18 thoughts on “Uhuru and Ruto Should Carry their Own Crosses – Martin Ngatia”
2 million signatures for Uhuru futile – ICC
Posted by JUDIE KABERIA on March 26, 2012
NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 26 – The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Monday described a bid to collect two million signatures to petition The Hague-based court to delay the trial of Deputy Prime Uhuru Kenyatta as futile.
ICC Spokesperson Fadi Abdallah argued that third parties were not at liberty to petition the court to delay the case, and certainly, not for political reasons.
“ICC is purely judicial. Political decisions cannot be taken into consideration when you are speaking about a judicial process,” he asserted.
On Friday, allies of Kenyatta at a meeting of the Gikuyu, Embu and Meru Association said they would collect two million signatures to lobby the court to delay trial until after the country’s general elections, which the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission has set for March 2013.
Abdallah further explained that only the parties in the process; the prosecution, the defence and the victims can request the court to extend the trials but under very specific reasons.
Additionally he said: “The request for any postponement of the deadline can only be done by the parties that are in the proceedings, not by external parties that are not present before the judges.”
Abdallah also pointed out that witnesses who want to recant their earlier testimony can only do so before the ICC judges as the court cannot take into account any statements made outside the chamber.
He however warned that admitting to giving false testimony can lead to punishment as provided by the Rome Statute, which prescribes a five-year jail term and a fine. The same applies to people who coerce witnesses to retract their testimonies.
A recent posting on the Internet showed an alleged witness renouncing his earlier testimony but there was no independent verification of the validity, since all witnesses are still confidential. At the time, the ICC declined to comment on the posting but warned that action would be taken against anyone interfering with witnesses.
The ICC spokesman further said the presidency of the court will soon meet to set up a Trial Chamber for the Kenyan cases, although there is no timeline of creating the chamber.
Once constituted, the Trial Chamber will come up with a calendar that will guide proceedings during the trial stage.
It will consider all logistical matters that will ensure the smooth running of the process bearing in mind how witnesses will be catered for including their protection.
The Trial Chamber will also give time to the defence and prosecution to prepare their evidence and witnesses.
It will further decide on the number of victims to participate at the trail stage including appointment of their legal representatives.
According to Abdallah, the court may decide to re-hire Sureta Chana and Morris Anyah who represented 560 victims during the confirmation of charges hearings or someone else.
Some of the victims will continue participating, while others may be dropped and new ones could be allowed in the process on the two cases before the court.
After establishing the timelines, the Trial Chamber will then issue a notice to the four accused when the trials will begin asking for their presence at The Hague-based court.
Abdallah further warned that a warrant of arrest can be issued to any of the four accused if they defy the ICC summonses to appear.
“The Kenyans involved in the proceedings have always cooperated with the court. I don’t think we should expect anything other than that, but in case there is a person who refuses to appear, then the ICC can issue a warrant of arrest against that person,” he cautioned.
While calling for postponement of the impending ICC trials on Friday, assistant ministers Cecily Mbarire and Ferdinand Waititu on Friday advised Kenyatta not to travel to The Hague for the trials.
Kenyatta, William Ruto, Joshua arap Sang and Francis Muthaura are still waiting the ruling by the Appeals Chamber on their challenge of the court’s jurisdiction to try them. They argue that there was an organisational structure to commit crimes against humanity during the 2008 post election violence in Kenya to warrant such charges at the ICC.
Abdallah said the Appeals Chamber can reject the appeal or ask the Pre-Trial Chamber to redefine its ruling on the organisational structure which perpetrated the crimes.
However, according to Abdallah, the appellate process will not stop the trial as both the appeal and trial can go on simultaneously pending the appeal’s decision.
Abdallah also warned people threatening witnesses and victims saying that the court will prosecute them but underlined that it is the government’s primary responsibility to provide security for its citizens.
He appreciated Kenya’s cooperation with the court saying the court heavily relies on the 120 member states, with 33 of them being African countries.
Enjoy Ngatia’s best video when he attacked former minister Katuku with pure truth. Mr. Ngatia You ROCK, You are the best KIKUYU telling the truth! You are the best Patriot.
“Kenya is leaderless. Kibaki is rubbish. Au vipi?” Kweli Ngatia unasema ukweli mtupu! “Kenya is not animals – Kenya is people.” Oh Ngatia, keep up the gospel. Uhuru Kenyatta is gone! he is a thief who stole 9 billion Kenya shillings and lied it was a computer error. He will pay by being jailed in The Hague!
I like how you call Uhuru: “The Butcher of Naivasha!”
Odinga also asked his competitors in the G7 Alliance to declare how they got nominated to run for the presidency.
“I want them to tell Kenyans where and when they conducted their nominations before they start meddling in the affairs of other parties,” the Prime Minister said.
“Now, for example you see the others who went to Limuru are still searching for a political party on which to run, is it not ridiculous in a multiparty democracy that you choose a candidate before you choose a party. Hasn’t that struck anyone as being strange?” he posed.
Uhuru told to stick with PNU Alliance .
Tuesday, 03 April 2012 23:53 BY FRANCIS MUREITHI
Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta yesterday came under intense pressure from Gema leaders and Central Kenya MPs to drop his plan of joining the National Alliance Party of Kenya and instead officially decamp to a re-branded PNU Alliance — the Alliance Party of Kenya. Uhuru, who did not attend but sent two of his close confidants to represent him at the MPs’ meeting, however was non-committal about the request amid reports he was weary of the PNU Alliance. Eldoret North MP William Ruto has said he no longer wants to be associated with the PNU Alliance. According to a source privy to the goings-on in the PNU Alliance, Ruto has agreed to work on an alliance with Uhuru as long as this is not the PNU Alliance.
According to the insiders in Uhuru’s camp, Ruto has expressed fears that if his United Republican Party forms an alliance with the PNU Alliance, the URP will be perceived by his supporters as having been swallowed by the PNU Alliance which brings together President Kibaki’s political allies. During yesterday’s meeting chaired by Gema Cultural Association chairman Bishop Lawi Imathiu, some of the leaders in Uhuru’s camp expressed reservations about him linking up with the Kiraitu Murungi’s PNU Alliance and instead proposed that the DPM starts his own party which can then form an alliance with any other.
Uhuru is the chairman of Kanu but speculation is rife that he intends to run for the presidency on a different party ticket. “Every politician has a fallback plan, and that is why it is important to have your party instead of belonging to an alliance,” said a source. The meeting at Jacaranda Hotel in Nairobi brought together 10 MPs but is said to have been initially opposed by Uhuru who described it as “premature”. Uhuru reportedly wanted the Kalenjin community to first hold its meeting and make a decision before the Central Kenya leaders held their meeting.
At the end of the meeting, a special committee comprising Gema leaders and MPs was formed and tasked with consulting all political leaders from the Mt Kenya region to get their support for the establishment of a strong and united alliance before the elections. “There are 28 political parties in Gema. The committee will look at ways of creating one national political vehicle,” said Kiraitu who is the PNU Alliance national recruitment coordinator.
Prior to the meeting, Kiraitu and Embakasi MP Ferdinand Waititu held a brief session with former Gatanga MP David Murathe and several other leaders from Gema with the aim of persuading Uhuru’s camp to drop the idea of announcing NPK as Uhuru’s party of choice. Murathe, who was later joined by former Siakago MP Justin Muturi, then proceeded to the larger meeting of MPs where a similar request that Uhuru drop the idea of using NPK was made.
The meeting told Uhuru and his allies that the PNU Alliance was already in the process of changing its name to Alliance Party of Kenya. The Uhuru camp was also taken through the constitution of the Alliance party and asked to give its views on whether the same should be adopted or amended. It was also suggested that veteran politician and businessman Nginyo Kariuki, who is the leader of the NPK, be asked not to fully register the party in compliance with the Political Parties Act and instead allow the leaders from Central to work under one outfit.
The meeting, which went on until late in the evening, was a follow-up to another held in Limuru two weeks ago where Uhuru gave an undertaking that he would announce his preferred party within a month. Uhuru has been accused of planning to kill Kanu, which he chairs, by frustrating the party’s compliance with the Political Parties Act which might eventually lead to its de-registration on expiry of the April 30 deadline. MPs who attended yesterday’s meeting included Kiraitu, Finance minister Njeru Githae, Ephraim Maina, Nelson Gaichuhie, Joseph Kiuna, Jeremiah Kioni, Maina Kamau and David Ngugi.
A vehicle to the Hague. Kenyans r u willing to elect a person who has not only been charged for crimes against humanity but whose charges have been confirmed by an independent court of the world? Think twice! Uhuru is damaged goods.
No amount of insults on Raila or prayers to Ngai fafa will rescue Uhuru. Chances are the Ocampo Four will be detained at the tiny Hague cells next time they visit. Kijana wa Jomo, Hague sio kwa Nyina Wako, Mama Ngina.
