A Political Kenya: Latest Politics and Kenya Economy News

Foreign minister Moses Wetang’ula and some key voices in the Party of National Unity, including Justice and Constitutional Affairs minister Martha Karua and Finance minister Amos Kimunya, are clearly out of tune with the suffering people of Kenya on the crisis facing this nation.

Instead of giving the country hope by demonstrating leadership and magnanimity, these leaders choose to approach the Kofi Annan-led mediation talks with brinkmanship, spewing strident rhetoric at every turn, and now accusing “foreigners” of interfering in the affairs of a sovereign state.

They are adamant that they will not accept a settlement to the post-election stand-off, which draws the sides led by Mr Mwai Kibaki and Mr Raila Odinga into a power-sharing arrangement in breach of the present Constitution.

Their remarks come at time that the country faces the threat of civil war if the question of acceptable national leadership is not resolved.

Kenya is indeed a sovereign country with its own Constitution.

But is this really the time to invoke pride in our sovereignty when we have more than 300,000 citizens of this country living as refugees in their own motherland in squalid conditions, precisely because the state has been unable to guarantee them security and access to their homes and property?

This is a country that has just lost 1,000 innocent lives in ethnic clashes, and which remains vulnerable to another outbreak of mindless violence, especially if the Kofi Anan-led mediation process collapses.

While the viability of power-sharing must be critically examined within our political realities, to insist that any such deal must be in line with the constitution under circumstances where the legitimacy of government itself is in dispute, is patently absurd.

Everyone surely knows that the outcome of the flawed General Election is at the very heart of the internationally-driven negotiations taking place in Nairobi.

Top of the mediation agenda is whether or not the election rivals should come together in a coalition which would oversee Constitutional changes to usher the country into a new poll, which, hopefully, would deliver national stability and a widely accepted government. On this issue hang elements of our fate as a nation – ethnic reintegration, resettlement of internal refugees, economic revival, electoral, Constitutional and land reforms and resolution of historical injustices.

These are weighty matters which, by common consent, lie at the heart of our tragic experience. We failed to resolve them when we had the time and space and now we are paying the price. The extremists on the PNU side — who have lately taken to speaking out of turn — must appreciate that the international community did not come to Kenya merely to meddle in the country’s affairs.

Principally, the world has turned its attention to us to reduce the chances of the post-election violence slipping into a Rwanda-type disaster, and to manage the crisis before it gives rise to an expensive relief operation.

It does this from a sense of responsibility and out of foresight. With the resources of international humanitarian organisations taxed heavily by other global commitments in places like Burundi and Darfur, handling wide scale violence of the magnitude witnessed recently in Kenya would be unbearable, especially on the governments which mostly fund relief operations.

Furthermore, the crisis in Kenya has major implications for regional security. Because of Kenya’s potential to either set the pace of development in the region or drag the process, helping the country stabilise is a inescapable task for the international community.

And, finally, there is the welfare of the Kenyan people themselves. This is a crisis whose consequences go way beyond this country’s borders.

Admittedly, some remarks made by foreigners - especially by some locally based diplomats - were of the type to offend nationalistic sensibilities. But this is not an excuse for politicians to whip up xenophobia and mobilise their supporters to hold demonstrations against foreign countries.

To argue that international players have neither a right nor a stake in a crisis with such clear regional and international dimensions, is to be politically dishonest.

Today, Kenya is more ripe for fundamental change than any time in its history. This country needs an exceptional leadership arrangement to hold it together and replenish its self-confidence.

www.nationmedia.com

WHEN CONDOLEEZZA Rice flew into town on Monday, it was clear that her mission was to put more pressure on President Kibaki to accept a power-sharing deal as the solution to Kenya’s post-election crisis.

The US, Britain and other major Western powers all seem to have come to the conclusion that the Kibaki government is becoming the impediment.

Before dispatching his Secretary of State to Kenya, US President Bush, speaking on a visit in neighbouring Tanzania, deliberately used the same terms, “grand coalition”, that had so irked Justice minister Martha Karua when first uttered by lead mediator Kofi Annan.

