The Republic should be dissolved; the State dismantled; the Constitution set ablaze
With the ICC indictments, there is now one more reason why Kenya is a failed State. The country cannot try its own criminals who are officially suspected of having committed crimes against humanity. From public records, majority of Kenyans who notoriously violate the Constitution are either holding the levers of State power or walking the corridors of power. Secondly, majority of Kenyans who are known “to act with impunity” are not ordinary Kenyans but members of the ruling class, their cohorts, sycophants, acquaintances and side-kicks. The ICC indictment of the “Ocampo four” has now brought the country face to face, not with another imminent violation of the Constitution but possible rape of the new document. In the process of trying to square the circle, the politics of deception has risen to its highest apex ever.
Notably, the case of William Ruto has been very disappointing. This is because laden with the optimism a Kenyan can place on a young and energetic politician, the natural expectation is that Ruto would have proudly walked away from the traditional politics of untruths, fabrications and tribalism to that of statesmanship, patriotism and even revolution. Now, the ICC indictment of the Ocampo four has finally exposed Ruto and shattered his political career, probably for ever. At the ICC, Ruto is a suspect of crimes against humanity but in Kenya, his profile is increasingly assuming that of a political chameleon who constantly changes colours for political survival. He appeared to have been surviving just a few years ago but now, Ruto seems to be growing desperate.
Take the latest lie he is shamelessly peddling to the public – that PM Raila Odinga has fixed the “Ocampo four”. As this callous lie is being sold at hastily convened rallies organized at strategic voter-friendly points, the official record of the historic ICC debate, which eventually killed the idea of a local Tribunal, does not matter. This is regardless of whether this record exists on video or in print. It is pointless to repeat here that Ruto and Company opposed the setting up of a local Tribunal because the big question is why Ruto is denying the undeniable and transferring responsibilities to wrong locations.
To jog the memory, it took more than a year as Kenyans tried to set up a local Tribunal and when time ran out, Kofi Annan gave Kenyans another two extra months to try again. What did the likes of Ruto say? The answer is right here.
The bigger problem however, is not the Ruto denials but the legal status of the new Kenyan constitution which is also being violated in the situation. Assuming that Ruto had campaigned for a local Tribunal, and assuming that Raila did fix the Ocampo four, does that mean that the country’s new constitution cannot also be respected because the Ocampo four feels aggrieved?
When Ruto led a political camp that opposed the adoption of the new Constitution, decorum dictates that he ought to respect this constitution following its promulgation last year. A true democrat opposes an idea but if he/she loses after the majority vote has carried the day, the democrat concedes defeat then abides by provisions of what was put to the vote. This is the standard process in any functional democracy.
In the case of Ruto (and, by extension, Uhuru Kenyatta) he has refused to respect the Constitution which bars him from contesting the Presidency on account of his indictment at the ICC following strong evidence that he masterminded crimes against humanity during the post election violence. If Ruto is violating the Constitution at this early stage, what will he do with the document in case he ascends to power through some divine miracle?
After opposing the Constitution, Ruto is now seeking to rape the document. Luckily, there is a very strong opposition that will, hopefully, stop him (and Uhuru) before the two can defile a sacred document, a defilement which carries with it very serious consequences for the Republic as a whole.
Building a new Kenya if suspected criminals vie for presidency
For now, concerned Kenyans can only hope that William Ruto and Uhuru Kenyatta will fail in their mission, not because Raila (or anyone else) is fit to lead Kenya, but because if Ruto and Uhuru succeed in raping the Constitution; and with the kind of impunity the two suspects are exhibiting in public, the democratic gains of the last three decades of bitter struggle by the Kenyan people shall have been wiped out.
If this rape occurs and Ruto or Uhuru presents themselves as Presidential candidates, no Kenyan should ever value that piece of paper called the Constitution. If I were to make recommendations in the event of Ruto or Uhuru presenting themselves as presidential candidates, the Constitution should be torn into pieces and the pieces burnt to ashes.
In paraphrase, if the two suspects ever get a go-ahead from anybody or any Institution in Kenya to present themselves as Presidential candidates using whatever pretexts, every right thinking Kenyan who can get a copy of the Constitution should bring it to Uhuru Park (or freedom square or anywhere central) and set the document ablaze in a huge bonfire using the most inflammable brand of petrol available in Kenya. Why?
Even with the new Constitution currently in place, our country is recognized as a failed State and a banana republic to boot. This is one big reason why the Rutos could not be tried in Kenya, forcing ICC to take over the cases. If the two are allowed to rape the Constitution, there should be no reason why the country should not slide slowly towards anarchy. In fact, the argument for anarchy may be very strong. If the so called leaders cannot follow the rules agreed by the majority who are being governed, why should the majority follow the same rules in the interest of the leaders?
Obviously, a banana republic or a failed State is better than an anarchistic republic as recently witnessed in Iraq following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In any case, Kenyans do not have to look far for a perfect example of the brand of chaos that can engulf the country if things go wrong because very few Kenyans have forgotten the post election violence. Should the country be held to ransom because of the fate of two suspected criminals who should have quit politics to address the bigger issues facing them? It is the duty of every Kenyan who loves the country to join the movement to stop these suspects right on their tracks.
Ruto and Uhuru ought to be preparing their defence teams, not creating tension in the country with talk about contesting elections. In other countries like the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, such suspects hide from public view as their hide-outs are sought with latest technology. It is anathema that in Kenya, these suspects are holding political rallies and threatening to seek high office, time when they talk freely about violating the Constitution as they are cheered by idle, drunken, corrupted, unemployed and brainwashed youths they call “supporters”.
If criminals suspected of having committed crimes against humanity are allowed to stand for Presidential election through bending of the rules by their contacts in government, my proposal is that the Republic of Kenya should be “dissolved”, the Kenyan State “dismantled”, the Constitution “set ablaze” and the country split into independent Provincial zones of Majimbo. The provinces can then govern themselves and provinces which can agree to follow a common set of rules (a new constitution) can then unite to try and build a new and democratic Kenya from scratch.