Mr. Ngatia tell them in Kikuyu language so that they know if they don’t unite with other Kenyans, it will be back to 41 against 1. They have the Kelenjins but not KAMATUSA as a unit, because the MAA of ODM have said No to declaring Ruto the tribal chief of Rift Valley. Let the Uhuruto circus roll into town.
You are Right Bwana Ngatia both Butchers of Naivasha and Eldoret must carry their own crosses and be crossified . Why should they be making their crimes to look as if were committed by their copmminities.
RAILA AND RUTO: WHAT CAUSED THE SPLIT? .
Friday, 06 April 2012 23:53 BY SARAH ELDERKIN
‘If someone goes round saying they hate you, do you invite that person to be best man or best maid at your wedding and expect them to bless and support you as you set out on your journey into the future?’
The removal of Mvita MP Najib Balala from a position where he was representing a party he didn’t believe in was hardly surprising, was it?
Why would a party leader who has spent decades fighting for multi-party democracy suddenly change his spots to support someone who very clearly has neither concept of the party as the matrix of our political establishment, nor belief in the particular political party to which he belongs?
If parties are to have any meaning – and let us pray that the lives and efforts of all those who have lived and suffered and died for multi-partyism were not in vain – then that meaning lies in parties’ ideologies and policies and manifestoes, and in their members’ loyalty to those ideals and to a common strategy for achieving them. Where else in the world would you be able to go round maligning and denouncing the party you belong to, and its leader, and then expect still to be part of it – and not only part of it but representing it in the Cabinet? How do you represent what you don’t agree with?
If someone goes round saying they hate you, do you invite that person to be best man or best maid at your wedding and expect them to bless and support you as you set out on your journey into the future?
Balala in response to his sacking was like a broken record. He had nothing new to say, merely parroting hackneyed, non-specific, improbable, propagandist drivel against Raila Odinga. Contrary to his claims, Balala’s sacking had nothing to do with internal dissent. The clue here is in the word ‘internal’. Let Balala tell us which internal discussions he had with the ODM party leader and on which points of principle. Let him tell us the arguments put forward by each side and the areas where they disagreed.
It’s all humbug. Balala has never had such a discussion in his life. His dissent has not been internal but very much external, and very calculatedly so. He has associated with the enemies of his party, denounced the party leader on non-existent grounds, incited other party members to leave ODM, even offered to fix them up with some alternative shenzi briefcase arrangement, and finally announced that he would be forming another party to take him to the presidency. (And that’s democracy for you. At least, it’s democracy as far as Balala and most other political leaders seem to understand it. You declare yourself ‘nominated’ without the benefit of any constitutional nomination exercise and then muster your supporters to intimidate the unconverted. That’s progress. Oh. No. Wait a minute. It’s not progress. It’s exactly what Kanu did from the 1960s to the 1990s.)
Let’s get real here. These shenanigans have been allowed to go on for too long. It is long overdue that people like Balala – people with nothing but contempt for political reform and political responsibility and progress – are being called to account. Regrettably, we still lack credible national gatekeepers who are themselves committed to political accountability – because so far, we appear to have no rules that govern behaviour among political party members.
And most of the so-called younger generation of leaders don’t understand party affiliation. What a disappointment they have proved, when older leaders, and even leaders of the past, are and were more enlightened. We see it most clearly with Uhuru Kenyatta, who last week responded enthusiastically to calls from his supporters that he just name his party, and they would support him, wherever and whatever. Such parties are not worthy of the name. They are merely conveniences. There is no question of commitment to a party philosophy – “Just give us a name so we use it to get to a position of power!”
Perhaps it is because this younger crop has never fought for anything in their lives – merely being in the right place at the right time to achieve elevation through clinging to someone else’s coattails. This is certainly true of Balala, who has never struggled at the grassroots. He became mayor of Mombasa in 1997 after being nominated a councillor, he clung to the Narc wave to get elected to parliament in 2002, and ditto to the ODM wave in 2007. It’s called opportunism. Balala has never really fought for anything. Well, he’s certainly going to get the opportunity during the coming elections.
It is equally true of Kenyatta, who couldn’t make it to parliament in 1997 even in his father’s old constituency, then got nominated to parliament by President Daniel arap Moi in 2001, then became Moi’s project (and failed in his presidential bid) in 2002, finally got himself elected to parliament that year and has since evolved as the project of President Mwai Kibaki and others of his tribesmen.
William Ruto is no different. Ruto also has the outstanding distinction of never having seen a payslip in his entire life until he got to parliament. He made millions through YK92, spent the next five years doing land deals, won the Eldoret North seat under Moi’s patronage in 1997, threw in his lot with losing presidential candidate Kenyatta in 2002, then hitched his wagon to Raila Odinga’s star in 2007 when he saw that Odinga was unstoppable in Rift Valley Province, as elsewhere.
Ruto has spread the myth that he brought Rift Valley to Raila Odinga in 2007. In the ODM 2007 presidential nomination results, Ruto not only came third behind Odinga and Musalia Mudavadi, but he also got fewer votes from Rift Valley delegates than either of them. So much for that myth. It is nothing short of nonsense. Odinga got 2,656 votes. Mudavadi got 391. Ruto got a miserable 368, more than seven times fewer than Odinga. Neither Mudavadi nor Ruto complained that it was a fix – because they knew darn well it wasn’t. In the previous general election, 2002, Mudavadi had not even managed to keep his parliamentary seat. Both he and Ruto knew that, this time, they had got to where they were because of the name ‘Raila Odinga’.
Rift Valley voters fall into many ethnic blocs, some of them loosely lumped together as ‘Kalenjin’ (a word and concept that did not exist until the 1950s). And the ‘Kalenjin’ are by no means a homogeneous body of people. They comprise the Elgeyo, the Endorois, Kipsigis, Marakwet, Nandi, Pokot, Sabaot, Terik, Tugen, Sengwer and Sebei. These communities do not speak with one voice. In fact, some hardly speak to each other. Some actively dislike one another and have frequently engaged in warfare.
Then there are the other substantial, non-‘Kalenjin’, communities represented in Rift Valley – Turkana, Samburu, Somali, Kisii, Luhya, Luo, Maasai, Kikuyu.
Many among these who voted for Odinga in 2007 certainly did not do so because of Ruto. On the contrary, they voted in large numbers for Odinga at the 2007 ODM presidential nomination as a deliberate choice against Ruto as a leader.
But to ensure that everyone felt comfortable after the exercise, and no one was left feeling marginalised, Odinga gathered all who had stood for presidential nomination – Mudavadi, Ruto, Balala, Joseph Nyagah and himself, five people – and called them the ‘Pentagon’. He announced this in his victory speech.
None of the other four had much popular support but Odinga’s approach has always been grounded in being inclusive and encouraging to his colleagues – and that meant also accommodating Kitui Central MP Charity Ngilu when she wanted to join in, making a Pentagon of six.
Ruto was no supporter of Odinga even then, but he knew he had no option – and it was the Rift Valley community that left him with no option. They had made it clear that Odinga was their candidate – just as, when the election came, the voters in a total of six of Kenya’s eight provinces made clear that Odinga was their candidate. This was certainly not because they wanted William Ruto.
Indeed, Ruto has never been able to influence voters. He failed to influence them to vote for Kenyatta in 2002, and he failed again in the ‘No’ constitutional referendum campaign of 2010. His standing among voters in current opinion polls confirms this, hovering around a dismal eight per cent. In fact, apart from his time in YK92, when he had money to buy anyone, Ruto has never done well – except when he has been on the same side as Raila Odinga. Without Odinga, Ruto has always been a loser.
Many of those who didn’t vote for Ruto on past occasions would never vote for him in future, either. His claim to be the undisputed Rift Valley leader is merely that – a claim. Because Ruto is loud, he is heard. His influence might extend to part of the North Rift but not much further. And repeating a lie does not, contrary to what Ruto would like to believe, make it true. If it were true, busloads of people would not have had to be ferried into Rift Valley towns for recent ‘prayer’ meetings. There is no way that his G7 partners are unaware of this fact.
People like Ruto will always be surrounded by a certain caucus, particularly a caucus of other self-interested leaders – but voters are another matter altogether. Ruto talks big but he can’t deliver. His forte lies in untruths, snide remarks and propaganda. But depend on him for voters at your peril. Ruto already has a major problem with the Kipsigis, who comprise about half the ‘Kalenjin’ bloc. People of the South Rift justifiably feel Ruto is contemptuous of them and that he is more than ready to try to interfere, in his usual dictatorial manner, with their democratic choices. Recently, Kipsigis emissaries sent out feelers indicating their support for ODM. And that will not be the end of such reactions within the often fractious ‘Kalenjin’ brotherhood.
Many other Rift Valley people have already protested that Ruto is wrongly claiming their support for his dictatorial leadership. And if they won’t even vote for Ruto himself, why would they instead vote for anyone else Ruto told them to support? This should be a sobering thought for anyone imagining Ruto can ever be a kingmaker. He never has been. Far from his making Raila Odinga in 2007, Raila Odinga, on the contrary, made him. And that fact eats away at William Ruto – to the extent that he has had to manufacture dissent with Odinga, whom he then accuses of forcing him out. It is all too pathetically transparent.