In Nairobi Ms Rice also used the term, and strongly suggested that her government did not consider the Kibaki Government to enjoy legitimacy.

Her words were something to the effect that the disputed electoral outcome did not produce a government that earns the confidence of the Kenyan people, which is a more diplomatic way of echoing the views of the British, who have said, they do not recognise the Kibaki government.

The British position has already been reinforced by Foreign Secretary David Milliband in a declaration of support for High Commissioner Adam Wood.

Ms Rice came to Kenya when many in government were still reeling from the US government’s notice that it would bar from entering the country Kenyan leaders it accuses of being impediments to the search for a negotiated settlement.

The Kenya government was particularly angry that the threats seemed to target Government officials more than the opposition leaders it accuses of fanning violence.

The British have also hinted that they could pursue a similar strategy, with Mr Wood hinting that sanctions could even be extended to freezing assets held in their country by those it has targeted.

The unprecedented pressure, which clearly aims to force the Government to accept the grand coalition being pushed by Mr Annan, could well force President Kibaki to give way.

But it could also force adoption of a laager mentality, especially if perceptions are reinforced that far from being honest brokers, the Western powers are taking sides and trying to enforce a settlement that favours the Opposition.

Indications so far are that a siege mentality is creeping in as hard-liners in government prevail with the view that the mediation process has become a device by which the Opposition, backed by the West, is using to force its way into what would amount to a virtual takeover of government though the route of an unelected executive prime minister.

ONE THING THAT IS BECOMING increasingly clear is that when it comes to public relations, the Government is being completely outmanoeuvred by a savvy ODM propaganda machinery.

The Opposition has made a grand show of dropping its earlier demands for resignation of President Kibaki and handover of power to Mr Raila Odinga.

They are trumpeting the concession they have made, instead agreeing to share power for an interim period pending fresh elections. With that alone, the Government’s hostility to the power-sharing formula leaves it looking like the impediment to any settlement.

Even the Government’s own proposals on how to share power — merely allowing the President leeway to appoint ODM members in the Government — do not seem serious measured against the “real” power-sharing deal floated by ODM, which would give the Opposition virtual control of the government.

As Prime Minister with executive powers, also commanding a majority in Parliament, Mr Odinga would have achieved through the mediation what he failed to win, or was cheated of, at the ballot box.

It is then no wonder that the Government is so hostile to the coalition idea, but being lost in reportage is that the ODM model, which has gained so much publicity is not necessarily the same model Mr Annan is pushing.

If there is already agreement in principle for power-sharing, it is important that the mediators come up with proposals that both sides can live with.

Increasing fears in government that the mediation and Western powers are keen to steamroller them into an agreement that would amount to surrender of power do have to be assuaged.

www.nationmedia.com

During the scramble for Africa in 1880s the British took over present day Kenya and gave it the name British East Africa Protectorate in 1895, the name of the company that controlled stuff here then. In 1920 the East Africa Protectorate was turned into a colony and renamed Kenya, for its highest mountain.

The British colonized Kenya until 1963 when Kenya gained internal self government and later on in the year, she got her independence from British colonial rule. This was after several uprisings throughout the colony by the natives whose fertile land had been taken and were forced to labour for their colonial masters. Notable among these was the MauMau uprising which led to the state of emergency in 1952. This was mainly a Kikuyu led uprising which left tens of thousands perhaps hundred of thousands Kikuyus dead.

Over 100 years later after the British set foot in Kenya, their influence is still a force to reckon with. The current situation in Kenya just says as much. The British diplomats have had bitter exchanges with Kenya since Kibaki, a Kikuyu took over power in 2002. It started with Sir Edward Clay who found it disgusting that the Kikuyu rulers were constantly vomiting on his shoes. Adam Wood is the current Governor. Gradually, it is becoming a Kikuyu-British affair just like the days of the British colonial rule. Listening to Martha Karua, one of the negotiators on the Kibaki side, on her views about British Ambassadors pronouncements paints a picture of the disdain the ruling Kikuyu elite has on the British.