The risk is that in the absence of such an alternative, the country may have to prepare for a civil war because 40 ethnic communities will not accept to be ruled for ever by individual and corrupt members of two ethnic groups who seize State power by stealing elections, raping the Constitution or bending the rules at their pleasure.
Okoth Osewe
About the Author
Osewe, your piece is spot on with facts and sarcasm. Uhuru ran around the country supporting the Constitution, while Ruto opposed it. However, it was promulgated and is being implemented, so must be followed by all Kenyans.
The two power hungry PEV-accused fellows have no leadership agenda for Kenyans. Instead of spelling out a development program on how to improve the country in case they win their presidential and vice presidential bids, their political rallies are used to insult Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
Uhuru Kenyatta is extremely wealthy due to his father’s corruption and has no connection with the youth he pays to fill his rallies. What does he know about poverty? Nothing. Ruto also allegedly acquired his wealth unscrupulously and has no attachment with the masses he assembles to preach sweet nothings to.
If Ruto and Uhuru were serious about leading the country, their conscience would have told them that the Constitution is the “bible” that guides governance and has chapters on ethics and integrity. However, they have no iota of respect for it.
Under President Kibaki’s leadership, impunity is the norm and we recall how, on January 23rd after the ICC ruling on confirmation of charges, he empowered the Ocampo Four by constituting a team to investigate the ICC process. Why is Kibaki supporting them yet their crimes are individual and not representative of the country? He is misusing taxpayers’ money on these people, thereby contravening the same Constitution he swore to follow. Kibaki is a master of cruel deception.
It’s only in Kenya where people accused of crimes against humanity traverse the country seeking to occupy the highest office. However, Kenyans are smart enough to see through Uhuru and Ruto, who ironically, never talk publicly about the IDPs and PEV victims. It is a fact that the Kalenjins (Ruto’s ethnic group) and Kikuyus (Uhuru’s ethnic group), have unfinished business in the name of land possession within Rift Valley. Kalenjins attacked, maimed, forcibly evicted and killed Kikuyus, while Kikuyus killed some Kalenjins during the PEV. The recurring land clashes in Rift Valley will soon resurface, given that it is an election period. Uhuru owns massive land in the region, yet thinks the Kalenjin are credulous and will support his quest for the presidency.
Uhuru and Ruto need thaumaturgy to win the ICC trials and Kenya’s presidency. As Abraham Lincoln stated: “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
Court gags debate on Uhuru, Ruto bid for top seat
By NATION REPORTER
Posted Thursday, February 2 2012 at 11:39
The Constitutional Court has issued an order barring public discussion on the candidature of Deputy Prime Minister and William Ruto in the next presidential elections until a case before it is heard and determined.
Justice Isaac Lenaola issued the orders on Thursday in response to a petition by three voters and two civil societies seeking to block Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto from vying for the Presidency in the next elections.
The petitioners, in their application, reason that Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto were rendered ineligible for public office after International Criminal Court (ICC) pre-trial judges confirmed charges against them.
They cite Article 6 of the Constitution on leadership and integrity that they say prevents the two from running for a public office. (READ: Voters in court to block Uhuru, Ruto from Presidency)
The Kenya Youth Parliament and the Kenya Youth League, alongside Patrick Njuguna, Augustino Netto and Charles Omanga, claim that the confirmed charges against Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto are serious offences under the Kenyan and International laws.
The petitioners are also seeking an order to permanently restrain the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) from accepting the nomination of any candidate who has been committed to trial for serious criminal charges under the Kenyan and International law.
They also want a declaration that the presumption of innocence in favor of Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto should not override the need to uphold the principles of the Constitution.
ICC pre-trial judges confirmed criminal charges against Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto and committed them to trial over the 2008 post-election violence. The two have since indicated that they will appeal against the ruling.
the two suspected criminals are going nowhere but to The Hague.They will be locked in for many years and will pay the victims milions of Kenya shillings for the losses they brought them.We have a new Constitution and even Kibaki the king of impunity will not save them.
Published on 06/04/2011
By MARTIN MUTUA
Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP Minister William Ruto had opposed the formation of a local tribunal to try poll chaos suspects.
They were in the forefront in marshalling allies in Cabinet and Parliament to reject a local justice mechanism.
The two had on two occasions ganged up in the House and marshalled allies to reject efforts to set up a tribunal with choruses of “dont be vague lets go to The Hague.”
The Waki Commission had recommended the establishment of a special tribunal to try suspected masterminds of the chaos.
Proponents of the Local Tribunal Bill were President Kibaki, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Justice Minister Mutula Kilonzo, his predecessor Martha Karua and Imenti Central MP Gitobu Imanyara.
Even House Speaker Kenneth Marende made frantic efforts to convince MPs that the way to go was a local tribunal but in vain.
In February 2009, MPs rejected the Bill to establish the tribunal despite intense lobbying by Kibaki and Raila.
Karua, who was then the Justice minister, had introduced the Bill.
At the time, Chief mediator Kofi Annan had granted the country a two-month extension that had lapsed to set up the tribunal as he held on to the “Waki envelope” which named suspected perpetrators of the post-election violence.
The second attempt to establish a local tribunal was again rejected in June 2009 after MPs threw out the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill that sought to anchor it in law.
This time round, Mutula had introduced the Bill.
The envelope
At the time, Annan had been holding on to the famous envelope, with the hope that Parliament would agree to the formation of local tribunal that meets international standards.
But after the second attempt was thrown out and with the deadline gone, Kibaki and Raila convinced Annan to give the Government more time to establish the tribunal.
Annan, who brokered a power-sharing deal, then gave Kenya until August last year to set up the tribunal failure to which he would make public the Waki envelope and hand it over to The Hague.
