There is nothing to write home about Uhuru’s tenure as a Government minister.
As the dust settles on the recently concluded General Election, cracks are emerging in the political alliances that were cobbled up solely to campaign and win the elections. Most noticeable is the trooping of the presidential losers to the Jubilee Alliance. The feeding trough is currently held by Uhuru Kenyatta and all except Peter Kenneth and Martha Karua, have thrown aside their pride and principles, to jostle for jobs, aka politics of the stomach. Why then, did they compete against Uhuru in the first place?
During a meeting last week, it was a pity to see Professor Kiyiapi, a distinguished scholar, seated among yesteryear politicians like Paul Muite and the Goldenberg-tainted Musalia Mudavadi, eyeing Cabinet posts and other juicy appointments to be dished out by president-elect Uhuru Kenyatta. Apparently, their campaigns were merely meant to lure the electorate. Abduba Dida, the darling of poor Kenyans, was also with these hungry hyenas pledging loyalty and hoping to get bread crumbs from Uhuru. He must have torn into him during the Presidential debates so as to be noticed and later given a position.
The post-election agreement meeting hosted by Uhuru last Saturday showed Amani Coalition representatives like Mudavadi and Eugene Wamalwa parading before him, in the interest of their stomachs. Musalia should be ashamed that after many years as a Minister and a recent presidential candidate, all he can do is look for an elusive position in Uhuru’s yet to be convened Government. Where is his prestige, having been duped last December into signing a non-existent deal to have Uhuru relinquish his then presidential bid to him? Surely, how do those who voted for him feel now since he had bashed Uhuru in the media for being inconsistent in his word? Couldn’t Musalia have waited for the upcoming Supreme Court case filed by Raila for him to decide on how to work with Uhuru? Really, it was a shame to see him literally begging to jump into Jubilee, then his UDF party denying soon after, that they had no pact with them. Kiraitu Murungi was another shameless politician calling Uhuru ‘Baba’, and telling him that MPs in his APK party require membership in various Parliamentary committees. In simpler terms, to be considered in his Government. Of course Uhuru also needs these losers to beef up his votes in case Raila’s suit nulifies his win and requires another presidential election. We are back to the Moi-KANU days of sycophancy.
Within the CORD Alliance, some post-election defectors also shamelessly paraded before Uhuru Kenyatta. Wavinya Ndeti who lost her bid for the Machakos County Governor, has moved away with her Chama Cha Uzalendo Party into Jubilee. Omingo Magara of the People’s Democratic Party has done the same, even though he won his senatorial position under CORD. They clearly exhibit the bankrputcy of principles and ideologies which affects most Kenyan politicians.
Dr. Shem Ochuodho, another well-respected scholar but a political non-performer from his record as Rangwe MP in 1997-2002, and recently as Paul Muite’s running mate, is back in the picture to gain from Raila’s current political losses. Unfortunately, there are scores of others like him who would do better by contributing to socio-economic development without sucking up to Uhuru Kenyatta, in the name of Government jobs. History shows that almost all Kenyan academics have wasted their reputation and integrity in the name of politics. Even the late Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai and Professor George Saitoti went below their credentials to survive in the murky waters of Kenyan politics. Professor Anyang’ Nyong’o had to abandon his Socialist leanings and is today one of the worst capitalists gobbling from the poor taxpayers.
Raila’s Supreme Court petition
The most significant winning factor in the recently concluded General Election is peace. The fragile, quiet peace holds temporarily, against the back-drop of Raila Odinga’s court petition to challenge
Uhuru’s triumph. As noted by many political pundits, Raila’s case may significantly change the political landscape if the Supreme Court rules in his favor. It could be the beginning of slaying the hydra-headed monster bearing the venom of corruption and impunity; the Mta-Do (what will you do?) syndrome of Kenyan politicians who think they are above the law. A recent poll by the Transparency International Kenya chapter on Kibaki’s 10-year anti-corruption interventions indicated that he failed miserably, yet eradicating the vice was one of his key election pledges in 2002. Kenya is still one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
It is largely corruption that lies behind the alleged collapse of the IEBC electronic voter system which led to the manual vote count that was rejected due to its past unreliability in relation to credible election results. IEBC officials are suspects in their failed actions and Raila’s petition questions the means of procurement for the Biometric Voter Registration kits and the processes that determined Uhuru’s victory. For instance, Odinga claims in part that “according to figures gazetted after the registration of voters on December 18, 2012 there were 14,267,572 yet during the declaration of results the IEBC claimed there were 14,352,533 voters. The IEBC increased registration by 85,000 voters in clear violation of the constitution, the Election Act and the IEBC Act, the PM says. All and any votes cast under such circumstances are thus unconstitutional and invalid. The consequence is that the purity of the election was polluted and the result of the poll was materially affected, his petition says.” (In: Standard digital newspaper March 17, 2013).
Since the moment Raila declared he would petition Uhuru’s win, Jubilee politicians and supporters have vilified him and even Uhuru was quoted as having asked him to withdraw the case and be offered a job. Some wishy-washy politicians in CORD also asked him to concede defeat. Surely, does he not have a Constitutional right to go to court? A few well-known Kikuyus like Ngunjiri Wambugu and Koigi wa Wamwere have been brave enough to openly support Odinga’s petition. Ngunjiri has registered an online petition for supporters to sign. When Odinga refused to challenge Kibaki’s dubious 2008 win in Kenyan courts, the likes of Martha Karua (then-Justice Minister), had a field day tongue-lashing him, yet it was a known fact that the courts had been compromised since the Moi-era, and were partial in most rulings. Now that Chief Justice Willy Mutunga has led the vetting process of judges and weeded out the corrupt and incompetent ones, Raila is still being told not to make use of the justice system; how ridiculous!
The Jubilee Alliance must be running scared at the prospect of Uhuru losing in the court petition. Their initial goal in the defunct G7 was to make sure Raila Odinga never became president. For instance, the Luhya community, which was supposed to back Raila, was further divided when State House allegedly sponsored Musalia Mudavadi to run. However, Raila still put a good fight in Western Kenya, according to the election outcome.
Winning by all means
On November 16, 2012 renowned scholar David W. Throup wrote an article that critically examined the position of Uhuru Kenyatta vis-à-vis the Kikuyu old guard and his presidential bid. Titled: ‘Reading the Tea Leaves on the Kenyan Elections: Patterns of Violence and Political Alliances’, it unearthed some very disturbing strategies employed by Uhuru’s team to win the elections; e.g. “ethnic oathing (pledging allegiance to the Kikuyu candidate) and ballot stuffing. In fact, oathing of rural Kikuyus started eight months ago.” No wonder there were suspicions of ballot stuffing and at least some IEBC officers were arrested after the elections.
On the credibility of the IEBC, Throup wrote: “The new Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission has lost much of its credibility in the last year and is undermined by factional divisions and allegations of corruption over the allocation of contracts. It will face the challenge in March 2013 of organizing six simultaneous but different elections—for president, the lower House, the Senate, for women’s representatives (and for youth and disabled voters), for county governors, and the local county assemblies. This is a quite unprecedented task for which the previous parliamentary and local government by-elections have provided little preparation.”
He has foreseen squabbles in the functions of the Presidency, Legislative and County Governments. Due to the ill-preparedness of Parliament to handle the political posts as per the new Constitution, it will be difficult for the centre to share power with other branches of Government, especially in budget control. According to Throup: “The elections of March-April 2013, whether they are marred by violence or not, seem set to be only the beginning of an extremely difficult period for Kenyans.”