It was British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who set the pace of the current mediation circus when on January 2nd he said that he had asked the then Africa Union Chairman and Ghana President John Kufuor to go to Kenya to sort out the mess. Kufour was later to hand over the button to his fellow countryman and former UN chief Koffi Annan who is still running the cyclic marathon.

Britain has been in the fore front of issuing threats, ultimatums and dangling sanctions and visa bans on the negotiating teams to rush them come up with an acceptable power-sharing agreement, something that Annan is pushing day and night. Uncle Sam has been beefing up Britain's position but it is clear that it is the British who are calling the shots in Kenya, arm twisting Kibaki and his cronies to dish to Raila an executive Prime Minister position. Ideally, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Interestingly, according to Kibe Mungai a Nairobi lawyer and political activist, the African Union whose current chair is Jakaya Kikwete, the Tanzanian President, who is currently being dollied up by Uncle Sam, has been silent on the mediation talks. AU has not been pushy on any mediation agreement nor has it threatened to impose sanctions if the talks fail, unlike Kenya's colonial masters and their hangers-on. Tanzania has been a top beneficiary of the current crisis in Kenya with tourists re-routed to Tanzania and Zanzibar. Landlocked countries in the greater Eastern and Central Africa have considered Dar es Salaam as their preferred port of call.

Already, the Arusha government has been given massive funding to improve its infrastructure. It is observable that on Sunday, visiting American president George Bush saw it fit to meet with the 1998 families of victims of the Dar terrorist bombing. Could the US have shifted its global war on terror Africa base from Kenya to Tanzania?

Further Annan, AU and ODM are mere pawns in a geopolitical interests war between the west and the far east. According to Kibe;

The British was not happy with the way Kibaki did not give commercial contracts to UK and has looked Far East on Military Equipment Contracts and Oil exploration franchises

Uganda has found oil, Tanzania also recently found oil, Sudan has oil. Kenya is believed to have massive untapped oil reserves. Most of oil exploration contracts were given to China, rather, not given to the UK. It is probable that EU/UK/US would want to install a government that will recede these contracts.

Kenya political stalemate could easily have been sorted out by a court petition. Trust in the judiciary not withstanding, a total of 38 Dec 27 electoral petitions have been filed in the Kenyan courts so far by both ODM and PNU.

In regard to the AU, where did AU meet and made a resolution that John Kufuor should come and mediate in Kenya, among other issues that raise questions on British neo-colonialism interests in Kenya.

Since the outbreak of post-election violence in Rift Valley, numerous reports in the local newspapers have claimed that the root cause of the conflict is ‘‘the land question.’’

But, without exception, these reports fail to inform and educate precisely because of their misrepresentation of history.

Given the scale and the urgency of the current crisis and its repeated association with the so-called ‘‘land question,’’ it is time for a complete unpacking of the history behind colonial and post-colonial settlement in the white highlands.

Only then will we determine with certainty whether land is at the centre of the ongoing systematic evictions in the Rift Valley.

The first argument that is normally presented is that the North Rift region (Uasin Gishu, Trans Nzoia, Nandi and West Pokot districts) exclusively constitutes the ancestral land of the supra-ethnic group we have come to term ‘‘the Kalenjin’’ i.e. the Nandi, Keiyo, Pokot, Tugen, Marakwet and Kipsigis.

A quick etymology of geographical names in the North Rift region such as Uasin Gishu, Eldoret, Sirikwa, Kipkarren confirms that the Maasai long lived in and named these places.

Indeed, it is the Maasai who were displaced from these lands by the colonialists and, therefore, any question of restitution to ancestral owners -- if at all it can be achieved -- must, of necessity, be resolved with the full inclusion of the Maasai.