Ruto’s whining began when Odinga shortlisted – to represent ODM in the 2008 negotiations with PNU under former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan’s chairmanship – Sally Kosgei (who knew and had good rapport with Annan), Henry Kosgey (ODM’s chairman) and Kipkalya Kones (pillar of the ODM 2007 campaign among the Kipsigis, which, as noted, is by far the most populous of the ‘Kalenjin’ communities).
Ruto stamped his foot and made a big fuss, saying HE should be the one. When he didn’t get his way, he began to shout that the ‘Kalenjins’ had always been short-changed. (I don’t know quite what he thinks happened for 24 years under Moi.) To quieten him down (like giving the naughty boy in class a job) Odinga decided to include him. The team that was finally named, initially supposed to be three people, was Kosgei, Mudavadi, James Orengo and ….. Ruto. That kept him busy for a while.
The next grouse came when Odinga distributed the 20 ministerial portfolios he was allowed under the National Accord, and Ruto petulantly complained that Rift Valley didn’t get enough. Nairobi, Eastern Province, and North-Eastern Province each got one portfolio (regional development, co-operatives and arid lands respectively), while Coast Province got two (tourism and East African Community). Western Province got three (local government, planning and fisheries) and Nyanza got five (lands, medical services, public service, immigration and public works).
And which province got the lion’s share? Yep, you’ve guessed it. Rift Valley, with seven portfolios (heritage, agriculture, roads, industrialisation, higher education, youth and sports). Ruto barely drew breath before going on to cause a lot of tension in ODM that eventually resulted in the party being forced to create two deputy leader posts to accommodate him. He got his way once again. But his moaning and complaining that Odinga short-changed Rift Valley has never ceased. Is it justified? I leave you with the facts and figures and you can decide for yourself.
Ruto’s next bellyache in 2008 concerned Rift Valley youths who had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in post-election violence. He said that Odinga was now contentedly sitting in government and didn’t care about those youths. Actually, youths had also been arrested in Nyanza, Western, Coast and Nairobi. But Ruto had no interest in them. Indeed, Ruto was not interested in the release of any youth anywhere. He was only interested in using the issue as a weapon against Odinga.
It was Odinga who raised the matter in the Cabinet. He said he was alarmed that many youths had been unduly held. The Cabinet directed the attorney-general to bring a list of those charged and those on remand, then directed that youths held without charge be released immediately. Far from Odinga being the cause of the youths’ problems, it was his intervention that saved them. But don’t expect that fact to prevent Ruto distorting it to suit his purpose.
The next issue Ruto decided to exploit was the evacuation and reforestation of the Mau Forest, which is nationally important as Kenya’s main water tower. By 2009, when the Mau’s deforestation had reached alarming proportions, the problem was already well known. The Ndung’u Commission report of June 2004 had detailed a mind-boggling litany of illegal allocations of land under the Moi and Jomo Kenyatta governments – all done through political patronage for personal gain.
The Ndung’u report said that all allocations of forest land that had been made contrary to the provisions of the Forests Act and the Government Lands Act should be cancelled. It said all the titles thus acquired should be revoked. It said the forests should be repossessed and restored to their original purpose.
And 2009 was not the first time there had been attempts to remove people from the Mau Forest. Moi had tried to remove them in 1997, using administration police. In 2005, Kibaki and the then internal security minister, John Michuki, sent in more administration police, together with GSU personnel. They burnt homes and beat people up mercilessly while forcefully evicting them.
But 2007 was an election year and the people were told they could return. Once again, it was political patronage for personal gain – and no one gave a damn about the devastating effect this might have on the country as a whole. Come 2009, and Odinga, acting on a unanimous (including Ruto) Cabinet decision, convened a conference to which all Mau Forest stakeholders were invited, including all the Mau area MPs and the ministers for land, environment, forestry, regional development, agriculture and water, along with civil society representatives and the media. The participants sat in the KICC amphitheatre and spent a day discussing how to rescue the Mau Forest.
Everyone had a chance to speak their mind, and the meeting resolved that a task force be set up to survey the Mau environment and report on the extent of the damage and the logistics needed to reverse the trend and regenerate the forest. The task force included local leaders nominated by their communities – Maasai, Ogiek, Kipsigis – as well as large-scale farmers from the area and the ministries of forests and agriculture. It was chaired by the University of Nairobi’s Professor Fred Owino, a forestry specialist with more than 25 years’ experience facilitating dialogue on national forest programmes and partnership negotiations across 16 African countries.
The task force was given six months to complete its work. Towards the end of this period, the PM was petitioned by a number of MPs who said they had not yet been interviewed. The PM extended the life of the task force by two months.
The task force report showed how the 500,000 hectares of the Mau Forest had over the years been invaded and encroached upon. The real damage had begun in 1992. (Surprise, surprise, it was an election year.) In 1997, there was a surge in excisions. (What do you know, another election year.) And guess when it happened next? Right on the money – 2002, another election year. Each time, people’s votes had shamelessly been bought through land allocations in the Mau Forest, progressively destroying a lifeline vital to all Kenyans.
The Mau complex consists of several forested areas – including Mau East, Mau West, Mau South and Maasai Mau. Group ranches in Maasai Mau border the forest. These had gradually extended their boundaries and grown into the forest. Some of those claiming to live on group ranches were actually living on forest land. Other areas had been excised and the ground cleared but there was as yet no settlement, while yet others were heavily inhabited. Forestry minister Dr Noah Wekesa presented the task force report to the Cabinet. It recommended a five-phase restoration programme.
In Phase 1, the government would take back unsettled land and begin replanting trees.
Phase 2 dealt with Mau West, which still had forest but also settlement without titles. The report recommended that the settlers be asked to quit.
Phase 3 covered fully settled areas that needed to be repossessed, and the report recommended compensating these settlers with alternative land or cash in lieu.
Phase 4 covered the so-called group ranches, which were populated mainly by Kipsigis people. The report recommended a survey to determine the actual ranch boundaries. And then Phase 5 would deal with Mau East. The Cabinet unanimously (including Ruto) approved the report and all its recommendations. It was then tabled in parliament (with Ruto and all the Mau-local MPs present). It was approved by the House. The secretariat to spearhead implementation was gazetted and established. The Mau reclamation would be an operation headed by Wekesa and the forestry ministry. And because there were several other agencies involved, the Prime Minister’s office would act in its usual role of co-ordinator.
Phase 1 of the recommended action was implemented, and then Wekesa (not Odinga) issued a gazette notice giving settlers time to quit the area referred to in Phase 2. Quite a number of them, who had no titles, began to move. It was at this point that the noise started. Not from the settlers. No. It was Ruto and pals who decided to take advantage of the situation to push their own political agenda. They went to the area and incited title-less settlers in Phase 2 not to leave until they had been paid compensation.
These were the same leaders who in Cabinet and parliament had approved the task force and unanimously endorsed its recommendations. Now they saw a way of irresponsibly messing up the process to advance Ruto’s agenda against Odinga. Some business people, particularly Kikuyu business people, were encouraged to say their kiosks had been looted, and that this had forced them to run away to the camps where those previously displaced during the 2007-8 post-election violence were living.
Ruto and the other leaders behind the forest agitation encouraged these settlers to go to the camps and wait for land, along with the IDPs. They told them, ‘You voted for Raila – this is how he is repaying you. This is how he is inflicting pain and suffering on our people.’ The agitators ferried families to makeshift camps, called in the media, and blamed the “inhuman” exercise on Odinga. A compliant media went along with it, regrettably too lazy to research the facts, or too inept, or too partisan to point out this was a necessary and collective Cabinet decision to which Ruto was party and which was actually being implemented by Wekesa.
And driving all this was the same William Ruto from whose Eldoret North constituency and nearby Kuresoi tens of thousands of people had been displaced in the 2007-8 post-election violence. Ruto has never said a word in their defence, nor offered them so much as a blade of grass from his own extensive land holdings. On the contrary, he apparently decided to acquire for himself 100 acres of one unfortunate displaced person’s land.
On that score, Ruto has recently offered the astonishing excuse that “no one was living there”. The last time this excuse was used was about 100 years ago, when colonial settlers voiced precisely the same sentiment as they casually took over land wherever they felt like it and regardless of whose land it was. Who expected to hear of such a callous attitude in modern-day Kenya?
In 2010, seeking a solution to the problem of the Mau Phase 2 settlers, Odinga recommended that they be treated like other landless Kenyans, and that the ministry of lands provide them with some land for settlement. It was at this point that Ruto conspired with his friends in the Treasury to have the funds for that compassionate exercise withheld, so that he could continue to blame people’s suffering on Odinga. It was not until early June 2011, nearly a year later, that the government finally released the money – shs. 1bn to buy land for those forced to quit the Mau Forest.