Trappings of power and entitlement
Uhuru already enjoys top-notch security with chase cars to boot. However, one questions the logic of assigning him and his wife, two Kenya Airforce Dash jets which they used separately, for a
private weekend trip to the Coastal town of Ukunda last Saturday. Eye-witnesses also saw a third plane, which carried his security personnel. Is this not a misuse of taxpayers´ money? Some may reason that it was for security purposes, but it is expected that any plane the Kenyattas travel in, must be well-serviced and all necessary measures taken to make them safe. I cannot recall President Kibaki or PM Raila being accorded such wastage/luxury. In fact, Kibaki once turned down an offer for a new presidential limousine, citing hard economic times in the country.
There is nothing to write home about Uhuru’s tenure as a Government minister. While minister for Local Government, he unilaterally nominated councillors against the set rules and the appointments were later nullified by Mudavadi when he took over the ministry. As Finance minister, his bailout packages seemed not to have trickled down to the Mwananchi. Further, his policy of doing away with fuel guzzlers and replacing them with Passat vehicles for Cabinet ministers, was meant to benefit a private local motor firm that his family owns huge shares in. He also presided over the partial refund of donor money for free primary education (FPE) that was embezzled by senior Government officials and headteachers, yet as Finance minister, he did not enforce the recommended cash reimbursement from the officers. He mentioned that the loss of Ksh4.2 billion was a mere one per cent of the total cash spent during four years of the FPE program in 2005-09. However, the stolen money could have done a lot to improve the quality of schooling or employ the much needed teachers. If he succeeds to be president, he should apply the same vigor he had in marshaling support for his party TNA, so as to fast-track Kenya’s socio-economic development. Unfortunately, so far, Uhuru mirrors a man who wants things for private gain, given the above examples. He ran for the presidency to protect his family’s wealth, amidst the ICC case and integrity challenges presented then, at the High Court in Nairobi.
Conflict of interest: How will he as president, adjudicate on land issues yet he is one of the largerst landowners in Kenya? Will he be interested in the redistribution of land, which Raila seemed more interested in? Will Uhuru fulfill his election pledge of giving school children free milk, yet he is a private owner of the largest milk producing company in Kenya? Will he not be gaining personally by ordering Government to buy milk from him? He also owns the largest private bank in Kenya; will he not direct his Government to borrow money from him at high interest rates? Uhuru has no exemplary record of developing his Gatundu South constituency economically; how then, will he develop Kenya? As MP, he should have had the best managed CDF since he has enough personal money not to interfere with the kitty; but he did not. Will he deliver his one Laptop per child in public school election pledge? In 2002, Uhuru campaigned against the FPE policy that was fulfilled by Kibaki’s Narc Government, though it faces serious implementation challenges. He is also among the 219 former MPs who did not pay taxes as required by the Kenya Revenue Authority. He has therefore not led by example. Peter Kenneth recently challenged his trillion Shilling fiscal budget which wasted more money than it was expected to bring in, while he was Finance minister.
In 2006, there was an online story claiming that the old Kikuyu power brokers like the late Njenga Karume and John Michuki, had privately met and agreed that Uhuru Kenyatta should be the sole heir of Kibaki’s ‘throne’. This informed his shift from being the Leader of Opposition in Parliament to fully supporting Kibaki in the 2007 presidential elections. It was only the ICC matter and the feeling that Kenyans were not likely to vote in another Kikuyu president, which changed the minds of the old Kikuyu ruling class in 2012. But having defied them, Uhuru feels entitled to the presidency since he did not need their help. After all, he is Mr. Moneybags and can either buy people or dictate terms in his favor. There is a feeling he will create an inner circle of “Kiambu Mafia” comprising his younger brother Muhoho, nephew Jomo Gecaga and other very wealthy younger Mt. Kenya members. Ruto will not be part of this cirlce; he is a Kalenjin and ranks lower. Moreover, he has already been used to bring the much needed Rift Valley votes. The older Mt. Kenya elite will definitely retire from active politics with Kibaki. As Throup stated: “Patronage-driven, ethnic-based politics continues to dominate virtually all facets of political life.”
Online post-election violence
Kenya’s post-election violence is being fought in the social media where hate speech has become the order of the day. Clearly, supporters of Ruto and Uhuru are the worst in spitting hate venom on various Kenyan online chat forums, blogs, Facebook, twitter, text messages and online newspaper comments. It is about “tribe on tribe”, with Luos being told that not being circumcised is enough reason for them not lead in Kenya. Weirdly enough, many who think this way also live and work in European countries that don’t practice male circumcision. Their mothers, daughters and sisters also get married to white kihiis that also control Kenya’s economy and our leaders carry begging bowls to them every year for loans and grants. The Kambas are now told to move to Nyanza and begin eating fish like the Luos, since their leader Kalonzo was Raila’s running-mate. The Kikuyu claim Uhuru is God’s choice and that they are entitled to the presidency because they are the hardest working Kenyans, etc.
I had an ugly verbal exchange with a Kenyan from the Kalenjin tribe over the weekend. Mine was an attempt to understand what has changed since their tribe banished the Kikuyu in Rift Valley to tattered IDP camps in 2008. Is Ruto’s political alliance with Uhuru going to solve their perceived and real land problems with the Kikuyu? Ruto is accused of allegedly grabbing 100 acres of land from a Kikuyu IDP; a case he is yet to resolve in court. What about the Kikuyus who demanded Ruto’s head on a plate for his alleged astrocities against them in 2008? Are they now
happy because he brought Uhuru Kalenjin votes? Will Ruto be rejected like Raila who was called Njamba by Kikuyus for bringing the Luo voting bloc to decisively award Kibaki the winning ticket in 2002? Why did Uhuru and Ruto only team up when the ICC matter cropped up? Why did they decide to work together, yet Kikuyu IDPs are still suffering in camps?
The sad thing is that instead of having a normal conversation, some Kenyans whose tribal leaders fell out with Raila and left ODM, have resorted to issuing blanket condemnations against the Luo community for things which don’t concern them. Such ideologically bankrupt Kenyans need exorcising to remove the tribal demons that infest their mental faculties and breed unnecessary hatred that will never propel them anywhere. We need to be civil and remember that hate speech is a crime in any democratic society. Now that Ruto is the deputy president-elect, how many plates of ugali has he added on the tables of his diehard Kalenjin sycophants? The same could be asked of Uhuru’s sycophants. Kenyans in this category need to be critical in assessing these leaders by questioning every move they make, instead of supporting them blindly because they represent their tribes. During one of the recent presidential debates, Martha Karua warned that: “there is no tribe that puts food on your table.”
Jared Odero
About the Author
That was a very good artical, well writen essay (au vipi) Uhuru Kenyatta was rigged in Power by a well organised Kikuyu Mafia Ruling-class and its military controlled by the Kikuyu (NSIS, Military force, CID)etc. Some of us do not worry, since we know that Kenyan people are very resilient, who has died detained, exiled, etc to bring democracy and freedom, which they are enjoying today. Do you think the People of Kenya are going to sit idle (kitako) and watch Uhuru Kenyatta (Kikuyu) and Ruto (Kalenjin), thugs, two big tribes dominating other 40 small tribes of Kenya through rigging election, “NO WAY”! Kalenjins who voted W S Arap Ruto should worry most beause everybody can see how Uhuru is being treated like a King by being offered 3 military special Jets. First jet carrying Kikuyu King Uhuru Kenyatta and bootlickers. Second Jet carrying Mumy-Saheb (Uhuru-darling). The third Jet was buffalo carrying platoons of kwekwe Killing (Elites) to guard Kikuyu annoited Muthamaki) in Mombasa beach resort for honey-moon. Leaving behind W S Arap Ruto, who helped Uhuru to ganner Rift valley votes. It is rumoured that some weeks ago chinese Sub-marines escorted by a fregate of destroyers has anchored at the port of Mombasa perhaps a sign to show Uhuru defiance against the West UK/USA.