In the early 1900s, colonial settlement in Central Kenya displaced many Kikuyu families. In their search for productive agricultural land, many of these families gradually moved west through Kijabe and into the Rift Valley. At the same time, white settlers moving into the Rift Valley aggressively recruited Kikuyu farmhands from Central Kenya who became their tenants at will. Between 1904 and 1920, 70,000 Kikuyus had migrated to the Rift Valley.

By the end of the 1930s that community had grown to more than 150,000 many of whom were second and third generation Rift Valley Kikuyus.

In 1941 the first government re-settlement scheme for Africans was established in Olenguruone, north of Nakuru, and it absorbed many of the Kikuyu squatters who were being driven out by their white landlords.

But the larger majority of the Kikuyu, numbering over 100,000, were forcibly repatriated to Central Kenya between 1946 and 1952.

Million Acre Scheme

The eviction of the Kikuyu from Olenguruone in the late 1940s and early 1950s made room for a new government initiated settlement of Africans in the white highlands. This 1955 settlement was conceived for purposes of benefiting loyal African farm hands.

Given that this re-settlement was taking place at the height of the Mau Mau uprising, the colonial authorities were quick to exclude the Kikuyu people from this scheme.

The question of loyalty was to determine another pattern of settlement in the run-up to independence and soon thereafter -- some departing white farmers chose to give their parcels to trusted farm hands.

This is the history behind the ownership of farms running to hundreds and even thousands of acres by some people of Teso origin in Trans Nzoia District.

The third wave of African settlement in the white highlands was the Million Acre Scheme which began in 1963.

On the eve of independence, the departing colonialists negotiated a scheme by which white settlers were bought out of their farms by the in-coming Kenya Government.

The money for this purchase was made available as a loan by the British Government hence the acrimonious dispute that pitted Jomo Kenyatta against Bildad Kaggia and Jaramogi Oginga Odinga.

The argument of the latter two nationalists was that there was no justification for a people to buy that which had been forcibly taken from them.

The vehicle that the independent Kenya Government used to facilitate the acquisition and subsequent distribution of these lands was the Settlement Fund Trustees (SFT). SFT was a separate legal entity whose trustees were government ministers.

It is important to note that the SFT exists to this day and the records of all their transactions from 1963 to date, including those allocations that were made during President Moi’s reign, are available for perusal at the Ministry of Lands.

Through the 1960s and 1970s the SFT would, through the local dailies and village barazas, advertise and invite applications for allocation of land in recently created settlement schemes.

As individuals responded to the advertisements and applied for allocation of land, grassroots leadership and enterprise were ultimately critical to the ways in which communities organised to make the best of the emergent SFT opportunities.

Capitalists who conceived this scheme mobilised low income earners for the purchase of large scale white-owned farms. They set up land buying companies which became the vehicles through which they raised capital from the masses and then acquired farms that were being offered for sale on a willing-buyer willing-seller basis.

Political expediency

Alongside land-buying companies in the willing-buyer willing-seller resettlement model, were transactions between departing white settlers and individual members of the emergent African elite. This class had access to funding from the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) and was drawn from across the ethnic divide.

The wrath of the Kalenjin peoples over what they consider the appropriation of their ancestral lands is not a new phenomenon, neither does it have its roots in the 1991/1992 ‘‘land clashes.’’

As far back as 1969, Mr Jean Marie Seroney, then MP for Tinderet, had drawn controversy when he authored ‘‘The Nandi Declaration’’ that demanded all non-Nandis to vacate the ancestral land of this sub-tribe. The Kenyatta government reacted by imprisoning Seroney.

Borrowing from Kenyatta’s example of using land to reward cronies and in some cases emergent national heroes such as athletes and popular musicians, Moi expanded this other form of settlement in the Rift Valley.

Apart from this latter settlement by political protégés all other forms of post-independence settlement in the Rift Valley were essentially valid commercial transactions. They were, in fact, no different from the commercial transactions by which the coffee farms bordering Kiambu District came to be transformed into the residential areas that we now know as Runda, Gigiri, Loresho, Kitisuru, Nyari and Rosslyn.