Uhuru, Ruto and their allies rejected any move to introduce the Bill for a local tribunal, arguing they had no faith in Kenyas justice system.
Ruto, who was then the Agriculture Minister, defied Kibaki and Raila Odinga on the matter.
He was reported saying beneficiaries of the violence were in office with big vehicles yet the Government wanted to jail small men who had fought for them.
And after the country failed to set the local tribunal, Annan had no option but to forward the Waki envelope to the International Criminal Court in July 2009.
The Government, through a delegation consisting of Mutula, Attorney General Amos Wako, Lands Minister James Orengo, among others, signed an agreement with Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo in July last year.
The agreement was another effort to establish a local tribunal.
However, these efforts collapsed as the Government failed and Moreno-Ocampo initiated investigations and got approval from the Pre Trial chamber II judges.
And on December 15, Ocampo made good his threat and named the six as bearing the greatest responsibility in the violence.
Some of the six rejected local tribunal option
Published on 05/04/2011
By Peter Opiyo
President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga voted for a special local tribunal despite opposition from MPs on a local mechanism to try post-election violence suspects.
Head of Public Service and Secretary to the Cabinet Francis Muthaura had earlier communicated to the MPs to support the local mechanism. The letter would later elicit fury in Parliament with then Ikolomani MP Bonny Khalwale tabling the document saying it was authored by ‘a stranger in this House’.
“As evidenced by the presence of the two principals in the House, I am disturbed that I am not too sure whether the independence of the House is going to be exercised today,” added Dr Khalwale.
Speaker Kenneth Marende, however, overruled Khalwale, saying the letter was exclusively to ministers and assistant ministers and that Parliament was not bound by it.
This cleared the way for voting on the Bill, which Kibaki and Raila rallied their troops to garner 101 votes against 93, forcing the Bill to lapse. The Government side required at least 145 MPs (65 per cent) to pass the Bill.
In an interview with Reuters after the vote, Raila expressed his disappointment saying the defeat was a big blow to the fight against impunity.
“This is a setback in the war against impunity and injustice, the Government will take stock and move forward,” Raila told Reuters.
Prior to the voting MPs had debated over the matter with the backbenchers opposing the establishment of a local process, saying it would be manipulated.
Former Justice Minister Martha Karua, however, said the local tribunal would be a special one with credible structures.
“Those who are saying they have no faith in our justice system, this will not be our normal justice system. It is a special system where a prosecutor will be hired from the international pool. It is where a special registrar and investigator will be hired and where the tribunal and the special magistrate will be manned by people selected through a different process,” said Ms Karua.
She prevailed upon the MPs to endorse the local tribunal saying The Hague process would only deal with the heaviest offenders, leaving petty offenders scot-free.
Karua’s plea
“To say that we go to The Hague, it means only those responsible for international crimes will be tried, if at all. It means the person who raped, murdered or destroyed the property of another will walk scot-free,’ said the Gichugu MP.
And it was Public Service Assistant Minister Aden Sugow who carried the clarion call of ‘Let’s not be Vague, let’s go to The Hague,’ from the MPs’ lounge right in the Chamber.
“We do not have the moral standing to be able to have a very transparent and clear process to try those who were behind the clashes in this country… let me say this: Let us not be vague in this House; let us go to the Hague,” said Mr Sugow.
Kangundo MP, Johnson Muthama opposed the local tribunal saying the country has no capacity to try the suspects locally.
“Ni vyema tugeuze mbinu zetu kidogo ili kuwaonyesha wale ambao huuwa wengine kwamba ndege zitakuja, watawekwa ndani na kupelekwa kule, na kuiacha nchi hii ikiwa na amani. Kwa hayo ninapinga na kusema kwamba hapa hatuna uwezo wa kuwafanyia hao watu mashtaka. (We need to show those who murdered that the planes would soon be ready to take them there (The Hague) so that they leave this country in peace. So, I oppose the local tribunal because we do not have the capacity to try the suspects locally),” said Muthama.
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000032682&cid=4&
How Kenyan lawyers won Kosgey’s ICC case
Posted by JUDIE KABERIA on February 2, 2012
NAIROBI, Kenya, Feb 2 – The most memorable moment in his career was when the defence team of Henry Kosgey got an opportunity to present its case to the Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
But the climax was Monday January 23, 2012 when the judges returned a verdict indicating that Kosgey would not be committed to trial for the 2008 post-election violence.
Forty two-year-old Julius Kipkosgey Kemboy was the instructing counsel in Kosgey’s defence team in the ICC process.
He was all smiles and elated when we caught up with him at his Riverside Green Office Suites on Nairobi’s Riverside Drive. But one thing that struck me was his sense of humility.
He recalls that the Ruling was delivered to them barely a few minutes before the ICC judges walked into court to make their decision public.
“Even as the judges were walking into the court to give the televised proceedings, we were struggling to open the PDF document; we were scrolling down to the bottom to see the decision,” Kemboy remembers.
“We actually only knew the outcome as she (judge Ekaterina Trendafilova) began reading her televised press release.”
The day had started early for Kosgey’s legal team who gathered at the office of the Lead Counsel George Oraro.
“As the time went by, anxiety grew. When it came we all jumped up and hugged. The client took a little while for it to sink,” he recollects.
Read related story here.
This was Kemboy’s first time to handle a Criminal case at an international level, and he says the journey was torturous.
“We had done international civil cases and commercial disputes before but this was the first time and the most serious criminal defence we had to do,” he explains.
They put in a lot of hard work and made difficult decisions that sometimes were a controversy amongst themselves and the client including his family and constituents.
Kosgey approached Kemboy in December 2010 seeking legal advice after the ICC summoned the six Kenyans suspected of masterminding the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya.
“We engaged after the summonses were issued. I got somebody to lead us when I looked at the extent of the work that was involved and the seriousness of the charges,” he recalls.
