebody is born a Kikuyu….so what?
In 2007, some six bearded individuals crafted some party electoral strategy that aimed at ganging all Kenyans against the Kikuyus. It was a party core campaign strategy. We saw these same individuals agitate for economic sabotage against kikuyu businesses. It could have been worse. It must never be allowed to happen again.
Kenyan must strive for a Kenya where every Kenyan cast their votes to whoever they want to lead them and their verdict respected.
Reality dictates that, what happened in 2007 can and indeed may happen again. Some Kenyans refused to think with their heads. These butchers, rapists, arsonists and murderers are still alive and free. It can and may happen again. That is the truth.
Unfortunately the current Kikuyu leadership is dreamland. They are so much interested in protecting what they have, maximizing on what they can possibly steal and in the process maligning the community – a real catalyst of tribal animosity against the Kikuyus.
The potential leadership is just stale and hypocritical rallying the community to vote for them just because their fathers were national leaders and/or because they are women or they were betrayed by the incumbent. In the current political pool, these pretenders to the throne are outmaneuvered in all by political novices. This clearly shows that the Kikuyu leadership is it currently exists are sterile and impotent and it would be, not only dangerous but extremely foolish for the community to bank on them for future leadership roles.
The Kikuyu community must wean itself of the “Mt Kenya Mafia” in the mainstream political leadership. The community must re-brand it self so that Kenyans shall no longer see the community in the eyes and actions of few criminals who criminals that conduct and engage ruthlessly in politics for private advantage.
In all these aspirations, the path must be that or respect of rule of law and respect other communities based on mutual inter community trust, respect and interests.
There can never be Kenya without the Kikuyus and there can never be Kikuyus without other communities in Kenya.
Kenya does not belong to anybody’s father, mother, grandfather or grand father.
Kenya belongs to all Kenyans and that cannot and will never change.
New Order Party of Kenya! A new Deal for Kenya!
By
Lawrence Kamau Macharia
Chairman
New Order Party of Kenya
Wycliffe Muga: Why Raila poll may not be accurate - The Star
The partisans of the Prime Minister Raila Odinga rejoiced to find that their hero is the most trusted political leader by a very wide margin. Those who have a preference for other politicians seem to have been outraged by this poll.
And indeed, when you find Raila trusted by 31 per cent of those polled, while President Kibaki is supposedly only trusted by 11 per cent - and other substantial figures like Agriculture minister William Ruto only trusted by 5 per cent and Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka barely raising his head at 3 per cent, it should be clear enough that there is something not quite right about this poll.
I am not suggesting those who conducted the poll did not know what they were doing.
Rather, I consider it highly likely that the respondents did not really know what was being asked of them, and mostly answered a rather different question from the one they were asked.
This tendency to answer the question you think you have been asked, rather than the one you have actually been asked, is not at all unusual. We all do it, all the time.
For example, if a parent seeking his child's exam results goes to a school's reception room and, finding another parent already waiting there, asks him or her, "Is there anyone in the office?", the other parent might readily answer "No", even though they know very well that there is a cleaner sweeping that office at that very moment.
The point is that this parent understands that the person who has just walked in is looking for a school official who can release exam results to them, and also that the cleaner cannot do this. So they will answer that there is nobody in the office, meaning, "There is nobody of the kind that you are looking for."
So my suspicion is that when these presumably "ordinary Kenyans" were asked whom they trusted the most, they took this to mean, "Whom would you trust to guide the future of this country, to the extent that you would vote for him or her in the next election?"
This, to me, is what explains Kibaki's poor showing. If we consider the results of the four presidential races he has previously been involved in, it is impossible to argue that only 11 per cent of Kenyans trust this man. He cannot have less than 25 per cent of Kenyans who, even to this day, trust him implicitly.
But if my argument that the responders were thinking about the next election is applied, then it's obvious that many who do trust President Kibaki knew he would not be a candidate in the next election, and assumed that he was not an option. And so they placed their "trust" - by which they really meant, "their future likely vote" - in Peter Kenneth or Martha Karua or Uhuru Kenyatta and so on.
But that is not the only insight that can be gleaned from this poll.
For those with election campaigns yet in their future, these polls carry with them evil tidings, for just about each and every one.