W S Arap Ruto should worry the most as he has right. Hence, GEMA ruling thugs will never tolerate Ruto nosing their butts. Ruto will always be looked down upon by these greedy, corrupt dominant kikuyu tribe that bull-shits every MOU they sign with Kenyas weak and marginalized tribes. The Gema ruling class Supremacists are interfeering with The Supreme-Court through the Attorney General Mr Githu Muigai who is a cousin of Uhuru Kenyatta and who was not vetted but was appointed through the back-door by Mwai Kibaki who ignored the PM Raila Odinga. There is a vital cause to worry as the case in the supreme court goes on. The Kikuyu ruling class is mobilizing all Central Province MPs and other kikuyu businessmen (The Mighty Force) to reject Chief Justice Mutunga accusing him of being biased, because the Chief Justice was detained together with PM Raila Odinga by D Arap Moi former Dictator President of Kenya. The aim is to stop Willy Mutunga to step aside in hearing CORD Election Appeal.
Unless justice is allowed to take its course this country might go to the dogs. And we might see very soon UN, UK, USA and the International Community sending Peace Keeping Force to maintain peace in Kenya. Impunity perpetrated by kikuyu /kalenjin ruling mafia must be conquered. Democracy and rule of law must take place in Kenya. Constitution is a piece of paper and unless a democratically elected gov’t that follows the rule of the law constitution will remain just a toilet paper. Kenya needs a democratic gov’t that will bring change, reforms, anti-status quo, implement constitution fullly, fight corruption, prosecute and jail economical criminals, brings security in kenya by not killing jobless and idle youths, but by creating jobs and other skillfull activities through providing more infrastructures in every constituency.
Police /Military must be reformed and this cannot happen under Uhuruto fake gov’t (rigged by the ICC wanted muderers). Land reforms cannot be carried out by Uhuruto land -grabbers. Fisi ni Fisi!Something must be done to Uhuru Kenyatta FM Radios like Kameme FM vomiting Venom against Hon. PM Raila Oginga 24/7 on hourly basis.
Are these guys serious or these foreign forces wants to create panick so that Gema govt might arrest and detain Pm Raila Oginga Why such as this Propaganda is comming at this time ?Israel has increased it’s intelligence watch resources in Kenya fearing Iran is increasing it’s military and economic presence in the East African region.
Intelligence Key Points
Iran has sold millions of rounds of ammunition to Kenyan security forces since 2003 and 2009.
Explosives material used to make bombs has been shipped to Kenya from Iran by Iranian ships.
Iranian intelligence operatives have been arrested in Nairobi.
Teheran has expanded its naval presence in the Upper and Lower East African coasts.
Ethnic terrorism in the Tana Delta in Kenya and other border militia are using Iranian ammo and weapons
Somali based terrorist outfit Al-Shabaab indirectly benefits from Iranian secret fund for Jihadists.
Kenya has trade agreements with Teheran with Teheran selling cheaper crude to Nairobi (Orders cancelled)
Strategic Intelligence Analysis
Israel remains one of Nairobi’s key defense and economic development partner whereby Israel funds development projects, military personnel training programs, and intelligence service agents training.
In equal breadth, Nairobi serves the defense interests of Israel by providing the essential anti-terror defense shield for Tel-Aviv.
Ultimately, the two countries are tied at the hip though each seeks economic and defense autonomy with Kenya more focused in partnering and procuring from flexible friendly countries including Iran.
Israel identifies threats on it’s strategic interests and defense resources across the EA region particularly Kenya and Uganda by the increasing Iranian naval power in the region.
Israel further identifies threats on the security of its citizens and interests by increased presence and movement, to and from Teheran to East Africa, of Iranian secret service agents.
In equal measure, Israel has increased surveillance and audit of Iranian naval fleets and its activities at the vast waters of the Eastern African prefecture.
REVEALED: The Alleged TNA Strategy (Highlights) Of Stopping Raila Odinga Ascending To Presidency
March 18, 2013
By: Simeon Gitahi
Round one win at all cost was all a part of multi-pronged strategy of Jubilee Alliance think tank, starting with tyranny of Numbers to compromised Electoral process and eventually to a run off with multiple targets which includes and not limited to:
•Demystify issues of foreign relations and recognition of ICC suspect
•Water-down ICC cases by intimidating and buying out witnesses as was reported by the ICC Prosecutor
•To bring back to the fold sponsored dummy Presidential candidates without much suspicion
•Make Jubilee team bear national face and not a two tribe affair hence inclusion of Balala, Ngilu, Musalia, Magara et el.
•Bring the business community and trade unions on board with promises of adopting their master plans, on target are the private sector, COTU, KNUT et el
•maximize status of a President-elect and come into run-off wielding state machinery against a terrified opposition.
•Intimidate the Cord team as evidenced in the case of Muthama and Police dispersing peaceful CORD supporters outside the supreme court on Saturday et el
•Put a total mistrust on opinion polls and blind the public forever
•Compromise Media and continue to put alternative views to the cold and the public in the dark, this includes dominating social media against the disorganized CORD online volunteers. Every person in possession of a cheap GPRS enabled phone has access to the rumours and facts first hand anywhere inside and outside the country. Information censorship is barely possible given the current regulations and technology evolution hence a jubilee social media propaganda machine is the best way to dominate and influence national debate.
•Subject the Judiciary to ridicule by digging into the past and associates of the perceived pro democracy supreme judges- this is already underway as can be evidenced by the posts of Jubilee lead propagandists on social media.
•Set Kenya on a long path of Ethnic Tyranny in the name of Democracy
•Prove to the world that our Justice/Courts Systems are working with the aim of bringing back the ICC cases back home
•Provoke Cord team to call for Mass Action and breach the Peace, them fuel it and easily blame Odinga for the 2007/08 post election violence and immediately call the ICC to investigate CORD top leadership
All this have been thrown into disarray, Cord’s Strategic Think Tank is focused on filling a petition at the Supreme Court over the last 7days.
The Petition in the Supreme Court against the Presidential Election Results will be the only greatest achievement the CORD team will be remembered for at the end of all this drama.
It will be a landmark feat but not their primary interest of acquiring political power, the people of Kenya will emerge victorious having proclaimed their hard won democracy which now is under the worst threat of death since the Nyayo era!.
Today the Chief of Defence Forces is Julius Karangi and the CBK governor is Njuguna Ndung’u. NSIS boss is major Michael Gichangi. CID director is Muhoro. Ministry of finance minister is Njeru Githae whose PS is Joseph Kinywa. The head of pensions is Anne Mugo and the auditor General is Priscilla Njeri. As Prof. Njuguna Ndung’u took over as the central bank governor, his deputy is John Gikonyo.
… When Michael Waweru retired from KRA, he was immediately replaced by John Njiraini. The board secretary at KRA is Mrs. Ng’ang’a. and the senior deputy in charge of investigation and enforcement is Mr. Karimi. Still at KRA, the head of customs service is wambui.
At Kenya Airports Authority, the MD is Stephen Gichuki and earlier for many years under Kibaki, was Muhoho, who is Uhuru Kenyatta’s uncle (Mama Ngina’s brother). Recently, Eric Kiraithe joined KAA after failing to secure the Inspector general of police after vetting. At Kenya Re, the board chairman is Nelius Kariuki and the CEO of Kenya power is Joseph Njoroge. The CEO of the Kenya Pests control is Mrs. Gladys Maina.
The Attorney General is Githu Muigai and the solicitor general is Muchemi Wanjiku whose deputy is Muthoni Kimani. The registrar of political parties is Lucy Ndung’u and the government printer is Andrew Rukaria. Still the head of civil service is Francis Kimemia replacing Francis Muthaura. Government spokesman is Muthui Mwangi and the KBC MD is Njoroge.