In the intervening period, Ruto had a field day demonising Odinga. But the net result of his dirty-tricks campaign was that the Mau Phase 2 evictees were heartlessly subjected to long and difficult months under canvas, as they waited for then finance minister Kenyatta to stop dragging his feet and release the money for their settlement.
If anyone was “inhuman” here, it was certainly not Odinga but, rather, someone who has no compunction whatsoever about using people for his own ends. Ruto was only interested in playing political games and dragging out the evictees’ suffering to try and gain a political advantage over Odinga. He had no care for the pain of the evictees. And yet this is one of the matters that Ruto, with a straight and self-righteous face, refers to as his “differences in principle” with Odinga.
Then, of course, there is the ICC issue. “I am paying the price for having supported Raila in the last elections and eventually being turned into a sacrificial lamb,” Ruto is quoted as saying. How touching. And how false.
In late 2008, after the Kriegler and Waki reports on the 2007 general election were submitted, ODM sat down as a party with its national executive council and parliamentary group to discuss the matter, eventually deciding to suggest that a local tribunal be established to try those suspected of being instrumental in post-election violence. The party issued a statement to this effect.
Ruto was not present at that meeting, being away in The Netherlands, allegedly negotiating a fertiliser deal. But as soon as he arrived at Nairobi airport, he told the press that he was opposed to the establishment of a local tribunal. He said such a tribunal would end up trying only the small fry, while letting the big fish go scot-free. Ruto then teamed up with Kenyatta to make a career out of opposing the tribunal idea, and the two of them ‘lobbied’ (to put it politely) hard among MPs to oppose the parliamentary motion that sought to establish a local tribunal independent of the judiciary.
In the meantime, Odinga, Kibaki and then justice minister Mutula Kilonzo tried their best to persuade their parliamentary colleagues to support a local tribunal.
When it came to the vote, Ruto, Kenyatta and their pals voted against the local tribunal and carried the day. They appeared to imagine that the matter of justice would thus be delayed (Ruto even stating at one point that it would take 99 years for the Hague cases to be heard) until they were in government themselves, whereupon they would presumably ensure non-compliance with the Hague and the matter would go the same way as so many other scandals in our history.
After parliament rejected the local tribunal, Annan arrived and categorically stated that The Hague was not a good idea. He said he would give parliamentarians another six months (beyond the original deadline of the end of 2008) to rethink. Failing a change of attitude, he would have no choice but to hand over to the ICC the sealed envelope of perpetrators’ names given to him by Justice Philip Waki. Annan then held on to the envelope from January to June 2009. Kilonzo spearheaded a second attempt to have parliament agree to form a local tribunal. His efforts were shot down by Ruto and Kenyatta in Cabinet.
A third attempt was made in parliament by Imenti Central MP Gitobu Imanyara. This was also shot down. At every stage of this process, Ruto and Kenyatta strongly opposed the local tribunal, while Odinga, Kibaki, Kilonzo, Imanyara and several others continued to support it. In the end, Ruto and Kenyatta succeeded in killing completely the idea of a local tribunal, and Annan was left with no option but reluctantly to hand over the sealed Waki envelope to ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
Even then, Ocampo himself volunteered that he did not have to prosecute – if only Kenyans could get their act together. Minister for internal security Professor George Saitoti led a team consisting of Kilonzo, the then attorney-general Amos Wako and lands minister and shadow attorney-general Orengo to the ICC, where they told Ocampo they needed more time. Ocampo gave them another four months.
But opposition led by Ruto and Kenyatta was still so strong that Saitoti’s team could achieve nothing. Finally, Ocampo gave up, went to the pre-trial chamber and sought permission to begin his investigations. This was granted in March 2010. The ICC began its work. On December 15 that year, Ocampo named the six suspects he considered had the biggest responsibility for the crimes committed. And then, suddenly, out of the blue, it was Raila Odinga who was the author of the whole thing! He just wants us out of the way, said Ruto and Kenyatta, so that he can win the election.
What? You say he supported a local tribunal? Ah, forget about that! It’s clear that he gave the names to Ocampo! (This didn’t quite explain why Odinga would include his own party chairman on the list, but anyway, details, details.) He is the devil incarnate!
What? You say the Waki envelope went straight from Waki to Annan and then, still sealed, from Annan to Ocampo? Ah, forget about that too! Raila chose the names in that envelope!
Oh dear. I suppose this means that Waki, Annan, Ocampo, Trendafilova, maybe the UN, definitely the entire ICC, the British government, probably the entire European Union, not to forget Obama, of course – the whole lot must have been corrupted by Raila Odinga and are now in on the deal. Boy, is that man powerful or what!
Unfortunately for Ruto and co, they have discovered that reality eventually bites back, and evidently it bites even more fiercely than Michuki’s rattled snake.
Kalenjin representation. Detained youth. Mau Forest. ICC. Ruto’s perpetual whining and griping about Raila Odinga covers issues where it is patently obvious that Odinga played only statutory and above-board roles, while at the same time doing his best to accommodate all Ruto’s demands.
Ruto’s complaints are completely insubstantial and disappear like puffs of smoke when subjected to any kind of scrutiny. And yet these are the issues he refers to as his “disagreements in principle” with Raila Odinga. Ask Ruto to explain exactly what “principles” he is talking about, and you might wait a long time for an answer. We can talk about lack of principles when Ruto maligns the party that sponsored him to parliament, is hostile to his party leader, and goes all out to form an alternative party without having the guts or principle to resign from a party he “ditched long ago”.
Traversing the country spouting dangerous, fabricated nonsense that pits Kenyan against Kenyan and can only do harm has nothing to do with “democratically expressing divergent views”, as Ruto so disingenuously likes to put it. It has to do with a frighteningly cold and calculating disconnect from the reality of the threat of future mayhem in Kenya. That is what is being stoked. Already the authorities are sounding the alarm bells, as they made plain earlier this week.
Ruto has been like a dog with a bone over this matter of Raila Odinga. For the past four years, we’ve watched as he keeps burying it in the dirt and then digging it up and chewing on it again and then burying it again and then digging it up again. There’s something ancient and primitive in a dog’s DNA that makes it do this compulsively, over and over again. I don’t know what to say about Ruto. There are plenty of haters out there who won’t like this truth and will prefer to avoid the issues and clog the blogs with mindless hate-speech and obscenities. All I can say is, this country needs to make informed choices based on facts.
Perhaps some of these facts might also help so-called political commentators such as Mutahi Ngunyi, who responded to the Balala sacking by calling Odinga a “Machiavellian” who “cannibalises” people. What shallow, ill-informed tosh! Shame on you, Mutahi. All it takes is a little bit of research. But that, of course, depends on the will to do it and not being otherwise compromised, I suppose. If anyone doesn’t want the facts, it’s their prerogative to ignore them. But the truth remains constant. And at least this way, if the truth is laid bare and it still all goes wrong, no one will ever have any excuse for coming back to lament, “Why wasn’t I told?”
Lucy Kibaki is kept heavely sedated hence her mental health deteroriated .Let Kenyans pity her .The first lady is in isolation lies in excreme poor conditions prisoners (women) are forced to wipe and clean her shiet .who is ready to save first-lady?
ICC part of Kenyan system, says CJ
Friday, 27 April 2012 16:22 BY RAMADHAN RAJAB
THE Judiciary has dismissed claims that having the cases against four Kenyans at the ICC is a form of neo-colonialism. Addressing students leaders of Nairobi schools yesterday, chief of staff Duncan Okello, representing Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, said the ICC is part of the Kenyan Judicial system because Kenya ratified the Rome Statute domesticating the court.
“ICC is not a foreign court as being portrayed. The Kenyan constitution recognises that international law is a source of the Kenyan law. ICC gave Kenyans options to form a local tribunal but because of the Parliament’s wisdom or lack of it, they failed. The cases at the court are right but in a manner that is politically inconveniencing to some,” he said remaining non-committal on whether the cases should be brought back to be handled in the local courts.
Okello said that even though much has changed in the judiciary and Kenyans are assured of free, fair and transparent judgments, it is paramount for the public to press for transformational change in other sectors linked to the justice system.
“Administration of justice is an assembly line and the judiciary only comes at the tail end of the assembly. It is not enough to have a judiciary that works, but the investigations by the police must be proper as well the prosecutions, to enable the judge make a just decision. So it is upon us to call on everyone to do his or her job effectively to be sure of getting justice,” he said.
“Judges make decisions according to the evidence presented to them, they cant reinvent it,” Okello said. He called on Kenyans to remain vigilant and defend the constitution so that its gains are not lost.
Okello welcomed those who have complaints against judicial officers to lodge them directly to the CJ’s office or mail them to the judiciary ombudsman office. He called on schools administrators to nurture in their pupils and students a culture of religious and cultural tolerance to promote unity and cohesion.