For Kalonzo, that 3 per cent cannot be good news: this was a man who used to routinely lead both the current President and Prime Minister in poll after poll during much of 2007.
That he has now fallen so low suggests that his high tide is long past, and that he is not likely to ever end up as a frontrunner in any presidential election again.
For Ruto, this poll seems to suggest that he may yet prove to be one of those politicians who are very effective at dominating media headlines, and whom the press quickly labels as a giant: but who - when votes in a presidential election are counted - is found not to be a giant at all.
And for the PM too, this poll is bad news. Our recent political history (the 2002 and 2007 elections specifically) shows that when one political leader seems to enjoy some clear electoral advantage, it actually makes it easier for his opponents to unite against him.
If there is doubt about the likely outcome, there will be hesitation and confusion, and everyone will want to be President.
But if it is clear that the way seems open for a Raila landslide victory, then those who have reason to fear his ascension to power will promptly postpone their own ambitions for the greater goal of keeping him out of office.
Muga comments on topical issues.
Francis Mureithi: Drop relaxed style, Gitari tells Kibaki - The Star
Gitari, a fierce critic of the government during retired President Moi's rule, said Kibaki has let the country down for remaining mum on pressing issues.
Speaking during the launch of a book titled Religion and Politics in Kenya, authored in his honour, Gitari said the President, as the symbol of national unity, must be seen guiding the country on important issues.
"There is time to speak and time to keep quiet, but all the time is not for keeping quiet," Gitari said."He (Kibaki) has been too quiet on major issues. I don't know why he gets too quiet when his guidance is required."
The retired archbishop said though Kibaki has performed well on the economy and infrastructure, he has scored dismally on politics.
Although he was Moi's ardent critic, Gitari said the former president's style of leadership was remarkable compared to that of Kibaki.
Gitari was the third African archbishop and bishop of the diocese of Nairobi in the Anglican Church of Kenya.
Before he was alleviated to the position, he served as the bishop of Mount Kenya East between 1975 and 1990 and of Kirinyaga between 1990 and 1996.
He bitterly clashed with the Moi regime as he preached and campaigned against land grabbing by powerful politicians.
He hit out at the establishment for what he saw was an economic injustice.
Gitari also publicly condemned political assassinations and undemocratic practices.
The book authored by Ben Knighton has faulted the church leadership saying it has been compromised by the political class.
The book cites the 2007 General Election and the subsequent violence as a pointer that the church has failed in its role.
The author claims that unlike the 1990s and before 2002 elections when Moi quit office, the church today is easily influenced by the political class and is unable to stand for the people as it did during the Moi era.
The book, published by Macmillan, is being sold at Sh6,000 a copy.
Pheroze Nowrojee: Election Losers Too Run the Government - The Star
In a period where the expectations of a new constitution feature high, it is of value to consider too our expectations of how elected leaders must rule under our system.
The traditional Kenyan concept was that government represents all society and that all parts of society must see themselves in the face of government. That is how our traditional societies designed the organisation of ruling.
Then we took the Westminster model. We found then that the losers of the prescribed elections were not seen in government. We found too that government did not then see itself as representing all Kenya. It made some regions of the country prosper, and made others decline into depressed economies with dropping education and nutrition levels. We saw that under that system, the winner took all.
The fault was not in the system. We chose to distort it. Our leaders believed that if they won an election they did not need to consult those who had lost. The winners believed that for the next five years they did not need to listen to those who had lost, and certainly did not need to have their consent to anything.
The leaders who had lost the election were shut out of both government and governing. The result was misgovernment.
The reality is different. The reality is that even after an election, the winner must seek out its opponents and rule with the consent of all. The reality is that all government needs consent.
'The consent of the governed' is not of only a part of the country, but of it all. This is what Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1958 to 1964, (over the period of our independence), told a Kenyan politician, who wrote later: "As usual, Macmillan ranged over a wide field .. .
In particular he pointed out that it was impossible to govern Great Britain without the consent of the opposition and it was essential to have their agreement on many large issues.
Whatever happened at the elections there was a broad measure of agreement on many intricate national matters such as the position of the monarchy, the development of the nuclear deterrent and on basic economic issues, which maintained the so-called af-fluent society."