Kemboy consulted George Oraro to lead Kosgey’s defence. They also enrolled the legislator’s son Allan Kosgey to be part of the team and three UK consultants led by Matthew Ryder. They also employed Hague-based Liane Aronchick as Case Manager and Gissou Nia as Legal Assistant.
The ICC Prosecutor had sought to charge Kosgey with murder, forcible transfer of populations and persecutions.
Together with local legal experts and defence investigators, the team first organised their defence strategy and also familiarised itself with the ICC system which according to Kemboy is totally different from that of Kenyan courts.
“The jurisdiction of the ICC court is totally different from ours. In Kenya, you have the defence on one side and the prosecutor on the other side. You do your thing and the court just sits and makes up their mind on who does what,” Kemboy explains.
Under the Rome Statute however, the court takes the responsibility of trying to find the truth. It is involved in everyday affairs of managing the case. It is concerned with disclosure of evidence. It decides what should be disclosed and what should not be disclosed.
One of the most unique things about the court is also the communication and filing of documents using their E-Court system which the defence had to learn as they prepared to shred Ocampo’s evidence during the confirmation of charges hearings in October.
“There is a whole regime of disclosure of evidence that was set by the court when the six showed up during the initial appearance. There is a structured way which you are given and you respond according to that structure.”
The Hague, the ICC and Ocampo were of course words with gravity in Kenya. To the suspects and their defence they were a real headache and a puzzle to crack.
Kemboy concedes that the mere fact that the court is in a European country was in itself overwhelming.
“Of course it is daunting when you appear there. It is a court sitting in a European capital… you are from Africa. You arrive there and you don’t know what perceptions the court has because of the observation that we are people who butcher each other, or where bad things happen. It’s really daunting,” he recalls.
The Senior Partner of Kemboy & Ogola Advocates says that the defence gathered the best remedies of success and courage to ensure they did not lose their focus on winning Kosgey’s case.
Though he knew the case against Kosgey was not a walkover, the father of three clinched on his goal of demostrating his client’s innocence.
“It was a very difficult case. There are very few people who have gone to the ICC and have gone out at confirmation stage. We were a bit apprehensive. But like we decided, we would put our best foot forward and left it to the court to decide,” he remembers.
One thing that most Kenyans and probably the ICC must have observed is that Kosgey maintained a low profile since he became a subject at the court.
Read here on Kosgey maintaining a low profile.
It now emerges that it was a strategy advised by Kemboy and his fellow defence lawyers.
“The first thing we did was to have a session with our client. We told him; you are faced with a legal problem which needs a legal solution; the offence of crimes against humanity itself is such a serious offence that it is in the nature of things that shock humanity not just Kenyans.”
Kemboy asked him to recognise that the crimes he was alleged to have committed were facts of the 2008 post election violence that left people dead and others suffering.
“Even as you claim your innocence you should show some humility. Your conduct should be able to demonstrate your appreciation for the seriousness of the offence. That way we will be able to get a defence for you,” was his advice to his client.
The low profile was also another strategy of not provoking the ICC. Kemboy appreciates that his client heeded the advice throughout the process.
“The court is also conscious. You do not aggravate the court, the victims and also the witnesses, because if you are rubble rousing and whipping up emotions, there is a sense that, that conduct maybe seen as brazen,” Kemboy advised Kosgey at the time.
“It does not show humility even for the fact that you are before a court. It may also be taken to be an act of impunity trying to intimidate the witnesses and really laugh at the victims,” the lawyer further explains.
Another strategy employed by Kemboy and his colleagues was to advise Kosgey not to call witnesses during the confirmation of charges hearings.
Read the court’s decision here.
Kemboy reveals that they also received alot of guidance from the ICC’s Office of the Public Counsel for Defence which is a department that is charged with advising defence teams.
The idea of not calling live witnesses was however not popular with the client’s family, friends and close advisors.
“Our training is if you want to prove a case, you have to bring a witness. It was even difficult for us to explain to our client that we would not be calling any witness. He told us he had difficulty explaining to people at home because he is a politician. People were telling him, you want to be jailed? How come you have no witness?” he recalls.
But ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo decision not to call any live witness was a blessing in disguise for their team. They could confidently explain to the client that he had no business calling live witnesses to give testimony when the Prosecutor had no live witnesses of his own.
“We saw that the prosecutor himself did not call witnesses. If he was keeping them from us, why should we give him the opportunity to know our witnesses or even cross examine them? He was not telling us who his witnesses are, we could not ask them questions,” he says.
Kemboy also learnt that bringing in live witnesses could easily create confusion and muddle up their defence.
“We give him a witness who he will question and become part of the record, and the evidence from our witness can actually contradict our own defence. So we actually stand the risk of giving out a witness who is supposed to be helping your case but is being used by the court to enhance the case against you.”
Another strategy that Kemboy used in Kosgey’s defence was only picking a team of Kenyan lawyers.
“If you have Kenyan lawyers, a lot of these facts are in their finger tips. Even as you guide your investigators you can tell them where the offences are alleged to have been committed and they easily understand. They know what is relevant and what is not. Kenyan lawyers are equally trained, we read the same books as foreign lawyers,” Kemboy explains.
During the confirmation of charges hearings, Kemboy says that their defence was on numerous times told by the court to slow down in their presentation.
“In Kenya we are used to speaking as much as we want, but there, they use recorders so you have to slow down, meaning you also slow down your thinking process.”
He also says some of the evidence presented in court by the prosecution team was simply “outrageous.”
“The more the prosecution relayed their case, the more you would wonder if they were talking about the same events that we witnessed here (Kenya),” he recounts.
Overall, the advocate appreciates that a chance to represent a client before the world court was both humbling and eye-opening and that above all, justice was done in respect of their client.
“We have learnt a lot not just for our own purposes but even for the purposes of making suggestions to our own Judiciary on how to manage the filing statements, the exposure to international systems, how a court of law should be equipped and function. We filed many applications electronically,” he says.