2 million signatures for Uhuru futile – ICC
Posted by JUDIE KABERIA on March 26, 2012
NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 26 – The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Monday described a bid to collect two million signatures to petition The Hague-based court to delay the trial of Deputy Prime Uhuru Kenyatta as futile.
ICC Spokesperson Fadi Abdallah argued that third parties were not at liberty to petition the court to delay the case, and certainly, not for political reasons.
“ICC is purely judicial. Political decisions cannot be taken into consideration when you are speaking about a judicial process,” he asserted.
On Friday, allies of Kenyatta at a meeting of the Gikuyu, Embu and Meru Association said they would collect two million signatures to lobby the court to delay trial until after the country’s general elections, which the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission has set for March 2013.
Abdallah further explained that only the parties in the process; the prosecution, the defence and the victims can request the court to extend the trials but under very specific reasons.
Additionally he said: “The request for any postponement of the deadline can only be done by the parties that are in the proceedings, not by external parties that are not present before the judges.”
Abdallah also pointed out that witnesses who want to recant their earlier testimony can only do so before the ICC judges as the court cannot take into account any statements made outside the chamber.
He however warned that admitting to giving false testimony can lead to punishment as provided by the Rome Statute, which prescribes a five-year jail term and a fine. The same applies to people who coerce witnesses to retract their testimonies.
A recent posting on the Internet showed an alleged witness renouncing his earlier testimony but there was no independent verification of the validity, since all witnesses are still confidential. At the time, the ICC declined to comment on the posting but warned that action would be taken against anyone interfering with witnesses.
The ICC spokesman further said the presidency of the court will soon meet to set up a Trial Chamber for the Kenyan cases, although there is no timeline of creating the chamber.
Once constituted, the Trial Chamber will come up with a calendar that will guide proceedings during the trial stage.
It will consider all logistical matters that will ensure the smooth running of the process bearing in mind how witnesses will be catered for including their protection.
The Trial Chamber will also give time to the defence and prosecution to prepare their evidence and witnesses.
It will further decide on the number of victims to participate at the trail stage including appointment of their legal representatives.
According to Abdallah, the court may decide to re-hire Sureta Chana and Morris Anyah who represented 560 victims during the confirmation of charges hearings or someone else.
Some of the victims will continue participating, while others may be dropped and new ones could be allowed in the process on the two cases before the court.
After establishing the timelines, the Trial Chamber will then issue a notice to the four accused when the trials will begin asking for their presence at The Hague-based court.
Abdallah further warned that a warrant of arrest can be issued to any of the four accused if they defy the ICC summonses to appear.
“The Kenyans involved in the proceedings have always cooperated with the court. I don’t think we should expect anything other than that, but in case there is a person who refuses to appear, then the ICC can issue a warrant of arrest against that person,” he cautioned.
While calling for postponement of the impending ICC trials on Friday, assistant ministers Cecily Mbarire and Ferdinand Waititu on Friday advised Kenyatta not to travel to The Hague for the trials.
Kenyatta, William Ruto, Joshua arap Sang and Francis Muthaura are still waiting the ruling by the Appeals Chamber on their challenge of the court’s jurisdiction to try them. They argue that there was an organisational structure to commit crimes against humanity during the 2008 post election violence in Kenya to warrant such charges at the ICC.
Abdallah said the Appeals Chamber can reject the appeal or ask the Pre-Trial Chamber to redefine its ruling on the organisational structure which perpetrated the crimes.
However, according to Abdallah, the appellate process will not stop the trial as both the appeal and trial can go on simultaneously pending the appeal’s decision.
Abdallah also warned people threatening witnesses and victims saying that the court will prosecute them but underlined that it is the government’s primary responsibility to provide security for its citizens.
He appreciated Kenya’s cooperation with the court saying the court heavily relies on the 120 member states, with 33 of them being African countries.
Enjoy Ngatia’s best video when he attacked former minister Katuku with pure truth. Mr. Ngatia You ROCK, You are the best KIKUYU telling the truth! You are the best Patriot.
“Kenya is leaderless. Kibaki is rubbish. Au vipi?” Kweli Ngatia unasema ukweli mtupu! “Kenya is not animals – Kenya is people.” Oh Ngatia, keep up the gospel. Uhuru Kenyatta is gone! he is a thief who stole 9 billion Kenya shillings and lied it was a computer error. He will pay by being jailed in The Hague!
I like how you call Uhuru: “The Butcher of Naivasha!”
Odinga also asked his competitors in the G7 Alliance to declare how they got nominated to run for the presidency.
“I want them to tell Kenyans where and when they conducted their nominations before they start meddling in the affairs of other parties,” the Prime Minister said.
“Now, for example you see the others who went to Limuru are still searching for a political party on which to run, is it not ridiculous in a multiparty democracy that you choose a candidate before you choose a party. Hasn’t that struck anyone as being strange?” he posed.
Uhuru told to stick with PNU Alliance .
Tuesday, 03 April 2012 23:53 BY FRANCIS MUREITHI
Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta yesterday came under intense pressure from Gema leaders and Central Kenya MPs to drop his plan of joining the National Alliance Party of Kenya and instead officially decamp to a re-branded PNU Alliance — the Alliance Party of Kenya. Uhuru, who did not attend but sent two of his close confidants to represent him at the MPs’ meeting, however was non-committal about the request amid reports he was weary of the PNU Alliance. Eldoret North MP William Ruto has said he no longer wants to be associated with the PNU Alliance. According to a source privy to the goings-on in the PNU Alliance, Ruto has agreed to work on an alliance with Uhuru as long as this is not the PNU Alliance.
According to the insiders in Uhuru’s camp, Ruto has expressed fears that if his United Republican Party forms an alliance with the PNU Alliance, the URP will be perceived by his supporters as having been swallowed by the PNU Alliance which brings together President Kibaki’s political allies. During yesterday’s meeting chaired by Gema Cultural Association chairman Bishop Lawi Imathiu, some of the leaders in Uhuru’s camp expressed reservations about him linking up with the Kiraitu Murungi’s PNU Alliance and instead proposed that the DPM starts his own party which can then form an alliance with any other.
Uhuru is the chairman of Kanu but speculation is rife that he intends to run for the presidency on a different party ticket. “Every politician has a fallback plan, and that is why it is important to have your party instead of belonging to an alliance,” said a source. The meeting at Jacaranda Hotel in Nairobi brought together 10 MPs but is said to have been initially opposed by Uhuru who described it as “premature”. Uhuru reportedly wanted the Kalenjin community to first hold its meeting and make a decision before the Central Kenya leaders held their meeting.
At the end of the meeting, a special committee comprising Gema leaders and MPs was formed and tasked with consulting all political leaders from the Mt Kenya region to get their support for the establishment of a strong and united alliance before the elections. “There are 28 political parties in Gema. The committee will look at ways of creating one national political vehicle,” said Kiraitu who is the PNU Alliance national recruitment coordinator.
Prior to the meeting, Kiraitu and Embakasi MP Ferdinand Waititu held a brief session with former Gatanga MP David Murathe and several other leaders from Gema with the aim of persuading Uhuru’s camp to drop the idea of announcing NPK as Uhuru’s party of choice. Murathe, who was later joined by former Siakago MP Justin Muturi, then proceeded to the larger meeting of MPs where a similar request that Uhuru drop the idea of using NPK was made.
The meeting told Uhuru and his allies that the PNU Alliance was already in the process of changing its name to Alliance Party of Kenya. The Uhuru camp was also taken through the constitution of the Alliance party and asked to give its views on whether the same should be adopted or amended. It was also suggested that veteran politician and businessman Nginyo Kariuki, who is the leader of the NPK, be asked not to fully register the party in compliance with the Political Parties Act and instead allow the leaders from Central to work under one outfit.
The meeting, which went on until late in the evening, was a follow-up to another held in Limuru two weeks ago where Uhuru gave an undertaking that he would announce his preferred party within a month. Uhuru has been accused of planning to kill Kanu, which he chairs, by frustrating the party’s compliance with the Political Parties Act which might eventually lead to its de-registration on expiry of the April 30 deadline. MPs who attended yesterday’s meeting included Kiraitu, Finance minister Njeru Githae, Ephraim Maina, Nelson Gaichuhie, Joseph Kiuna, Jeremiah Kioni, Maina Kamau and David Ngugi.
A vehicle to the Hague. Kenyans r u willing to elect a person who has not only been charged for crimes against humanity but whose charges have been confirmed by an independent court of the world? Think twice! Uhuru is damaged goods.
No amount of insults on Raila or prayers to Ngai fafa will rescue Uhuru. Chances are the Ocampo Four will be detained at the tiny Hague cells next time they visit. Kijana wa Jomo, Hague sio kwa Nyina Wako, Mama Ngina.
Mr. Ngatia tell them in Kikuyu language so that they know if they don’t unite with other Kenyans, it will be back to 41 against 1. They have the Kelenjins but not KAMATUSA as a unit, because the MAA of ODM have said No to declaring Ruto the tribal chief of Rift Valley. Let the Uhuruto circus roll into town.