I think many Kenyans knows that Kikuyu controlls each and every vital position of Power in Kenya Yet you guys lack solution of De-Kikuyunization of Kenya . Personally i dont have any problem UHURU KENYATTA becoming a President of KIKUYU-LAND but i have a big problem when uhuru claims to be President of Kenya .That was yesterday.The lasting solution to Kenya tribalism is for each tribe to go back to their Land . Before the colonization of Kenya every tribe had its Land Example Kikuyu-land Masai-land . Kamba-land etc . Not only in Kenya other places Like Zambia Zimbabwe had Matam bele-land Bechuana-land etc. I cannot understand why in Kenya where big tribes dominates small tribes a solution must be found .Kikuyu it has taken 59 years kikuyu indoctrinating generation to generation that Luos will never Lead in Kenya and Kikuyu cannot be led by the Uncircumcised (nyamu cia Ruguru) which means Luos . Kenyans can separate until when tribes will become mature Ie, Civilize .
I know Kikuyu will oppose this idea hence they have occupied other tribe lands allover Kenya.
KSB: When you write about the Kikuyu, it is good to distinguish between the Kikuyu ruling class and ordinary Kikuyus starving or rotting in slums together with members of other ethnic groups. Ordinary Kikuyus who toil (like any Kenyan) to put ugali on the table have nothing to do with election rigging. The problem is that there are those who are brainwashed to support the power grabbing activities of the Kikuyu ruling class even though these Kikuyus (ordinary) gain nothing after the ruling classes arrive in State House. This is the dilemma with ethnic politics in Kenya. Anybody should be able to become Prezzo in Kenya but the bottom line is that elections must remain free and fair. That is how we, at KSB, view the matter.
These criminals own this country and in control of all the state organs, settling any dispute with them through legal channel wont work,soon they will decide even what amount of oxygen you are suppose to breath,they decide even what to do with your own vote,thats what they call democracy,solution is REVOLUTION.Can you imagine,Uhuru Ruto,Sonko,Waitatu government,many will end up in ngong forest,
MUDAVADI ASKS UHURU FOR CABINET POSITION
Monday, March 18, 2013 – 00:00 — BY STAR TEAM
DEPUTY Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi has called a meeting of his MPS and senators to brief them of his deal with President Elect Uhuru Kenyatta.
On Saturday, Mudavadi entered into a post-election deal with President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta and promised to work with the President-elect.
It was not immediately clear what sort of deal the two entered but sources familiar with it told the Star yesterday that Mudavadi and his UDF party may get a cabinet position and a few government appointments.
“We signed a post-election agreement with nine other political parties including UDF of Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi. Ours will be an inclusive Government that will serve all Kenyans regardless of tribe, political affiliation, creed or colour. Thank you for joining us and let us work together to secure Kenya’s prosperity,” said Uhuru on his Facebook page.
Yesterday UDF Secretary General Dan Ameyo, issued a sentence statement clarifying that no deal was signed between UDF and the Jubilee coalition.
“UDF Party wishes to clarify that it has not signed a post or any other agreement with the Jubilee as inaccurately alleged by a section of the press,” said Ameyo.
Mudavadi had been offered a slot in the Jubilee Cabinet which is being set up in case the Supreme Court upholds the Uhuru’s win following a petition filed by his main contender Raila Odinga.
Sources have however claimed that Mudavadi has decided to front former Minister Mukhisa Kituyi to take up the one Cabinet slot that Jubilee is offering his side.
The Jubilee alliance is set to use its numbers in the Senate and the National Assembly to push its agenda as lobbying for Parliamentary positions intensifies ahead of the swearing in ceremony when the two houses convene for business later this month.
Procedurally, the first business when the two houses convene will be the swearing in ceremony of all the MPs. The ceremony will be presided over by the respective clerks, a departure from the past, when the Speaker oversaw the ceremony in the National Assembly.
The MPs will then elect the Speaker who will oversee the election of his deputy. The Senate, adopted in the new constitution is expected to follow the tradition of the National Assembly in conducting its business.
Of the 349 MPs in the National Assembly including the 12 nomination slots, Jubilee has 158 MPs. The Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) has 145. In the Senate Jubilee has 23 compared to Cord’s 20 out of the total 67 members. The small parties share the balance.
Former Turkana Central MP Ekwe Ethuro who failed in his bid for the Turkana County Senate is the Jubilee front runner for the Senate Speaker position. Cord’s Tana river Senate- elect Bula Mohammed has set eyes for deputy speaker position.
The contest for Leader of Majority in the Senate within the Jubilee has attracted Energy Minister and Meru County Senator- elect Kiraitu Murungi, Tharaka Nithi County Senator- elect Kithure Kindiki and their Nyeri Counterpart Mutahi Kagwe.
Kiraitu, a seasoned politician has represented Imenti South constituency uninterrupted since 1992 when the first multi party polls were held.
Kindiki a law scholar at the University of Nairobi, came to the limelight when he was plucked from the lecture halls to become the Justice Secretary at the advent of the grand- coalition government in 2007.
He is one of the lawyers representing deputy President– elect William Ruto’s crimes against humanity case at the Hague based International Criminal Court (ICC).
When The Hon:Pm Raila is travelling with Over 30 mps from all Kenyan constituencies plus newly elected governors,Senators .Uhueu Kenyatta and Ruto are sorrounded by post election Rejects> Balala,Mwakwere,etcPrime Minister Raila Odinga and his Cord team yesterday told Mombasa residents to prepare for a re-run of the elections. Raila said President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta should stop imposing himself on Kenyans adding that Kenyans cannot be ruled using force.
“I appeal to my brother Uhuru Kenyatta to come out of that place very fast. He is still young. His father was Kenya’s president for 15 years. He must not force himself to be the leader of Kenya,” Raila said.
He spoke at Changamwe just outside the Moi International Airport where he made the first of several stop-overs. He was accompanied by over 30 MPs, governors and senators-elect from Nairobi, Coast, Nyanza, Eastern and Western regions.
The PM jetted into Mombasa aboard a chartered plane accompanied by his allies Machakos senator Johnstone Muthama, Kakamega governor Wycliffe Oparanya, and MPs-elect Ababu Namwamba, Millie Odhiambo, Simba Arati, Abdikadir Adan, Chachu Guya, Regina Ndambuki among others.
He was received by Mombasa governor Hassan Joho, senators Hassan Omar and Juma Boy, MPs-elect Hezron awiti, Abdulswamada Nassir, Rashid Bedzimba, Badi Twalib, Omar Mwinyi, Suleiman Dori, Hassan Mwanyoha, hatib Mwashetani among others.
Conspicuously absent to receive the PM and his Cord entourage were ODM vice chairman Ramadhan Kajembe and Wiper’s Sulieman Shahbal, who both lost the senator and governor positions respectively in the general elections.
Raila and his Cord camp said they are ready for a run-off and challenged Uhuru to a re-run. The PM called for the scraping of the Independent Electoral Body saying it has been infiltrated by thieves. “In my heart, and in the hearts of my opponents, I know I won, and they also know they lost,” he said.
Did ISSASK HASSAN sell this country ….. Or did he not? … READ THIS!!
By Tom Wolf
What do Judas Iscariot, Marcus Brutus, Dona Marina, Marshal Petain, Tokyo Rose, and Satan have in common?
Well, they happen to be the most notorious betrayers the world has ever known. Throughout history, human civilisation has been plagued by backstabbing cockatrices that violate the trust placed upon them and sell out their principals and ideals for material gain.
Interestingly, all infamous traitors have ended up in utter disgrace, often living life desolate and stigmatised.