Against this backdrop and contrary to what has so often been posited as an irrefutable fact, there are several reasons why the eviction of non-indigenous communities from the Rift Valley has nothing to do with the so-called ‘‘land question.’’

Indeed this systematic on-going violence is not about remedying of past injustices, land scarcity, growing impoverishment of the Kalenjin or protests against the outcome of the flawed December 2007 General Election.

To keep repeating that the Gikuyu got to the Rift Valley through presidential favour fails to explain how the Kambas, Luhyas and Kisiis, who have never produced a president, became land owners and flourished in the Rift Valley.

And if, indeed, it is the declaration of Mwai Kibaki as President that is the offending spark, then why are non-Kikuyus under attack?

Further, if this violence is about the pressure or scarcity of land, these issues would not wait to crop up every election year. Does it take one five years to realise that they have a neighbour whose presence prevents them from tilling a larger piece of land or using that land to pursue some other profitable business?

Rather, the clashes were instigated for political expediency.

The third reason why this aggression is not about the scarcity of land is that the huge tracts of highly productive agricultural land in the hands of a select caucus of the political class across the ethnic divide have never been the target of land invasion and redistribution.

Genuine pressure for land would not be so selective in choosing the enemy.

Fourthly, in the on-going crisis those targeted for eviction have been given no notice to vacate. Were it simply about land, one would have expected the matter to stop upon their expulsion.

It is clear that the passions and goals that have repeatedly fuelled these intermittent spates of violence emanate from somewhere else.

The much-needed process of unearthing the driving impetus of the evictions and murders; of finding lasting solutions and restoring harmony, is the rightful work of a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission.

HORACE GISEMBA

www.nationmedia.com

Maybe the election tally records were tampered with. That is what the ODM claims. And that is the reason they cite to oppose tallying the vote again. In the end, though, the question of resolution must be dealt with somehow.

The country needs to know who was the true winner. Some commentators have argued that this is no longer necessary, that it will only aggravate matters, and that we should move on regardless.

That is not good enough. Finding out who the real winner was is the only way to bring closure to the recent madness.

I do not think it is impossible to find that out. The first thing to do is get an independent panel – international or national – to carry out a forensic audit of the vote.

If we believe the tally documents are faulty, we can go back to the actual ballots in every place and compare them with the voter registers. It is possible to get a fairly accurate picture from these.

Rightful president

Once that is done, the quarrel over who should be the rightful president will have been resolved. If it is Hon Raila Odinga, let him have the seat. If it is Pastor Pius Muiru, so be it.

However, what must get priority is punishment for impunity. It is heartening to hear that the two sides in the Kofi Annan-led mediation group are agreed on this point, though I suspect one or two persons in that group may not quite know the gravity of what could lie ahead.

Those who have killed and organised for people to be killed under the guise of political protest must be made to understand there will be painful consequences for this.

I am happy to learn charge sheets are being prepared against some of the perpetrators of the violence.

Likewise, a truth and reconciliation commission, which the mediation group has agreed to, is a brilliant idea. But it must not be used to wipe away the criminality of the killings that have happened.

Evil is evil, and just because someone has “confessed” does not mean one should be let off scot-free. Justice must take its course.

And in this case, the kin of the more than 1,000 dead, and the over 350,000 displaced, most of who lost the fruit of their lifetime labour, want to see the criminals responsible punished in a manner that will serve as a lasting lesson.

That there was an election dispute must not be used as mitigation. It does not follow that if you quarrel with me you have the licence to kill me.

The truth commission should do much more than just provide a forum to air grievances.

That was the mistake made by the South African version that was created after the collapse of apartheid. Ventilating grievances did not seal the deep racial gap that still exists in that country.

Truth commission

Our truth commission should probe the genesis of the ethnic hatred that we saw, which was masked in the misleading colours of post-election protests.

We have to ask ourselves whether such hatred – which by the way did not materialise last year – can be tolerated in a country that seeks cohesion.

Inevitably, the issue of land keeps cropping up. What is greatly encouraging to hear is that land transfers were suspended in the entire North Rift at the onset of the violence.