A BIG SHAME FOR EVER FOR KIKUYUS WHO ARE SUPPORTING RAPIST UHURU/KENYATTA/RUTO AXIS OF EVIL>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXS_UR4Ml00
You are Right Bwana Ngatia both Butchers of Naivasha and Eldoret must carry their own crosses and be crossified . Why should they be making their crimes to look as if were committed by their copmminities.
RAILA AND RUTO: WHAT CAUSED THE SPLIT? .
Friday, 06 April 2012 23:53 BY SARAH ELDERKIN
‘If someone goes round saying they hate you, do you invite that person to be best man or best maid at your wedding and expect them to bless and support you as you set out on your journey into the future?’
The removal of Mvita MP Najib Balala from a position where he was representing a party he didn’t believe in was hardly surprising, was it?
Why would a party leader who has spent decades fighting for multi-party democracy suddenly change his spots to support someone who very clearly has neither concept of the party as the matrix of our political establishment, nor belief in the particular political party to which he belongs?
If parties are to have any meaning – and let us pray that the lives and efforts of all those who have lived and suffered and died for multi-partyism were not in vain – then that meaning lies in parties’ ideologies and policies and manifestoes, and in their members’ loyalty to those ideals and to a common strategy for achieving them. Where else in the world would you be able to go round maligning and denouncing the party you belong to, and its leader, and then expect still to be part of it – and not only part of it but representing it in the Cabinet? How do you represent what you don’t agree with?
If someone goes round saying they hate you, do you invite that person to be best man or best maid at your wedding and expect them to bless and support you as you set out on your journey into the future?
Balala in response to his sacking was like a broken record. He had nothing new to say, merely parroting hackneyed, non-specific, improbable, propagandist drivel against Raila Odinga. Contrary to his claims, Balala’s sacking had nothing to do with internal dissent. The clue here is in the word ‘internal’. Let Balala tell us which internal discussions he had with the ODM party leader and on which points of principle. Let him tell us the arguments put forward by each side and the areas where they disagreed.
It’s all humbug. Balala has never had such a discussion in his life. His dissent has not been internal but very much external, and very calculatedly so. He has associated with the enemies of his party, denounced the party leader on non-existent grounds, incited other party members to leave ODM, even offered to fix them up with some alternative shenzi briefcase arrangement, and finally announced that he would be forming another party to take him to the presidency. (And that’s democracy for you. At least, it’s democracy as far as Balala and most other political leaders seem to understand it. You declare yourself ‘nominated’ without the benefit of any constitutional nomination exercise and then muster your supporters to intimidate the unconverted. That’s progress. Oh. No. Wait a minute. It’s not progress. It’s exactly what Kanu did from the 1960s to the 1990s.)
Let’s get real here. These shenanigans have been allowed to go on for too long. It is long overdue that people like Balala – people with nothing but contempt for political reform and political responsibility and progress – are being called to account. Regrettably, we still lack credible national gatekeepers who are themselves committed to political accountability – because so far, we appear to have no rules that govern behaviour among political party members.
And most of the so-called younger generation of leaders don’t understand party affiliation. What a disappointment they have proved, when older leaders, and even leaders of the past, are and were more enlightened. We see it most clearly with Uhuru Kenyatta, who last week responded enthusiastically to calls from his supporters that he just name his party, and they would support him, wherever and whatever. Such parties are not worthy of the name. They are merely conveniences. There is no question of commitment to a party philosophy – “Just give us a name so we use it to get to a position of power!”
Perhaps it is because this younger crop has never fought for anything in their lives – merely being in the right place at the right time to achieve elevation through clinging to someone else’s coattails. This is certainly true of Balala, who has never struggled at the grassroots. He became mayor of Mombasa in 1997 after being nominated a councillor, he clung to the Narc wave to get elected to parliament in 2002, and ditto to the ODM wave in 2007. It’s called opportunism. Balala has never really fought for anything. Well, he’s certainly going to get the opportunity during the coming elections.
It is equally true of Kenyatta, who couldn’t make it to parliament in 1997 even in his father’s old constituency, then got nominated to parliament by President Daniel arap Moi in 2001, then became Moi’s project (and failed in his presidential bid) in 2002, finally got himself elected to parliament that year and has since evolved as the project of President Mwai Kibaki and others of his tribesmen.
William Ruto is no different. Ruto also has the outstanding distinction of never having seen a payslip in his entire life until he got to parliament. He made millions through YK92, spent the next five years doing land deals, won the Eldoret North seat under Moi’s patronage in 1997, threw in his lot with losing presidential candidate Kenyatta in 2002, then hitched his wagon to Raila Odinga’s star in 2007 when he saw that Odinga was unstoppable in Rift Valley Province, as elsewhere.
Ruto has spread the myth that he brought Rift Valley to Raila Odinga in 2007. In the ODM 2007 presidential nomination results, Ruto not only came third behind Odinga and Musalia Mudavadi, but he also got fewer votes from Rift Valley delegates than either of them. So much for that myth. It is nothing short of nonsense. Odinga got 2,656 votes. Mudavadi got 391. Ruto got a miserable 368, more than seven times fewer than Odinga. Neither Mudavadi nor Ruto complained that it was a fix – because they knew darn well it wasn’t. In the previous general election, 2002, Mudavadi had not even managed to keep his parliamentary seat. Both he and Ruto knew that, this time, they had got to where they were because of the name ‘Raila Odinga’.
Rift Valley voters fall into many ethnic blocs, some of them loosely lumped together as ‘Kalenjin’ (a word and concept that did not exist until the 1950s). And the ‘Kalenjin’ are by no means a homogeneous body of people. They comprise the Elgeyo, the Endorois, Kipsigis, Marakwet, Nandi, Pokot, Sabaot, Terik, Tugen, Sengwer and Sebei. These communities do not speak with one voice. In fact, some hardly speak to each other. Some actively dislike one another and have frequently engaged in warfare.
Then there are the other substantial, non-‘Kalenjin’, communities represented in Rift Valley – Turkana, Samburu, Somali, Kisii, Luhya, Luo, Maasai, Kikuyu.
Many among these who voted for Odinga in 2007 certainly did not do so because of Ruto. On the contrary, they voted in large numbers for Odinga at the 2007 ODM presidential nomination as a deliberate choice against Ruto as a leader.
But to ensure that everyone felt comfortable after the exercise, and no one was left feeling marginalised, Odinga gathered all who had stood for presidential nomination – Mudavadi, Ruto, Balala, Joseph Nyagah and himself, five people – and called them the ‘Pentagon’. He announced this in his victory speech.
None of the other four had much popular support but Odinga’s approach has always been grounded in being inclusive and encouraging to his colleagues – and that meant also accommodating Kitui Central MP Charity Ngilu when she wanted to join in, making a Pentagon of six.
Ruto was no supporter of Odinga even then, but he knew he had no option – and it was the Rift Valley community that left him with no option. They had made it clear that Odinga was their candidate – just as, when the election came, the voters in a total of six of Kenya’s eight provinces made clear that Odinga was their candidate. This was certainly not because they wanted William Ruto.
Indeed, Ruto has never been able to influence voters. He failed to influence them to vote for Kenyatta in 2002, and he failed again in the ‘No’ constitutional referendum campaign of 2010. His standing among voters in current opinion polls confirms this, hovering around a dismal eight per cent. In fact, apart from his time in YK92, when he had money to buy anyone, Ruto has never done well – except when he has been on the same side as Raila Odinga. Without Odinga, Ruto has always been a loser.
Many of those who didn’t vote for Ruto on past occasions would never vote for him in future, either. His claim to be the undisputed Rift Valley leader is merely that – a claim. Because Ruto is loud, he is heard. His influence might extend to part of the North Rift but not much further. And repeating a lie does not, contrary to what Ruto would like to believe, make it true. If it were true, busloads of people would not have had to be ferried into Rift Valley towns for recent ‘prayer’ meetings. There is no way that his G7 partners are unaware of this fact.
People like Ruto will always be surrounded by a certain caucus, particularly a caucus of other self-interested leaders – but voters are another matter altogether. Ruto talks big but he can’t deliver. His forte lies in untruths, snide remarks and propaganda. But depend on him for voters at your peril. Ruto already has a major problem with the Kipsigis, who comprise about half the ‘Kalenjin’ bloc. People of the South Rift justifiably feel Ruto is contemptuous of them and that he is more than ready to try to interfere, in his usual dictatorial manner, with their democratic choices. Recently, Kipsigis emissaries sent out feelers indicating their support for ODM. And that will not be the end of such reactions within the often fractious ‘Kalenjin’ brotherhood.
Many other Rift Valley people have already protested that Ruto is wrongly claiming their support for his dictatorial leadership. And if they won’t even vote for Ruto himself, why would they instead vote for anyone else Ruto told them to support? This should be a sobering thought for anyone imagining Ruto can ever be a kingmaker. He never has been. Far from his making Raila Odinga in 2007, Raila Odinga, on the contrary, made him. And that fact eats away at William Ruto – to the extent that he has had to manufacture dissent with Odinga, whom he then accuses of forcing him out. It is all too pathetically transparent.