Their indiscretions truly affirm it is better to die than betray because there is no deceit in death. It delivers precisely what it promises. Betrayal on the other hand, is the wilful slaughter of hope which most victims find unforgiveable.
They say every man has his price and would trade even that which he loves the most for material gain. If you don’t think this is true, take time to reflect upon the following.
How is it that an increasing number of people especially men, are joining dark cults requiring them to sacrifice close family members in exchange for power and prosperity? Isn’t it becoming increasingly common to hear of women single or married compromising their chastity and womanhood in exchange for money and luxury?
Why is it so normal today to find corporate executives junior or senior engaged in industrial espionage busy trading invaluable company secrets and strategies for a quick buck? What about religious leaders, how often do they trade off their flock to the highest bidder in exchange for hefty contributions?
How many mortgage alleviating brown envelopes do media have to receive to advance propaganda or turn a blind eye to the truth? If I don’t mention pollsters, then you might think I am subjective so allow me to interrogate my discipline.
How many pollsters would be willing to manipulate statistics, shift positions and trends in exchange for money, and promises of business? And the business community, how quickly would they be willing to compromise democracy for capitalism and immeasurable profits?
Of course politicians are expected to be untrustworthy much as they preach reform. Yet, how often in Kenya do we see politicians trade their loyalty for power and patronage?
Last but not least the electorate. How easy is it for us to trade off our votes for money? How quick are we to vote in questionable leaders hoping to be blessed with patronage?
The rhetorical questions I have bombarded you with imply that society has become extremely cold and heartless and there is no hope.
Indeed, the soul merchants and traders of ideals and principals certainly want you to think there isn’t any hope and nothing worth fighting for. This must never be the case. We must fight smart for the change we long for our children and their children. We must stand proud and tall and never ever agree to fall. We must demonstrate to the enemies of posterity that one man’s meat doesn’t necessarily have to be another’s poison.
They say betrayal is the wilful slaughter of hope. Yet, those who betray a nation and a people seldom reap good fruits. Let’s hope sooner rather than later, we shall witness those who have traded our future for thirty pieces of silver confessing their misgivings and begging forgiveness. Excerpts from the following poem would probably encapsulate what you would want to tell those who recently betrayed you.
‘I forgive you for the pain you have caused my heart. I wish you could have been genuine from the start. The time has come for us to part ways. I pray you accept the truth for the rest of your days. For all the lies you told, I pray all hell unfolds to devour your dark and wretched soul.’
Ultimately, however, we must start healing. There is no better time such as Lent to reflect upon betrayal, utmost sacrifice, and forgiveness. This Sunday as we banish traitors let us ask ourselves what we would be willing to sacrifice for thirty pieces of silver.
The writer is the founder and CEO of Infotrak Research and Consulting
– I began revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action.
– A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past.
– No thieves, no traitors, no interventionists! This time the revolution is for real!
– A revolution is not a bed of roses.
– The revolution is a dictatorship of the exploited against the exploiters.
– Warfare is a means and not an end. Warfare is a tool of revolutionaries. The important thing is the revolution! The important thing is the revolutionary cause, revolutionary ideas, revolutionary objectives, revolutionary sentiments, revolutionary virtues!
– With what moral authority can they speak of human rights — the rulers of a nation in which the millionaire and beggar coexist.
– Ideas do not need weapons, to the extent that they can convince the great masses.
Uhuru: Here is ECK evidence
Published on 16/07/2008
By Evelyn Kwamboka
Evidence is now available that Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta was warned that he had broken the law when he nominated councillors whose names were not forwarded by political parties.
In a development that shoots down Uhuru’s insistence that he acted within the law, it has emerged that Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) Chairman Samuel Kivuitu told the then Local Government minister, now in charge of the Trade docket, that he had broken the law by trashing names given by parties and coming up with his own. In a letter obtained by The Standard, Kivuitu wrote to Uhuru as soon as the minister gazetted the list of nominated councillors and told him it was against the law.
The letter is stamped as having been received by Uhuru.
Kivuitu told the minister that he had no option but to re-gazette the correct list as given by ECK, instructions that Uhuru defied up to the time he left the Local Government docket in April.
Kivuitu’s February 28 letter reads in part: The Electoral Commission of Kenya has perused the special issue of the Kenya Gazette No 1276 dated February 22 and noted various discrepancies where the names that ECK submitted on February 21, 2008 have been substituted with other names.
Kivuitu added: However, as it offends the law it has to be corrected and the corrections gazetted to reflect accurately the list of candidates the ECK supplied to you.
Kivuitu pointed out the 93 names in the Uhuru list to the minister, plus the names ECK forwarded to him from political parties and local authorities affected. He implored him to amend the records.
The names are expected to be deleted and replaced with the ECK list by Uhuru’s successor in the ministry, Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi.
Likely to be axed
Notable among those who could be affected by Mudavadi’s pen are Mombasa Mayor Ali Abubakar Modhar, who could be dropped because he was picked outside the ECK list, as well as Ms Esther Passaris who could be reinstated as her name was dropped.
In the same letter also, Kivuitu made it clear to the minister that he had nominated more councillors than allowed under the Local Government Act.
Under the Local Government Act, nominated councillors cannot exceed one-third of the elected councillors in any given local authority, Kivuitu stated.
Uhuru nominated 33 more councillors over and above the 729 slots available according to the ECK slots.
The minister also filled slots where no parties had forwarded names of nominees.
In subsequent letters, which The Standard obtained, Kivuitu asked Uhuru to replace such nominees with names forwarded late by parties. Uhuru never did.
The most affected authorities by the alterations were Nairobi and councils in the Coast, North Eastern, Central, Eastern and parts of Rift Valley.
In Nairobi, ODM had forwarded 12 names to ECK and PNU seven, making it a total of 19. However, PNU was awarded 13 slots as opposed to the seven the ECK provided.
ODM was given 11 as opposed to 12 it had forwarded. The minister omitted ODM’s Passaris and PNU’s Wilfred Magara Apencha and Rachel Wanjiku Kamweru from the Nairobi City Council list submitted by ECK.
The Nairobi list featured eight new people whom Uhuru gazetted. They were not in the ECK list.
They are Mr Lee Muchiri, Ms Amina Mohamed, Mr Paul Mutunga Mutungi, Mr Badi Ali, Mr Alex ole Magelo, Mr Dishon Njoka Nyaga, Mr Abdulrahman Ahmed Abdalla and Mr Thomas Kinuthia Ngâangâa.
In the Mombasa Municipal Council, where ODM had submitted 10 names to ECK, four new names appeared in the gazette notice, with the sitting mayor, Modhar, being among those the minister picked.
Pressure piled on Mudavadi to revoke Uhuru’s nominees and settle the issue once and for all.
Nairobi Mayor Godfrey Majiwa has deplored the delay in degazettement of excess councillors, saying it was straining the council’s coffers.
We appeal to the minister to ensure that excess councillors are defrocked accordingly because we have a Sh9 billion debt and we cannot continue wasting money, Majiwa said in an interview.
At a glance
– The number of councillors in a county or town shall be as follows:
– Such number of councillors (if any) as the minister may by order determine, elected for each electoral area by the electorate thereof;
– Where the minister by order so determines, in lieu of the councillor or councillors to be elected by any electoral area within a county or township, a councillor or the same number of councillors, appointed by the council of a county division within which the electorate area wholly falls
– Such number of councillors nominated by the minister to represent the Government or any special interests as the minister may by order determine
– Where the county or town council in its discretion so agrees with the council of any municipality or county, one councillor from among the councillors of that council appointed by that council
– Provided that the total number of councillors nominated or appointed shall not exceed one third of the number of elected councillors or where the number of elected councillors is not divisible by three, the next lowest number is divisible
– Every councillor appointed shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be an elected councillor of the county or town council
Kenya’s Treasury Is Perpetuating Fraud On Tax Payers. This Passat Replacement Scheme Is Uneconomical And Could Facilitate The Outright Theft Of Public Resources. Uhuru Kenyatta’s Legacy At Treasury Is One Of Sheer Incompetence.