Disolve and destroy this Hegemony/Nepotism and Kibaki-gema tribalism>
SHOCKING REPORT
« Thread Started on Jul 8, 2011, 1:59am »
——————————————————————————–
Kenya: Skills shock in new civil service probe
4 July 2011
Source URL:
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Skills+shock+in+new+Civil+Service+probe++/-…
Nairobi: Kenya’s first ever government audit of the civil service has exposed shocking talent, ethnic, gender and academic imbalances. Among the worrying statistics is that some small tribes don’t have even a single university graduate in the service, 172,914 workers have no formal qualifications at all and only 136 PhD holders are in central government employment.
The report released by Public Service minister Dalmas Otieno last week shows the Kikuyu and Kalenjin occupy nearly a third of all civil service jobs.
The two communities account for 82,001 civil servants in a pool of 217,069 employees.
The survey also highlighted the link between access to instruments of state and employment, with communities from arid areas scoring very low on all indicators — education, placement, and gender. On the other hand communities with more political and economic elite enjoyed higher representation across all levels.
Kenya’s first three Presidents — Jomo Kenyatta, Daniel Moi and Mwai Kibaki — hail from the Kikuyu and Kalenjin communities, raising the possibility that they may have used their positions to bloat the service with “their people”.
The findings mirror an earlier survey of ministries released by the National Cohesion and Integration Commission that found the two tribes dominated the public service.
According to the Staff Audit of the Civil Service report, the Kikuyu have 48,404 members of staff, followed by the Kalenjin, 33,597 and the Luhya, 24,648. Other communities in the top 10 are Kamba, Luo, Kisii, Meru, Miji Kenda, Embu and Taita.
On gender, only 28 per cent of civil servants are women. Similarly only four of the 48 ministries have employed more women than men. There are: Public Health (55 per cent), Medical Services (51 per cent), State Law Office (58 per cent) and Public Service Commission (59 per cent).
Out of the 49 communities represented in the civil service, 10 communities are fairly represented in terms of staff numbers and distribution across all age brackets.
The Kikuyu have the highest number of civil servants below the age of 30 years, 9,777, followed by the Kalenjin, 6,836 and Luhya, 4,816.
For staff aged between 31 and 40 years, the Kalenjin are tops at 13,001, followed by the Kikuyu, 10,429.
The Kikuyu also lead the pack among those aged 61 years and above, followed by the Kamba and Luo. This could be partly due to the appointment of retirees (the official retirement age is 60) to plum jobs in the Executive.
For instance, head of public service Francis Muthaura, Local Government PS Karega Mutahi and PS in the Prime Minister office Mohammed Isahakia, among others, are above the retirement age.
On education, the survey found that civil servants from five communities did not have degrees. The communities, Boni Sanye, Dasnach-Sh, Elmolo, Gosha, Hawiya, come from northern Kenya, one of the least developed parts of the country. The Dorobo have only one member with a degree, while Gureeh and Ogaden have two and four each, respectively.
Overall, however the Kikuyu have the highest number of graduates, 5,039, followed by Luhya 2,532, Luo 2,248, Kalenjin 1,846, Kamba 1,813, Kisii 1,585 and Meru 989.
A total of 1,743 officers have master’s degrees, with the Kikuyu topping at 479. The Luhya have 239 master’s degree holders, Luo 230 and Kisii 228.
Ten communities do not have a single representative with a master’s degree. This include the Bonin Sanye, Dasnach-Sh, Elmolo, Gosha, Gureeh, Hawiya, Murulle, Njemos, Orma and Rendile.
Some 136 civil servants have doctoral degrees. Most of them come from the seven communities with the highest representation in the service.
The Kikuyu, with 34, top the list, followed by the Kalenjin 20, Luo 18, Luhya 14 and Kamba 11.
The Bajun, Boran, Ogaden, Degodia and Tavetta have two members, while the Burji, Gosha, Tavetta and Tharak have one. Twenty five communities are not represented in the league of the most educated public servants.
The study was conducted to establish the human resource capacity in the Public Service, to inform on staffing levels as envisaged in the new Constitution. The 15-member team comprised H.N. Ogega, Wangari Ndia,Nelson Weru, David Kanji, Peris Bosire, Cirindi Muriuki and Alvin Njuguna, among others.
Kibaki is having sleepless nights>KIBAKI WORRIED BY ICC Saturday, 04 February 2012 00:06 BY STAR TEAM
CROWNED: President Kibaki after he was installed as a Luo elder in Kisumu on Thursday. Photo/Justus Ochieng
PRESIDENT Kibaki is a worried man. He is reportedly concerned that he may be asked to appear before the International Criminal Court when Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former Civil Service boss Francis Muthaura go to trial as now seems likely. “He has expressed his concern to some of his family members and close confidants that he be asked to testify especially because of the letter who wrote to the court defending the Head of Public Service,” said a close associate.
Kibaki’s witness statement confirmed that he attended a meeting on November 26, 2007 in State House meeting with youth groups. With hindsight Kibaki probably did not need to write a witness statement since it largely duplicated the witness statement sent to the ICC by former State House comptroller Hyslop Ipu. That witness statement contained the list of visitors to State House that day.ICC Chief Prosecutor contends that some or all of the youth were Mungiki members and that they were negotiating a deal for support for the election one month later.
The tensions among the President’s handlers has reached politicians who have spoken about it in the last two weeks. “The person they want is Kibaki that is why they have touched on our four brothers. We must pray to God that their appeals go through at ICC so that the President can enjoy his retirement peacefully,” said Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka on Thursday at a prayer rally in Meru. Ocampo claims that the State House meeting is evidence of a government relationship with Mungiki.