Ruto’s whining began when Odinga shortlisted – to represent ODM in the 2008 negotiations with PNU under former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan’s chairmanship – Sally Kosgei (who knew and had good rapport with Annan), Henry Kosgey (ODM’s chairman) and Kipkalya Kones (pillar of the ODM 2007 campaign among the Kipsigis, which, as noted, is by far the most populous of the ‘Kalenjin’ communities).
Ruto stamped his foot and made a big fuss, saying HE should be the one. When he didn’t get his way, he began to shout that the ‘Kalenjins’ had always been short-changed. (I don’t know quite what he thinks happened for 24 years under Moi.) To quieten him down (like giving the naughty boy in class a job) Odinga decided to include him. The team that was finally named, initially supposed to be three people, was Kosgei, Mudavadi, James Orengo and ….. Ruto. That kept him busy for a while.
The next grouse came when Odinga distributed the 20 ministerial portfolios he was allowed under the National Accord, and Ruto petulantly complained that Rift Valley didn’t get enough. Nairobi, Eastern Province, and North-Eastern Province each got one portfolio (regional development, co-operatives and arid lands respectively), while Coast Province got two (tourism and East African Community). Western Province got three (local government, planning and fisheries) and Nyanza got five (lands, medical services, public service, immigration and public works).
And which province got the lion’s share? Yep, you’ve guessed it. Rift Valley, with seven portfolios (heritage, agriculture, roads, industrialisation, higher education, youth and sports). Ruto barely drew breath before going on to cause a lot of tension in ODM that eventually resulted in the party being forced to create two deputy leader posts to accommodate him. He got his way once again. But his moaning and complaining that Odinga short-changed Rift Valley has never ceased. Is it justified? I leave you with the facts and figures and you can decide for yourself.
Ruto’s next bellyache in 2008 concerned Rift Valley youths who had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in post-election violence. He said that Odinga was now contentedly sitting in government and didn’t care about those youths. Actually, youths had also been arrested in Nyanza, Western, Coast and Nairobi. But Ruto had no interest in them. Indeed, Ruto was not interested in the release of any youth anywhere. He was only interested in using the issue as a weapon against Odinga.
It was Odinga who raised the matter in the Cabinet. He said he was alarmed that many youths had been unduly held. The Cabinet directed the attorney-general to bring a list of those charged and those on remand, then directed that youths held without charge be released immediately. Far from Odinga being the cause of the youths’ problems, it was his intervention that saved them. But don’t expect that fact to prevent Ruto distorting it to suit his purpose.
The next issue Ruto decided to exploit was the evacuation and reforestation of the Mau Forest, which is nationally important as Kenya’s main water tower. By 2009, when the Mau’s deforestation had reached alarming proportions, the problem was already well known. The Ndung’u Commission report of June 2004 had detailed a mind-boggling litany of illegal allocations of land under the Moi and Jomo Kenyatta governments – all done through political patronage for personal gain.
The Ndung’u report said that all allocations of forest land that had been made contrary to the provisions of the Forests Act and the Government Lands Act should be cancelled. It said all the titles thus acquired should be revoked. It said the forests should be repossessed and restored to their original purpose.
And 2009 was not the first time there had been attempts to remove people from the Mau Forest. Moi had tried to remove them in 1997, using administration police. In 2005, Kibaki and the then internal security minister, John Michuki, sent in more administration police, together with GSU personnel. They burnt homes and beat people up mercilessly while forcefully evicting them.
But 2007 was an election year and the people were told they could return. Once again, it was political patronage for personal gain – and no one gave a damn about the devastating effect this might have on the country as a whole. Come 2009, and Odinga, acting on a unanimous (including Ruto) Cabinet decision, convened a conference to which all Mau Forest stakeholders were invited, including all the Mau area MPs and the ministers for land, environment, forestry, regional development, agriculture and water, along with civil society representatives and the media. The participants sat in the KICC amphitheatre and spent a day discussing how to rescue the Mau Forest.
Everyone had a chance to speak their mind, and the meeting resolved that a task force be set up to survey the Mau environment and report on the extent of the damage and the logistics needed to reverse the trend and regenerate the forest. The task force included local leaders nominated by their communities – Maasai, Ogiek, Kipsigis – as well as large-scale farmers from the area and the ministries of forests and agriculture. It was chaired by the University of Nairobi’s Professor Fred Owino, a forestry specialist with more than 25 years’ experience facilitating dialogue on national forest programmes and partnership negotiations across 16 African countries.
The task force was given six months to complete its work. Towards the end of this period, the PM was petitioned by a number of MPs who said they had not yet been interviewed. The PM extended the life of the task force by two months.
The task force report showed how the 500,000 hectares of the Mau Forest had over the years been invaded and encroached upon. The real damage had begun in 1992. (Surprise, surprise, it was an election year.) In 1997, there was a surge in excisions. (What do you know, another election year.) And guess when it happened next? Right on the money – 2002, another election year. Each time, people’s votes had shamelessly been bought through land allocations in the Mau Forest, progressively destroying a lifeline vital to all Kenyans.
The Mau complex consists of several forested areas – including Mau East, Mau West, Mau South and Maasai Mau. Group ranches in Maasai Mau border the forest. These had gradually extended their boundaries and grown into the forest. Some of those claiming to live on group ranches were actually living on forest land. Other areas had been excised and the ground cleared but there was as yet no settlement, while yet others were heavily inhabited. Forestry minister Dr Noah Wekesa presented the task force report to the Cabinet. It recommended a five-phase restoration programme.
In Phase 1, the government would take back unsettled land and begin replanting trees.
Phase 2 dealt with Mau West, which still had forest but also settlement without titles. The report recommended that the settlers be asked to quit.
Phase 3 covered fully settled areas that needed to be repossessed, and the report recommended compensating these settlers with alternative land or cash in lieu.
Phase 4 covered the so-called group ranches, which were populated mainly by Kipsigis people. The report recommended a survey to determine the actual ranch boundaries. And then Phase 5 would deal with Mau East. The Cabinet unanimously (including Ruto) approved the report and all its recommendations. It was then tabled in parliament (with Ruto and all the Mau-local MPs present). It was approved by the House. The secretariat to spearhead implementation was gazetted and established. The Mau reclamation would be an operation headed by Wekesa and the forestry ministry. And because there were several other agencies involved, the Prime Minister’s office would act in its usual role of co-ordinator.
Phase 1 of the recommended action was implemented, and then Wekesa (not Odinga) issued a gazette notice giving settlers time to quit the area referred to in Phase 2. Quite a number of them, who had no titles, began to move. It was at this point that the noise started. Not from the settlers. No. It was Ruto and pals who decided to take advantage of the situation to push their own political agenda. They went to the area and incited title-less settlers in Phase 2 not to leave until they had been paid compensation.
These were the same leaders who in Cabinet and parliament had approved the task force and unanimously endorsed its recommendations. Now they saw a way of irresponsibly messing up the process to advance Ruto’s agenda against Odinga. Some business people, particularly Kikuyu business people, were encouraged to say their kiosks had been looted, and that this had forced them to run away to the camps where those previously displaced during the 2007-8 post-election violence were living.
Ruto and the other leaders behind the forest agitation encouraged these settlers to go to the camps and wait for land, along with the IDPs. They told them, ‘You voted for Raila – this is how he is repaying you. This is how he is inflicting pain and suffering on our people.’ The agitators ferried families to makeshift camps, called in the media, and blamed the “inhuman” exercise on Odinga. A compliant media went along with it, regrettably too lazy to research the facts, or too inept, or too partisan to point out this was a necessary and collective Cabinet decision to which Ruto was party and which was actually being implemented by Wekesa.
And driving all this was the same William Ruto from whose Eldoret North constituency and nearby Kuresoi tens of thousands of people had been displaced in the 2007-8 post-election violence. Ruto has never said a word in their defence, nor offered them so much as a blade of grass from his own extensive land holdings. On the contrary, he apparently decided to acquire for himself 100 acres of one unfortunate displaced person’s land.
On that score, Ruto has recently offered the astonishing excuse that “no one was living there”. The last time this excuse was used was about 100 years ago, when colonial settlers voiced precisely the same sentiment as they casually took over land wherever they felt like it and regardless of whose land it was. Who expected to hear of such a callous attitude in modern-day Kenya?
In 2010, seeking a solution to the problem of the Mau Phase 2 settlers, Odinga recommended that they be treated like other landless Kenyans, and that the ministry of lands provide them with some land for settlement. It was at this point that Ruto conspired with his friends in the Treasury to have the funds for that compassionate exercise withheld, so that he could continue to blame people’s suffering on Odinga. It was not until early June 2011, nearly a year later, that the government finally released the money – shs. 1bn to buy land for those forced to quit the Mau Forest.