Kenya's 'intricate national matters' are even more pressing. We cannot successfully attack the emergency that we face after 45 years of misrule: 45 per cent of Kenyans below the poverty level. This means every day over 18 million Kenyans are living in poverty.
To move 18 million people out of poverty is a major task for any government. A government that continually and in every way attacks its opponents in Parliament, administration and the media, cannot solve this problem.
This is the type of government we have had from 1966 to 2008. Such an attitude breaks two expectations of good government: it does not solve the country's problems, which become chronic; two, it breeds intolerance in society at large. We have seen exactly both happening.
The process of government works best as a consultative process, rather than as a process of imposing the will of one party or person upon all others. Consultation encourages greater tolerance in society. Both in government and in society at large we need support for the tolerance that Kenyan society has always had, and still has, but which politicians have worked so selfishly and so long to erode for their own personal gain.
The opposition is a check mechanism, not an exclusionary device. It has a formal position called the Leader of the Opposition, performing two functions. From the opposition, it requires loyalty to national processes even when out of office.
From the successful party it requires consultation with those against it, even though the latter are out of office.
The Westminster model works with more than constitutional written laws. It works with unwritten social conventions and values. Our social conventions and values are needed to make our new constitution work.
Thus in 2010, when we change the details of our constitution, we need also to change the way in which we will operate that new constitution, the way we rule. We will need to bring in our values of respect for tolerance and wisdom. Only with these, enabling ruling by broad consent and government, will we bring about the change which we want 2010 to herald in.
The writer is a well known constitution lawyer.
Wydiffe Muga: Raila's Blunder in the Mau Saga: The Star
The interesting thing is that in one case, the criticism means very little. And in the other, the criticism had huge symbolic significance, and political analysts may yet look back on this as a key turning point in Raila's continuing quest for high office.
Let's start with the criticism that carried no real weight: this was when Tourism minister Najib Balala, supposedly the Coast Province representative on the Pentagon, accused Raila of betrayal and said he was dividing Muslims.
Whatever may have been the provocation, this does not make much sense: Muslim voters are in general a much divided lot, just like Christian voters. Tribal and clan affiliations tend to count for more than religious affiliation when Kenyans vote.
In Garsen Constituency, for example, the reason Danson Mungatana won the seat in 2002 was that the Muslim vote was splintered along communal lines.
But of course the reason Balala is so bitter is no secret either. For the past few months, it has become increasingly clear the PM prefers to work with other Coast leaders at the expense of Balala. And this in turn suggests that come the next election, Balala cannot hope to get Raila's support for the Mvita seat.
This could mean the end of Balala's political career, especially if he should face Abdulsamad Nassir, the son of the legendary former Mvita MP Snariff Nassir.
The fact is that Balala would never have won the Mvita seat at any point if it had not been for Raila's support. So he has every right to be nervous: Balala needs Raila but Raila does not need Balala.
But Agriculture minister William Ruto, the other Cabinet minister to criticise Raila, is a different matter. His complaint cannot be casually shrugged off.
Have you noticed that when something bad happens to persons from any Kenyan community, very many members of that community will feel threatened?
In Thika not too long ago, for example, after their businesses were targeted by criminals, the local Asian community held a demonstration to protest police inefficiency.
What some indigenous Kenyans would probably attribute to the common myth that Asians in Kenya tend to keep huge amounts of cash lying about at all times, was seen by these businessmen as a direct threat to their welfare.
Likewise, when we read of violence flaring up at the border of the Tharaka and Tigania communities in Meru, many would be inclined to attribute it to the reputed propensity for violence among the men from that area. But if you were actually from Tharaka or Tigania, you would see it all very differently, even if you live hundreds of miles away from the scene of the violence.
And out of the approximately 1,000 people killed in the post-election violence last year, if there had been just 10 tourists butchered, less than 1 per cent of those murdered, it would have been a great deal more difficult to persuade foreigners to return to Kenya.
It is from such a perspective that the effect of the Mau Forest evictions on the Kalenjin community must be seen. Even if the rest of the country insists on focusing on the big picture and the environmental necessity of this action, this is not how it will seem to the Kalenjin.
All they will see is thousands of their own being added to the numbers of the displaced.
And they will note that where the IDPs originally from Central Province have received money, building materials, and even land, their own are left to shiver in the rain on some muddy roadside, with not a trace of the government assistance that had been pledged if the settlers left peacefully.