Kibaki confirmed the meeting with ‘youth’ in a signed witness statement sent to the ICC last year defending Muthaura and Kenyatta. Kibaki’s witness statement in defence of Muthaura was tabled at the confirmation of charges hearings held between September 21 and October 5 2011. Details of the statement were not disclosed but inferring from last week’s ruling, it refuted Mungiki having been present at State House on November 26. Muthaura and Uhuru are accused of five counts of crimes against humanity following the post election violence in Nakuru and Naivasha in January and February 2008. The ICC was sceptical of claims that the meeting was only with youth.
On January 23 when confirming the charges against Uhuru and Muthaura, the ICC judges said the meeting was confirmed “to the requisite threshold and in considerable detail”. The judges said that others who allegedly attended the meeting were then State House Comptroller Hyslop Ipu, Presidential Press Service head Isaya Kabira, Stanley Murage.
Muthaura reportedly introduced the Mungiki as “youth” and a sect representative then presented their demands on behalf of Maina Njenga, who was then in jail, in exchange for the sect’s support for the President. “After hearing the Mungiki demands, the President addressed Mr. Muthaura telling him something to the effect of: “You have heard what the youth want, so now it is upon you,” the judges quoted a witness as saying.
Among those who represented the Mungiki at the meeting, according to the judges, were Maina Kang’ethe aka Diambo and two others whose names are redacted but who presumably are the two prosecution witnesses who testified against Uhuru and Muthaura. The judges said the meeting was corroborated by several prosecution witnesses and that no defence witnesses disproved them. “Since these persons are directly mentioned as having participated in the meeting with Mungiki representatives, the Chamber approaches their statements with reservation,” the pre trial chamber judges said when downplaying Kibaki and Ipu’s witness statements.
Kituo Cha Sheria boss Priscilla Nyokabi said she doubted Kibaki would appear at the ICC for either defence or prosecution. “The prosecution would not want to have him since he would prove a hostile witness and would not help its case anyway. The defence would be wary of calling him because it would expose him to cross examination,” Nyokabi said.
International Centre in Policy and Conflict’s Ndung’u Wainaina believes Kibaki could be roped into the matter when he retires. “The NSIS reports tell it all. A critical analysis of the events leading to the ICC confirmations leaves no doubts as to the fears in Kibaki’s circle,” Wainaina said.
Kibaki has continued to refute any sinister intent in the meting. “As we have stated in the past no such meetings took place at State House, Nairobi and is indeed the product of the imagination of the so called anonymous prosecution witness,” a statement from PPS last week said. “It is ridiculous, preposterous and an insult for anyone to claim that whenever members of youth groups drawn from different parts of the country visit our President in State House accompanied by relevant Government Officials, the youth members are Mungiki holding a clandestine meeting,” said government spokesman Dr. Alfred Mutua last Thursday
In his appeal over the confirmation decision, Uhuru said the preference shown to Ocampo’s witnesses and the distrust for Kibaki’s statement revealed the bias of the judges. “The Majority also held that it did not “find conclusive” media materials referred to in paragraph 330 that certain defence witnesses, including the President of Kenya, cannot be regarded as “decisive” in the determination of this fact,” Uhuru said in his application.
Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White lands for everybodyNo one is calling Tibetans trying to protect their culture and their personal safety “racist”But if I speak of the obvious ongoing program of genocide against my people, the white race, you call me a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjewsAnti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.
For the first time in 50 years of Independence, Kenya’s elites are finally running scared
Posted Saturday, February 4 2012 at 10:04
The formal charging of three prominent Kenyan politicians, (and one hanger-on) with crimes against humanity presents Kenyans with possibly the first opportunity to witness an example of their leaders being held accountable for their actions, since Kenya became independent 50 years ago.
Until now, the country has endured a culture of political impunity that saw one president die peacefully in a presidential bed, and another retire in some comfort, despite numerous allegations of serious “bad manners” while they were in power.
It was perhaps therefore quite logical for the current state managers to expect that this was the way Kenyan presidentialism and all its attendant maladies, worked.
The indictments of the civil service head and some coalition party members now challenges this perception.
Of particular symbolism is the indictment of Uhuru Kenyatta, who was working as both deputy prime minister and finance minister, and, as the scion of the republic’s first president, is the closest thing it has to a crown prince. It suggests that an historically entrenched attitude of disregard for the lives of little people forms the very culture of the state.
Elections are supposed to work by presenting citizens with an either/or set of choices of who is to govern them. After their 2008 election, Kenyans ended up instead with a situation where all the choices on offer ended up as the government. This, plus the violence that preceded it, is the best evidence of how aware all concerned are, that the election results were extremely dubious, at best, and outright fraudulent at worst.
The resultant Kofi Annan-brokered compromise was intended to prevent a resumption of the violence and give this Kenyan political elite enough time to clear up the mess they had created.
This opportunity was ignored. Buoyed by a self-satisfied sense of invincibility, the new Kenyan coalition government simply turned their minds to the seemingly more pressing issues related to “managing” the public purse.
Despite two extensions by first Mr Annan, and then later one more from the ICC’s Mr Ocampo himself, the government displayed an astonishing disregard for the need for concrete action to address the aftermath of the electoral mayhem, that was as cavalier as it was callous.
The disinterest in the plight of the bulk of the persons displaced into camps by the fighting, or the need to process the nearly 5,000 cases of persons suspected of participating in it, could almost be expected. After all, having benefited from the failure to count their ballots, one could hardly expect these august gentlemen to show an interest in any other aspect of voters’ lives.
The drama and tragedies that follow fraudulent elections can often blind observers to the purpose behind election rigging in the first place. It is actually a first managerial step aimed at seizing control of the state in order to then use that power to loot the public’s resources.
Certainly, the long list of financial scandals that followed the installation of the “unity” government, as well as the determined overlooking of pre-election ones, suggest that this coalition of non-winners have not lost sight of this goal.
This could explain their other oversight, which has led to the their present predicament and much shouting.