In the intervening period, Ruto had a field day demonising Odinga. But the net result of his dirty-tricks campaign was that the Mau Phase 2 evictees were heartlessly subjected to long and difficult months under canvas, as they waited for then finance minister Kenyatta to stop dragging his feet and release the money for their settlement.
If anyone was “inhuman” here, it was certainly not Odinga but, rather, someone who has no compunction whatsoever about using people for his own ends. Ruto was only interested in playing political games and dragging out the evictees’ suffering to try and gain a political advantage over Odinga. He had no care for the pain of the evictees. And yet this is one of the matters that Ruto, with a straight and self-righteous face, refers to as his “differences in principle” with Odinga.
Then, of course, there is the ICC issue. “I am paying the price for having supported Raila in the last elections and eventually being turned into a sacrificial lamb,” Ruto is quoted as saying. How touching. And how false.
In late 2008, after the Kriegler and Waki reports on the 2007 general election were submitted, ODM sat down as a party with its national executive council and parliamentary group to discuss the matter, eventually deciding to suggest that a local tribunal be established to try those suspected of being instrumental in post-election violence. The party issued a statement to this effect.
Ruto was not present at that meeting, being away in The Netherlands, allegedly negotiating a fertiliser deal. But as soon as he arrived at Nairobi airport, he told the press that he was opposed to the establishment of a local tribunal. He said such a tribunal would end up trying only the small fry, while letting the big fish go scot-free. Ruto then teamed up with Kenyatta to make a career out of opposing the tribunal idea, and the two of them ‘lobbied’ (to put it politely) hard among MPs to oppose the parliamentary motion that sought to establish a local tribunal independent of the judiciary.
In the meantime, Odinga, Kibaki and then justice minister Mutula Kilonzo tried their best to persuade their parliamentary colleagues to support a local tribunal.
When it came to the vote, Ruto, Kenyatta and their pals voted against the local tribunal and carried the day. They appeared to imagine that the matter of justice would thus be delayed (Ruto even stating at one point that it would take 99 years for the Hague cases to be heard) until they were in government themselves, whereupon they would presumably ensure non-compliance with the Hague and the matter would go the same way as so many other scandals in our history.
After parliament rejected the local tribunal, Annan arrived and categorically stated that The Hague was not a good idea. He said he would give parliamentarians another six months (beyond the original deadline of the end of 2008) to rethink. Failing a change of attitude, he would have no choice but to hand over to the ICC the sealed envelope of perpetrators’ names given to him by Justice Philip Waki. Annan then held on to the envelope from January to June 2009. Kilonzo spearheaded a second attempt to have parliament agree to form a local tribunal. His efforts were shot down by Ruto and Kenyatta in Cabinet.
A third attempt was made in parliament by Imenti Central MP Gitobu Imanyara. This was also shot down. At every stage of this process, Ruto and Kenyatta strongly opposed the local tribunal, while Odinga, Kibaki, Kilonzo, Imanyara and several others continued to support it. In the end, Ruto and Kenyatta succeeded in killing completely the idea of a local tribunal, and Annan was left with no option but reluctantly to hand over the sealed Waki envelope to ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
Even then, Ocampo himself volunteered that he did not have to prosecute – if only Kenyans could get their act together. Minister for internal security Professor George Saitoti led a team consisting of Kilonzo, the then attorney-general Amos Wako and lands minister and shadow attorney-general Orengo to the ICC, where they told Ocampo they needed more time. Ocampo gave them another four months.
But opposition led by Ruto and Kenyatta was still so strong that Saitoti’s team could achieve nothing. Finally, Ocampo gave up, went to the pre-trial chamber and sought permission to begin his investigations. This was granted in March 2010. The ICC began its work. On December 15 that year, Ocampo named the six suspects he considered had the biggest responsibility for the crimes committed. And then, suddenly, out of the blue, it was Raila Odinga who was the author of the whole thing! He just wants us out of the way, said Ruto and Kenyatta, so that he can win the election.
What? You say he supported a local tribunal? Ah, forget about that! It’s clear that he gave the names to Ocampo! (This didn’t quite explain why Odinga would include his own party chairman on the list, but anyway, details, details.) He is the devil incarnate!
What? You say the Waki envelope went straight from Waki to Annan and then, still sealed, from Annan to Ocampo? Ah, forget about that too! Raila chose the names in that envelope!
Oh dear. I suppose this means that Waki, Annan, Ocampo, Trendafilova, maybe the UN, definitely the entire ICC, the British government, probably the entire European Union, not to forget Obama, of course – the whole lot must have been corrupted by Raila Odinga and are now in on the deal. Boy, is that man powerful or what!
Unfortunately for Ruto and co, they have discovered that reality eventually bites back, and evidently it bites even more fiercely than Michuki’s rattled snake.
Kalenjin representation. Detained youth. Mau Forest. ICC. Ruto’s perpetual whining and griping about Raila Odinga covers issues where it is patently obvious that Odinga played only statutory and above-board roles, while at the same time doing his best to accommodate all Ruto’s demands.
Ruto’s complaints are completely insubstantial and disappear like puffs of smoke when subjected to any kind of scrutiny. And yet these are the issues he refers to as his “disagreements in principle” with Raila Odinga. Ask Ruto to explain exactly what “principles” he is talking about, and you might wait a long time for an answer. We can talk about lack of principles when Ruto maligns the party that sponsored him to parliament, is hostile to his party leader, and goes all out to form an alternative party without having the guts or principle to resign from a party he “ditched long ago”.
Traversing the country spouting dangerous, fabricated nonsense that pits Kenyan against Kenyan and can only do harm has nothing to do with “democratically expressing divergent views”, as Ruto so disingenuously likes to put it. It has to do with a frighteningly cold and calculating disconnect from the reality of the threat of future mayhem in Kenya. That is what is being stoked. Already the authorities are sounding the alarm bells, as they made plain earlier this week.
Ruto has been like a dog with a bone over this matter of Raila Odinga. For the past four years, we’ve watched as he keeps burying it in the dirt and then digging it up and chewing on it again and then burying it again and then digging it up again. There’s something ancient and primitive in a dog’s DNA that makes it do this compulsively, over and over again. I don’t know what to say about Ruto. There are plenty of haters out there who won’t like this truth and will prefer to avoid the issues and clog the blogs with mindless hate-speech and obscenities. All I can say is, this country needs to make informed choices based on facts.
Perhaps some of these facts might also help so-called political commentators such as Mutahi Ngunyi, who responded to the Balala sacking by calling Odinga a “Machiavellian” who “cannibalises” people. What shallow, ill-informed tosh! Shame on you, Mutahi. All it takes is a little bit of research. But that, of course, depends on the will to do it and not being otherwise compromised, I suppose. If anyone doesn’t want the facts, it’s their prerogative to ignore them. But the truth remains constant. And at least this way, if the truth is laid bare and it still all goes wrong, no one will ever have any excuse for coming back to lament, “Why wasn’t I told?”
The writer is a freelance journalist
http://www.the-star.co.ke/weekend/siasa/70306-raila-and-ruto-what-caused-the-split?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
Lucy Kibaki is kept heavely sedated hence her mental health deteroriated .Let Kenyans pity her .The first lady is in isolation lies in excreme poor conditions prisoners (women) are forced to wipe and clean her shiet .who is ready to save first-lady?
ICC part of Kenyan system, says CJ
Friday, 27 April 2012 16:22 BY RAMADHAN RAJAB
THE Judiciary has dismissed claims that having the cases against four Kenyans at the ICC is a form of neo-colonialism. Addressing students leaders of Nairobi schools yesterday, chief of staff Duncan Okello, representing Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, said the ICC is part of the Kenyan Judicial system because Kenya ratified the Rome Statute domesticating the court.
“ICC is not a foreign court as being portrayed. The Kenyan constitution recognises that international law is a source of the Kenyan law. ICC gave Kenyans options to form a local tribunal but because of the Parliament’s wisdom or lack of it, they failed. The cases at the court are right but in a manner that is politically inconveniencing to some,” he said remaining non-committal on whether the cases should be brought back to be handled in the local courts.
Okello said that even though much has changed in the judiciary and Kenyans are assured of free, fair and transparent judgments, it is paramount for the public to press for transformational change in other sectors linked to the justice system.
“Administration of justice is an assembly line and the judiciary only comes at the tail end of the assembly. It is not enough to have a judiciary that works, but the investigations by the police must be proper as well the prosecutions, to enable the judge make a just decision. So it is upon us to call on everyone to do his or her job effectively to be sure of getting justice,” he said.
“Judges make decisions according to the evidence presented to them, they cant reinvent it,” Okello said. He called on Kenyans to remain vigilant and defend the constitution so that its gains are not lost.
Okello welcomed those who have complaints against judicial officers to lodge them directly to the CJ’s office or mail them to the judiciary ombudsman office. He called on schools administrators to nurture in their pupils and students a culture of religious and cultural tolerance to promote unity and cohesion.