Oct 31st, 2009 by Mars Group Kenya
Treasury is perpetuating fraud on tax payers. This Passat replacement scheme is uneconomical and could facilitate the outright theft of public resources. Uhuru Kenyatta’s legacy at Treasury is one of sheer incompetence.
Apart from the obvious blatant contempt for procurement procedures involving single sourcing by Government in its latest vehicle policy scheme, a little known Treasury press statement of December 2008 and missing information in the subsequent 2009 National Budget suggests Kenyan taxpayers should be very concerned.
THE 2008 VEHICLE SURRENDER PROGRAMME PRESS STATEMENT:
On December 14th 2008, the Daily Nation in a story entitled “ Public Vehicles on sale at throw away prices” reported that about 2,000 Government vehicles earmarked for sale under a reformed transport system were being sold off at incredibly low prices. The Nation revealed that the cars were said to have been sold for as little as Sh500. Most of the vehicles already sold were bought by well-connected individuals and companies through questionable deals. The cars were being auctioned in line with a transport policy announced by the then Finance minister Amos Kimunya during the 2006 Budget speech and that the sale was expected to save the Treasury about Sh1.3 billion per year in fuel and maintenance costs.
The Daily Nation story was met with an immediate response from the Treasury. In a press statement, the Financial Secretary “noted with concern an article carried on the front page of Daily Nation newspaper of Monday, 15th December 2008 headlined “Public Vehicles on Sale at Throw Away Prices”, which alleged that the disposal of vehicles surrendered under the New Government Transport Policy had not been transparent. Nothing could be further from the truth” said the treasury statement.
The Financial Secretary stated that Treasury records indicated that by then only 488 vehicles had been sold through open tender rather than the 1,210 stated in the Daily Nation article. According to the Financial Secretary the sale had realized a total of Kshs.194,061,335 which had already been paid to the exchequer. The same official stated that another 811 vehicles were advertised for sale which had closed on 25th November 2008 and were awaiting tender awards. Finally, the official claimed that a further 789 vehicles were under the process of being sold and advertisements were due in early January 2009.
In total by December 2008, the Treasury had collected 2,088 vehicles from various Government Ministries and Departments. According to the Treasury, the process of surrender would continue until all 2,213 targeted vehicles were accounted for.
THE 2009 VEHICLE SURRENDER PROGRAMME:
The reason for the surrender of the vehicles in 2008 was the very same as that behind the 2009 surrender scheme. During the presentation of the 2008 Financial Year Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance announced the introduction of a new Transport Policy to address weaknesses observed in the existing transport policy, characterized by mismanagement, high maintenance cost and inefficiency, lack of parity in allocation of transport facilities, proliferation of vehicle models and idle capacity due to imbalance between the number of vehicles and drivers; lack of capacity to enforce regulations on the use of Government vehicles and escalating cost of providing Government transport which stood in excess of Kshs.4 billion per annum without corresponding improvement in service delivery. The 2009 Budget Speech repeated the same reasons.
The Budget estimates reflect the proposal to Parliament by the Government to spend and must show the expected revenues and debts the Government intends to service. It also provides the ACTUAL AMOUNT spent (Expenditure) and received (Appropriations in Aid) in the previous or preceding financial year. When he presented his budget for the financial year 2009/2010, the new Minister for Finance, Uhuru Kenyatta was required to state the revenue received from the sale of motor vehicles for the preceding financial year 2008/2009; and he did so. But is what he reported to Parliament the truth? Mr Kenyatta disclosed the following as monies received from sale of motor Vehicles for the year 2008/2009.
Receipts from the Sale of Vehicles and Transport Equipment: kshs 14,069,080
Receipts from the sale of Vehicles and Transport Equipment – Paid as Exchequer
kshs 756,000
What happened to all the money raised by the Treasury from its reported sale of 2,213 motor vehicles surrendered? What happened to the Kshs.194,061,335 that Treasury claimed to have already received for 488 cars? This money must be in someone’s pocket. What about the money from the sale of the other Cars?
Uhuru Kenyatta was also required to indicate in his estimates for the current financial year 2009/2010 the amount he would raise from the sale of unneeded or surrendered cars in Appropriation-in-Aid. Here is what he reported to Parliament as expected receipts from sale of motor vehicles during this financial year 2009/2010:
Receipts from the Sale of Vehicles and Transport Equipment: kshs 15,384,640
Receipts from the sale of Vehicles and Transport Equipment – Paid as Exchequer:
kshs 1,726,000
For avoidance of doubt, we go one step further and show you the Motor Vehicle expenditure budget for last year 2008/2009 and the current year 2009/2010. Where are the savings? Is this not yet another Government con?
Can the Kenyan tax payer expect anything from truthful from this Ministry? Recall, that we found substantial errors in both supplementary budgets presented this year in May for the FY 2008-9. Recall also that Parliament unanimously ordered an independent Forensic Audit into the National Budget going back three years. This Audit is yet to begin 6 months later. Kenyans be warned – this Minister of Finance has no competence to manage your money. We insist that the forensic audit ordered by Parliament commences immediately so that we know how much of our money has been stolen and by whom.
CMC HOLDINGS LIMITED AND EXTERNAL DEBT ISSUES:
The current Passat controversy revolves also around the Treasury’s unusual decision to procure without any competition 120 VW Passats from one motor dealer – CMC Holdings Limited. This company features in the external debt register as having lent the Government USD 24.2 million dollars for the purchase from it of 522 Land Rovers for the Office of the President in June 2003. Treasury issued irrevocable promissory notes in this transaction to CMC and later the debt was held and collected on by Standard Bank London UK.
CMC Sold Shl.8bn Of Landrovers In 2003
Mon 02nd November 2009
By The Star
BY ANDREW TEYIE
THE company that has bought Volkswagen Passats for ministers has worked for the government before. CMC Motor Group was involved in another Land Rover deal with Office of the President in 2003.
CMC was single sourced for the controversial130 VW Passats delivered to government last week. And in 2003, the company lent the government US$ 24.2 million (Sh1.82bn) to buy 522 Land Rovers, according to an external debt register posted on Mars Group website. According to the register, Treasury issued irrevocable promissory notes to the company. The promissory notes were later cashed by Standard Chartered Bank.
“The debt was later held and collected on by Standard Chartered Bank in London,” says the Mars Group website. The government split the debt repayment into five payment mode with the last installment being paid in 2006 from 2002. Yesterday, Mars Group questioned why the government engaged in VW Passat, Land Rovers and subsequent issuance of irrevocable promissory notes without Parliament’s authority. “These prior dealings with CMC should have made Treasury even more scrupulous in following the procurement laws to the letter and with fidelity to the spirit of competition, economy and transparency,” says Mars Group. Mars Group also demanded that the current external debt register be tabled in Parliament for public scrutiny.
“Treasury was asked for the document in Parliament on June 3 and to date has refused to table it in Parliament as a public document for scrutiny,” said the watchdog. According to CMC’s annual report, as of December 2008, CMC Motors largest shareholder was Kingsways nominee followed by Paul Wanderi Ndungu.
The third largest shareholder is Stanbic Kenya nominees with Rift Valley Finance coming forth followed by Andy Forwarders Services. Other big shareholders include Joel Kamau Kibe, APA Insurance, Mobicom Investment Ltd, Craysell Investment Ltd and Hemkunvar Ramji.