Despite plenty of well-meaning advice, the government opted to not domesticate the ICC charges by using or designing a local process. With the exaggerated sense of masculinity that dominates too much of Kenyan public life, they essentially challenged Ocampo to “bring it on.” Some cynics have suggested that an additional calculation was the expectation that the Hague proceedings would take a very long time to materialise and certainly not be in place by the time of the forthcoming election.
Reality then delivered a rapid succession of blows such that Kenyans would be forgiven for concluding that they are being governed by short-termist chancers with feet of clay.
The initial ICC naming of five senior figures (and the one hanger-on) as suspects last year, led to panicky belated demands in parliament to domesticate the process. When it was explained how that legal window was now closed, the new demand was than Kenya should withdraw its parliament-ratified recognition of the ICC. Civil society lawyers then patiently pointed out that this too was a year-long process and could not affect any pending cases anyway. It was at that point that the panic became visceral.
The more recent formal laying of charges against four of the six has seen a reprise of these unworkable demands to a more comedic effect. The attorney-general’s attempt to conjure up a new division of the High Court, and the vice-president’s fruitless trip to New York to persuade the UN to step in, as well as the sudden interest by the public prosecutor in having the 5,000 pending local cases fast-tracked has only heightened the impression that nobody in charge ever expected matters to come to this, and therefore saw no need for contingency plans.
The charges, and their possible outcomes bear more symbolic than restorative significance, regardless of whether they lead to very long jail sentences or not.
They mark the moment when the Kenyan governing elite were obliged to acknowledge that the lives of people they govern matter as much as their own. Furthermore, that an agreement is an agreement, be it an electoral law, an international treaty, or even an entire constitution.
If that becomes entrenched in a new political culture, then some kind of justice will have been achieved. The only question that would remain is if that culture would be able to accommodate this current crop of leaders.
Campaign finance: Price tag of Kenya 2012 presidential race likely to hit $130 million
By MWAURA KIMANI AND CHRISTINE MUNGAI
As campaign season gets into high gear in coming months, there is one word that is keeping top presidential contenders awake: Money.
In interviews with top presidential contenders and campaign insiders, it is emerging that the price tag for running for president in 2012 could double from what it was in 2007, with campaigns expected to be bigger, louder and flashier, as each voter now gets to help pick two more electoral positions under the new devolved system.
A voter will now pick a president, MP, senator, governor and civic representative.
A study by the Coalition for Accountable Political Financing (CAPF), a Nairobi-based think-tank, estimates that President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga spent $75 million (what could be easily traced) on their presidential bids in 2007.
Campaign insiders told The East-African that they expect that a well-run presidential bid — targeting, besides the presidency itself, the election of enough senators and Members of Parliament from the candidate’s party to allow him or her to rule comfortably without having to enter into messy coalitions — could cost between $100 million and $150 million.
Political strategists and pollsters are estimating that the top residential contenders –– such as Uhuru Kenyatta, William Ruto, Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka, George Saitoti, Peter Kenneth, Raphael Tuju and Martha Karua –– could spend each spend in this range of $100 million to $150 million if they were to launch serious national presidential campaigns.
At this level of spending by top contenders, the coming election could inject upwards of $500 million into the Kenyan economy, a financial stimulus that could spark inflation.
This money is likely to end up in the pockets of small and big business owners as well as well-placed consultants in media and politics as candidates splash cash on publicity, merchandise, travel and operating campaign secretariats.
If you factor in inflation and the new positions, definitely parties and candidates will spend significantly more,” said Kennedy Masime, the director of Centre for Governance and Development, which published the 2007 report on election campaign financing.
“There are some elements that have been put in place to regulate campaign financing, but the problem is that election law in Kenya has not been properly conceptualised—there is no organising philosophy.
We have laws scattered all over—from the Political Parties Act, Public Officer Ethics Act, Elections Act and so many others pieces of legislation, not to mention all the bodies that supervise election financing in one capacity or another, “ said Mr Masime.
Fundraising
Raising campaign money will not be easy, however, after two recent laws — the Elections and Political Parties Act and the Campaign Finance Bill — banned candidates from raising money from foreigners and imposed a maximum limit of Ksh5 million ($60,240) that a single donor can contribute.
This means that seeking donations from millions of supporters through social networks to be paid through mobile money micro-payments solutions is going to be the next big thing in Kenyan politics. The campaigns could also see a rise in so-called independent political action committees that can raise money freely and support their causes and candidates.
New election rules could see the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission seek more transparency and frequent public disclosure of campaign finances in addition to what the new laws are demanding.
Already candidates vying for the highest office are busy making plans to build enough financial muscle to bankroll them to power come December or March.
They have set in motion campaign machinery ranging from high-tech operational offices to high profile campaign think-tanks groups made up of professionals, technocrats, business people and academicians. Several are said to have bought helicopters to help them get around the country to meet voters.
Sources told The EastAfrican that Peter Kenneth has, for example, bought two helicopters at an estimated cost of $3.12 million. Uhuru Kenyatta is also said to have a helicopter at his disposal. Mr Kenneth is said to have raised at least Ksh2.5 billion ($31.25 million) for his campaigns towards the close of last year.
Prof George Saitoti, the Minister for Internal Security, who has indicated he will be vying for the presidency, is reportedly said to have set aside Ksh2 billion ($23 million) for his presidential bid, a figure that some analysts reckon is too low to bankroll a serious campaign to State House.
“Ksh2 billion is too little for a campaign,” said political strategist Moses Kuria, who works with the Party of National Unity (PNU), putting the price tag of a “serious campaign” at at least Ksh8 billion ($100 million).
Zach Mutuma, head of communications for Raphael Tuju’s 2012 campaign, said the former foreign affairs minister had raised nearly Ksh3 billion ($37.5 million) and was planning to bring in at least three helicopters for his campaigns.