As a man who is believed to still have a presidential or prime-ministerial election campaign in his future, Raila should not have allowed this to happen, when there were so many ways in which the government could have mitigated the suffering of these people.
It was a huge strategic blunder. For this is the kind of thing that has a long-term impact on the sentiments of regional voting blocks.
And in this case, the Kalenjin who were among his most fervent supporters back in 2007 will neither forgive nor forget.
Muga comments on topical issues.
The Star: Ruling on Ruto's Sh96m KPC land in February
Judges Jane Gacheche, Leonard Njagi and Roselyne Wendoh yesterday set the verdict date for February 2.
This follows the final submissions from Ruto's lawyer Katwa Kigen.
Kigen said Ruto has asked the high court to stop the case.
He had argued that the case was instituted by Attorney General Amos Wako for ulterior motives.
But Wako said the land sold to the Kenya Pipeline Company by Ruto and his company, Berke Commercial Agencies, was a forest reserve not available for alienation.
State lawyer Vincent Wohoro told the court that the parcel in Ngong' Forest sold to KPC was public land.
The excision, he added, was unlawful because the parcel had not been degazetted. The parcel was sold to KPC through Berke Commercial Agencies whose director is Ruto.
The minister wants the high court to end criminal proceedings at the chief magistrate court, where he has been accused of obtaining Sh96 million by false pretense from the finance manager of Kenya Pipeline Company.
Ruto and Berke Commercial Agencies are challenging the Sh96 million case preferred against the two at the magistrate's court.
Ruto was charged with receiving Sh9.9 million from Hellen Njue, then financial manager of KPC, saying he was in a position to sell 4.31 acres that belonged to the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.
He is alleged to have received another Sh57.8 million for the sale of two parcels and another Sh28 million for a parcel in the same forest.
He is allegedly to have obtained the money on pretense that he was in a position to sell land though it is owned by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.
Ruto, a company associated with him, Berke Commercial Agencies; a former aide of retired President Daniel Moi, Joshua Kulei; and two other companies have been sued for allegedly obtaining money from Kenya Pipeline Company in 2001
The quest for a local tribunal ruined by the executive`s hocus pocus
Lemuel Mwangi: Dreams of the Fading Moonlight - Doom in the Morning of Know How
I have always loved good videos about Kenya. Today was a different case, just a horrific show of how expensive Kenyan security is, the unlikely unique day of business, not duty, for the traffic officers. Well, it seems the cost of driving ends up fueling security forces more than at the petrol pump. Questions are bound to arise as to what the ‘anti-corruption’ men will do with the money. An evening beer? Just a few days ago and they even won’t decide who should lead the ‘Aunt- Corruption’ agency. Let navigates another section.
Every time I thought of boxing, I saw Mike Tyson at the ring. Today, both the ring and the boxer are not the usual view. “Kenya Diplomats fight at the London post”. Who wins? Not yet!! The fight is not yet over. Kibaki says this, Wetangula that, Muchemi that other one. Who is the true teller? I do not know and maybe I do not think there is.
Now that diplomacy is on the headline, things are just not agreeable. It seems like the best PHD in Kenya is a brother or sister in Government. Odinga, the “mouth piece icon” of democracy- a different kind of democracy. Mr. PM. May I ask what your sister is doing in Los Angeles? I guess she is on Vacation. True? I'll bet my vote on it.
Ministries in Kenya are always the best; at least each has a money locator ladder. Can any of the big guys define IDP? I will define it for the “In Deep Problems” Elonino is coming. The poor folks cannot afford a minute to cheer you while you fight over what belongs to them. I wish you were concentrating on getting a roof over the people in the cold.
I am not done yet, not before commenting on the Kenyan version of the Swine flu. This is a plague though. The cart is infront of the horse in form 4. Just how do the KCSE papers get to the students way before the examination. Can someone give some insight, preferably the Education minister?
Am I a Kenyan just because my birth certificate says so? This identity proves embarrassing for the many Kenyans like me who are residing abroad. We carry the flag high but the attention has since sized from being welcoming.
There is much to be done!!!
By Lemuel Mwangi.
Just who will Save Kenya From these Napoleons of Corruption