The VW Passat deal has generated heat in government with some ministers demanding investigations into Treasury’s decision to single source the cars. Immigration minister Otieno Kajwang’ on Friday claimed that the single sourcing of the cars was the height of impunity and corruption in government. Kajwang’ wondered which organ of government sat and agreed to buy the specific cars.
Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi also questioned the deal. By last Friday, 24 ministers, 16 assistant ministers, Head of Public Service Francis Muthaura and 27 PSs complied with the Treasury directive. Three weeks ago, The Star exclusively revealed that CMC Motors would import the cars.
In an interview, CEO Martin Forster yesterday said CMC is importing the Passats to help the government cut on its ballooning fuel expenditure. “We got the order in August and by the end of November these cars (the second batch) will have arrived,” Forster said yesterday. “They will be delivered to the government in December,” said Forster. Forster said each of the vehicles will be sold to the government at Sh3.7 million.
This means the government will spend around Sh481 million in the first consignment of the vehicles that will be used by ministers, their assistants and PSs. Treasury hopes to save between Sh1.5 billion and Sh2 billion annually. in maintenance costs after the replacement of the current fuel guzzlers. “The government has no money and these vehicles will help them save a lot,” Forster said.
Kenya: The Great Transition – Corruption and Ngoroko Season
By John Githongo, 7 July 2012
opinion
On June 20, a helicopter carrying the minister for Internal Security Prof George Saitoti and his assistant minister Orwa Ojode crashed in Ngong killing both ministers, their aides and police chopper crew.
The Kibaki tenure has been a particularly tragic one when one counts the number of senior officials and politicians who have died around the Head of State. This time things are different, however, and point to a mood that will set the tone for the intense political period we are about to enter.
On January 24, 2003, a plane full of government officials and their supporters crashed in Busia. Three died – including the pilot, one other crew member and the Minister for Labour, Ahmed Khalif. Eleven were injured including Dr Wanjiru Kihoro, the wife of seasoned politician and democracy activist Wanyiri Kihoro. Dr Wanjiru Kihoro passed away after almost four years in a coma in 2006. Back then, no conspiracy theories or rumours of assassination gained any traction. The helicopter crash last month was different. Almost immediately, foul play was suspected. On Twitter, Facebook and by SMS, countless theories were advanced, with most insinuating that someone may have killed the ministers.
To start with, fingers were quietly pointed at top officials in the regime. Then a conspiracy theory in part born out of one of the saddest and damaging legacies of the Kibaki era – a dramatic laissez-faire criminalisation of our politics and society despite undeniable economic achievements – began to gain traction. All this while proper investigations were just kicking off. This theory held that the ministers had been assassinated by elements of the regime involved in the illicit drug trade. For me, what was important was that Kenyans were willing to believe this: that at the top of our government are politicians so deeply embroiled in the drug business which is transforming our politics starting at the Coast, that they had no qualms about killing the minister of Internal Security and his deputy. The conspiracy theory gained momentum when Members of Parliament alleged the same on the floor of the house. Perceptions were, in my opinion, irrevocably worsened when the family of Prof Saitoti reportedly hired their own investigators to look into the crash, alleging a cover-up by officers of the very government that the minister and his deputy had led.
This demonstrated a total lack of faith and confidence in the investigation process initiated by the very regime Prof Saitoti had served so close to the very top.
It should trouble us that so many of us are willing to believe that elements within our own government are willing to kill their colleagues in this way at this time. Indeed, one young but hardened cynic observed to me, “If the Government spokesman, Alfred Mutua, had immediately come out to deny the rumours in anyway, that would have been confirmation that there was some truth in them.” This extreme low trust environment has implications. It most certainly complicates life for the IEBC which now cannot afford to put a foot wrong; even genuine mistakes are likely to be read with a political lens in a highly ethnically polarised environment.
PAYING FOR POLITICS
Kenya is about to hold the world’s most expensive election at $20 (Sh1,680) per vote if, say, we had 10 million voters. Politicians are also due to spend a totally unprecedented amounts of money. A Nairobi-based think tank, the Coalition for Accountable Political Financing, recently estimated that that the top presidential candidates will spend between US$100 million (Sh8.4bn) and US$150 million (Sh12.6bn) each. The presidential campaigns alone could cost US$500 million (Sh42bn). These figures are Nigeriaesque and Nigeria has oil money to spend and misspend on these things. So where will the money come from? While serious fortunes exist among members of the elite, accumulated largely via graft and the abuse of public office over the last 49 years, it is also becoming clear that there is a considerable amount of money sloshing about this economy from more opaque sources.
There is a consistency to reports of mainly Coastal-based drug barons and up-country money launderers injecting huge sums into the campaign kitties of some leading contenders. Traditionally, the period after the reading of the last budget before an election is the start of shakedown season. Aspirants start by hitting up members of the private sector, then investors who are still in a fragile contractual condition, before moving on to squeeze as much out of the public purse as possible via kickbacks, skimming off procurement contracts and the like. The unenthusiastic can find themselves ‘encouraged’ by visits from the taxman or even police. Businessmen dish out the cash to all sides to hedge their bets. It is thus that giant public works projects seemingly hurriedly cooked up in the year prior to polls have a habit of becoming white elephants whose utility declines once they have finished serving as vehicles to mobilise election finances. In my opinion, however, these tried and tested tactics simply don’t begin to explain the kind of resources already being splashed about by some of the leading contenders.
In the 1980s, before full liberalisation of the economy, the capture of regulatory agencies was enough to mobilise resources for political activity. After the reintroduction of political pluralism, specifically designed scams to extract resources from the Consolidated Fund kicked in. Goldenberg cost us roughly 10 percent of GDP. At the same time with liberalisation graft moved from the weakened regulatory agencies to revenue collection bodies; it moved, in a sense, from the capital to the Coast. Giant sugar and maize importation scams for example were all the rage from the mid-1990s and to an extent to this day as well. Throughout the 1990s, land allocations by the head of state, especially in urban areas, also became a strong feature of corruption by public officials facing elections.
By 2003, internal and external pressure increased media scrutiny and political fragmentation among the elite had forced large scale graft to retreat into ‘national security’. The looting of police and other agencies in the sector turned national security into the last refuge of the corrupt. It partly explains why so many of our police helicopters are unserviceable or fall from the sky. From around 2005, however, it also became clear that drugs and money laundering had become important sources of political resources. It would also seem that a chunk of the resources fiddled from the oil revenues of the South Sudan government found their way to Kenya much in the same way as some of the ransoms associated with piracy. Remember, Nairobi, for now, remains the commercial capital of Somalia.
INTIMIDATION AND ASSASSINATION
While an open-door policy with regard to drug money and the involvement of top officials (and their wives and other relatives) in part explains where the flood of cash for siasa is coming from, elite political fragmentation has increased the currency of intimidation and assassination as tools of political management. Assassination has always been a feature of Kenyan politics.
Shoot-to-kill policies with regard to the so-called Mungiki menace started in earnest around 2007. A culture of extrajudicial killings was normalised. Though in truth a similar condition had held sway in much of Northern Kenya for decades. Anyway, the new situation was most dramatically exemplified by the murder in broad daylight of Oscar Kamau King’ara and John Paul Oulu in March 2009. There in particular seems to be a systematic pattern of these killings that went into high gear once it became clear that the ICC process the elite had thought would take decades would move did so more quickly than they had anticipated.
Since the ICC named its key suspects in December 2010 we have witnessed an intensification of these trends. A number of witnesses and potential witnesses for the ICC have been assassinated or simply disappeared without a trace since. Then earlier this year the body of the Mombasa-based Samir Khan – previously arrested as a terror suspect together with Mohammed Kassim – was found in the middle of Tsavo National Park.