A political strategist who worked in President Kibaki’s 2007 campaign team said each of the candidates would require at least Ksh10 billion ($125 million) for the entire campaign lasting at least one year, a huge chunk going into bankrolling candidates seeking to become MPs, governors and senators using their party.
These are individuals the presidential candidates would expect to spread their influence at the grassroots. The biggest spend, the estimates show would be on logistics and publicity.
Most expensive
A survey CAPF shows the 2007 general election was the most expensive in the country’s history, where close to Ksh6 billion ($75 million) was spent by the main presidential contenders, Mr Odinga and President Kibaki. Political parties raised nearly Ksh4.8 billion ($56 million) for the campaigns from nomination fees and from foreigners.
Other sources, the report shows, were bank loans, saccos, pyramid schemes and sales of candidates’ personal assets.
The report also states that Ksh1 billion ($12 million) may have been spent through misuse of state resources, such as state media, vehicles and the Government Printer. PNU, which was backing President Kibaki, reportedly raised Ksh 2.1 billion ($24 million), while Raila Odinga’s ODM raised Ksh 1.2 billion ($14.1 million).
ODM-Kenya, which was supporting Kalonzo Musyoka, raised Ksh 157 million ($1.8 million). These estimates are corroborated by Synovate, the research firm, which projects that the campaigns cost the candidates Ksh5 billion ($60 million) of which Ksh 663 million ($7.4 million) went into advertising.
Big players in advertising contracts included Ogilvy East Africa, a subsidiary of WPP-owned Scangroup, which handled the advertising for President Kibaki’s re-election in 2007.
But this time, the race is expected to be more expensive, given the fact that candidates will be looking for support in 290 constituencies, and they also have to have candidates in the senatorial and gubernatorial races. Economists told The EastAfrican that massive spending could trigger inflationary pressures.
“When so much money is poured into the economy, especially in the last months to elections, we could see inflation rising, ” said Dr Tabitha Kiriti-Ng’ang’a, an economist at the University of Nairobi.
“Ordinarily, an election year is tricky. While some businesses and consultants will benefit, the campaign mood could hurt productive activity. If the government is not alert, money laundering could rise, ” she added.
But as attention shifts to political fundraising, candidates are facing hard legal realities as Kenya tightens its laws regarding how politicians raise money and account for it to the public.
With the enactment of the Elections Act and the Political Parties Act and the proposed Campaign Financing Bill, Kenya has joined the ranks of consolidated democracies like the US and UK that have in place elaborate laws to both bring transparency to the process and shield elective politics from influence peddling by big donors.
The Campaign Finance Bill hopes to bridge the funding gap between political parties, curb corruption, limit the influence of special interests, limit the impact of money on the outcome of elections and force parties to be accountable to members.
But experts say governance loopholes remain, as politicians are under the direct influence of wealthy donors, who may use a maze of cross-ownerships, shadowy nominees and linkages to spread their influence across the political divide in return for favouAn edge in mobilising funds can give a candidate an unassailable lead, as US president Barack Obama’s $1 billion campaign in 2008 demonstrated. The Financial Times reports that, this year, Republicans are rapidly eroding the huge funding advantage that propelled President Obama into the White House, with wealthy donors flooding new conservative campaign groups with cash before the presidential election in November.
The super-political action committees backing Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunner for the 2012 nomination, raised $30 million last year, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission published last week, with 10 individuals and corporations donating $1 million each.
It is still not clear when exactly Kenya’s next presidential election will be held, with a recent court ruling scheduling it for early 2013, or possibly earlier if President Kibaki and PM Odinga dissolve the coalition this year.
Posted Sunday, February 5 2012 at 14:20
Uhuru and Saitoti pull out of launch
By OLIVER MATHENGE
Presidential aspirants Uhuru Kenyatta and George Saitoti have pulled out of a planned meeting to launch the PNU Alliance, threatening plans by G7 leaders to field a single candidate during this year’s election.
Kanu’s National Executive Council (NEC) announced on Thursday that the party and its leader would not attend the launch planned for Uhuru Park on Tuesday because it was not “formally” part of the alliance and because Mr Kenyatta will be away in South Africa on an invitation by the African National Congress (ANC).
Mr Kenyatta joins PNU party chairman Prof Saitoti in skipping the Tuesday event, raising questions on the future of the Alliance as the political vehicle to be used to challenge Prime Minister Raila Odinga during this year’s presidential election.
Prof Saitoti said that he will be in Mombasa for his party’s recruitment drive.
The two are among principals in the alliance seeking to succeed President Kibaki as he retires at the end of the year.
UDM also distanced itself from the launch with Belgut MP Charles Keter saying that the party is not in the Alliance.
“UDM has never been in the PNU Alliance so why should we go there, UDM is UDM,” he told Nation.
New alliance
After Kanu’s NEC, Nominated MP Amina Abdallah said, “We cannot be at a launch of another party that we are not part of not until we are in a formal arrangement with it”.
Ms Abdallah and fellow vice-chairman Gideon Moi confirmed that the party was in talks with more than 20 parties that want to join Kanu in a new alliance.
They however said that the plan was still in its initial stages and the discussion would be formalised after its Constitution is approved by its National Delegates Conference on January 30.
All the players in the G7 Alliance promised their supporters that they would work together in the up coming General Election in a strategy to lock out Mr Odinga from the presidency.
They have however retreated to strengthen their own parties before coming together as a single unit.
On this note Eldoret North MP William Ruto has called a UDM National Executive Council meeting on Saturday to plan for national elections and recruitment of members.
“You have seen Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka strengthening his Wiper party and Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta has gone to Naivasha to do the same with Kanu. What is wrong with me strengthening UDM?” Mr Ruto asked on Wednesday.
Only last month, the principals in the Alliance were toying with a power sharing agreement which would ensure they go to the 2012 election united against Mr Odinga.
At a meeting held in Dubai they suggested that such an agreement be lodged with the elections team and the Registrar of Political Parties to ensure that they did not manipulate it.