This basically means some buffoon who chased somebody from his land and occupied it thinking it will be his for keeps is deceiving himself.

It also helps to guard against the displaced people being forced to sell at throwaway prices. This mindset of causing misfortune to others thinking you will acquire free land is part and parcel of the impunity that is destroying this country.

Mzee Jomo Kenyatta gave us some very sound advice at independence: Hakuna cha bure. Nothing is free. That still holds true today.

If at independence departing White settlers were compensated for land that they grabbed by force, it is absurd to propose that Kenyans who bought their plots should get dispossessed because they are not “ancestral” to a particular place.

Anybody coveting those pieces of land must be ready to buy them at market rates, and only if the owners want to sell.

The problem of political fat cats who grabbed large chunks of land in shady circumstances over the years must be treated separately from the case of peasants who migrated from Kisii or Murang’a and bought plots of land elsewhere either individually or through pooling resources in land-buying companies.

Land ownership cannot be divorced from the free enterprise economy we profess to follow.

GITAU WARIGI

www.nationmedia.com

As the Kofi Annan mediation team left Nairobi for a "secret location" and imposed a 72-hour news blackout on the critical phase of the talks, the race was on to establish just where in Kenya the team would be getting away from the world's attention.

In a press statement, the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation group of Annan, Graca Machel and Benjamin Mkapa invited negotiating teams to "resume their discussions outside of Nairobi with the goal of reaching an agreement on the outstanding political issues in the next 48 to 72 hours."

The team was expected to leave Nairobi yesterday to its hideout where there will be total blackout of the talks.

The former UN chief took the drastic measure "to ensure confidentiality" as the team grapples with the legitimacy of the current administration that has been challenged by the Opposition.

Yesterday, the smart money was betting that the retreat was at the Hilton Hotel's Tsavo Salt Lick Lodge in Tsavo National Park.

The team is said to have eyed the lodge as a unique resort - built atop stilts overlooking a waterhole for Kenya's majestic wildlife.

The lodge is situated within Hilton's own private wildlife sanctuary adjacent to the national park, has 96 guest rooms and has recently expanded its bar, restaurant and public areas.

Tsavo National Park also has another lodge - Voi Safari Lodge - which has 52 rooms. The park also has several tented camps with rooms and beds.

Getting to Tsavo East National Park from Nairobi, one has to pass Voi. There is however another route directly from Mombasa via Manyani Gate. Approached from Malindi, one has to pass via Sala Gate. There are six airstrips in the southern part of the park and 13 in the northern part.

There are no scheduled flights to the park but chartered light planes can be used. This provides the perfect environment for a "total blackout" of the talks or a meeting requiring similar treatment.

The other place touted as a possible hideout for the Annan Team was the Petley's Inn - a sister to The New Lamu Palace Hitel in Lamu town on the seashore. The inn which has 11 self-contained rooms and all top amenities including cable/satellite TV.

Also touted as an ideal hideout for the team was Sarova Whitesands Beach Resort in Mombasa.

Taking a shot at possible hideouts, event organisers The Energy Source said one of the best places to hold a hush-hush meeting would be Kongoni resort in Naivasha located in very private and in a secluded area.

The company also identified Nakuru as an ideal place for such a meeting citing its proximity to Nairobi where the team has been sitting.

Another company In Sync Limited also identified Naivasha as an ideal place for such talks.

However Naivasha and any hotel or lodge in Nakuru and Western and Nyanza parts of the country are said to have been ruled out owing to the recent political clashes in those regions.

In the Annan's team of mediators are former Tanzania President Benjamin Mkapa and Dr Graca Machel, the wife of former South Africa President Nelson Mandela.

Negotiating on the Government side are Justice Minister Martha Karua, Education Minister Prof Sam Ongeri, Mbooni MP Mutula Kilonzo and Foreign Affairs Minister Moses Wetangula.

On the ODM side are Pentagon members Musalia Mudavadi and William Ruto, and MPs Dr Sally Kosgei and James Orengo.