In May, it was reported in the media that the President and the head of the National Security Intelligence Service had met to discuss the risk of chaos before and after the elections. What was curious about this was that it was not reported in the media at all! Presumably the NSIS boss briefs the President regularly about the ‘risk of chaos’ without there being the need to tell the world that this is happening. Similarly, the media has carried regular reports about Mungiki ‘regrouping’ and ‘reorganising’ in a manner so consistent that it has led some to question whether Kenyans are being prepared for a crackdown of some sort.
Maina Njenga, former head of Mungiki, has since late last year – uncharacteristically for someone who has been through his share of scraps with individuals and institutions that want him dead – publicly raised the alarm that his life is in danger, even reporting the matter to the police. Njenga joins the growing number of those who have gone to the police to report receiving death threats, including a government minister and several politicians. This has been accompanied by consistent rumours of a list of “meigwa (Gikuyu for thorns) that need to be removed”; on it are the names of top state officials with reformist credentials, politicians and civil society activists. Add to this a most bizarre and brazen open threat meted out directly against an editor at The Star among other incidents and one may be left wondering whether all these events are a throwback to the period just before President Kenyatta died when a ‘Ngoroko’ plot to assassinate leaders to manage the transition was exposed.
One cannot tell for sure except that anti-reformist elements would seem to have retreated into a dark space in this period in the run-up to the next elections. It reminds us that the explosion of violence in 2008 was an aberration that the elite lost control over. It was this loss of control that led to the bizarre situation where presidential candidates today also face trials for crimes against humanity at the ICC. Throughout the 1990s, election-related violence was state directed, or directed by elements of the state. We are back in that space today. A bungling transition seems to be guaranteed by the absence of any form of central management of this critical process. Add to this a host of internal contradictions amplified by the on-going constitutional reform process, the ICC, al Shabaab, the inexorable rise and apparent consolidation of power by drug dealers and money launderers at the heart of the elite and intimidation and assassination have gained a new and potentially destabilising currency.
‘Tribalism’ and land:
The continuing colonial past in Kenya’s current crisis
It is difficult to make sense of the current situation in Kenya without an understanding of the role played by British colonialism in respect of the twin issues of ‘tribalism’ and land, says T Rajamoorthy.
FEW countries of the Third World have been so much a hostage to their colonial past as Kenya. While almost every ex-colony has the burden of its colonial past to reckon with, few entered the comity of independent nations with a political and economic structure that was so decisively determined and shaped by the colonial suzerain. Kenya’s current crisis cannot be explained or comprehended without relating it to the colonial past, particularly with regard to the key issues of ‘tribalism’ and land.
Kenya’s post-election carnage has been attributed to ‘tribalism’. What began as a protest against a rigged election soon degenerated into a violent conflict along tribal lines. The protest action by Raila Odinga, leader of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement, against the incumbent president Mwai Kibaki for ‘stealing’ the elections took the form of an ethnic conflict first between the Luo (Odinga’s tribe) and the Kikuyu (the tribe of President Kibaki) and which soon expanded to include the other ethnic communities.
Predictably, most Western commentators have treated this phenomenon as a reversion by Kenyans to their supposedly ‘primitive’ past. This alleged proclivity of Africans to relapse to their ‘primitive’ past has been a constant theme in Western reporting and even in Western interpretations of Africa’s history. In the case of Kenyan history, the most notorious has been the depiction of the Mau Mau anti-colonial rebellion against British rule as an atavistic expression by Kenyans of their primordial savagery!
However, as Colin Leys noted in his study of Kenya some three decades ago, this ‘tribalism’ (which he refers to as ‘modern tribalism’) ‘is the creation of colonialism. It has nothing to do with pre-colonial relations between tribes. Before colonial rule, there was not only no enmity, there was scarcely any relationship at all between Kikuyu and Luo. What brought the Kikuyu and the Luo into relations for the first time was their shared involvement in the colonial economy. The same was true of the relations between the Kikuyu and most other tribes in Kenya other than the kindred Embu and Meru, and to some extent the Kamba’.
In short, it was the forcible integration by British colonialism of Kenya into the world economy that laid the foundations of tribalism in that country. While the specific conflict between the Kikuyus and the Luos can be traced back to the political struggle in the 1960s between Jomo Kenyatta, the country’s first president, and Oginga Odinga, the vice-president, the fact that a political struggle could assume ethnic dimensions was reflective of the tribal foundations which colonialism had already established and which the post-colonial state inherited.
Most observers have noted that much of the recent bloodletting was in the Rift Valley. This valley was also the setting for earlier ethnic conflicts. The combustible issue here has been land hunger. And it was the very same process of forcible integration into the global economy that was to so distort and reshape Kenya’s socio-economic structure that mass land hunger became its leading characteristic – a land hunger that was almost invariably expressed through the colonial construct of ‘tribalism’.
It is important to understand how land became the central issue in Kenyan politics and history and how it became intertwined with tribalism. Without an understanding of the role played by colonialism in the whole process, it is difficult to make sense of the current situation in Kenya.
At the outset a clarification may be in order. The assertion that modern tribalism is a creation of colonialism must not be taken to imply that in pre-colonial Kenya there was no tribal rivalry or tribal conflict. The Kenyan highlands (including the Rift Valley) constituted an arena of contention between the Kikuyu, the Kalenjin (all agricultural farmers) and the Masai (principally pastoralists). Generally speaking, however, such tensions as arose were defused through the workings of the traditional systems of land tenure, which were flexible and fluid enough to accommodate the demands of agriculturalists and pastoralists alike. Land was plentiful, there were no constraints on its use (other than the limits of fertility and fodder), and new lands could be opened up when necessary by clearing forests.
The situation changed completely in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the arrival of the British colonialists and the white settlers who came in their wake. Britain not only expropriated the best lands (some 20% of Kenya’s arable land) for the white settlers, but forcibly resettled the indigenous peoples in reserves located on inferior lands. More importantly, it began the process of regulating the use and ownership of land in accordance with the needs and requirements of a colonial, capitalist economy.
‘Colonial capitalism’ in Kenya was, however, something of an oxymoron. The requirements of colonialism, specifically, settler colonialism, necessitated the division of land by race. Hence, in addition to confining the indigenous peoples in Native Reserves, it was felt essential to ensure that the fertile lands occupied by the settlers remained an exclusively white preserve (i.e., such lands could not be purchased by Africans). The result was the transformation of the Kenyan highlands (which included part of the Rift Valley) into the ‘White Highlands’.
The problem of the demarcation of reserves for indigenous peoples was compounded by the colonial attempt to approach the issue of such land rights on a tribal basis. This was despite the fact that “‘tribes” in Kenya had never had any land rights as such [as] only members of a single clan could claim land as a group’.
The result of such demarcation was the fostering of greater tribal consciousness.
While the operations of capitalism required a recognition of private property and the removal of all restrictions on the sale and purchase of such land, British colonial policy did not, until the 1960s, extend such rights to the indigenous peoples. They were expected to continue with their traditional forms of land tenure and farming practices, but within the confines of their land reserves. Clearly, these policies were a derogation of free-market principles, but they reflected the demands of white settlers who required cheap labour and feared the threat of competition from the African peasants. The latter were in fact prohibited from growing certain crops, such as coffee, which were an exclusive white settler monopoly.
These developments had a catastrophic effect upon the Kenyan peasantry. The restriction of the indigenous farmers to reserves and the enactment of forestry conservation laws prohibiting their right to clear forestlands had disastrous consequences for their livelihood. With the growth of the population, they were forced to engage in more intense cultivation of their farmland. But such intense cultivation only resulted in greater and faster soil deterioration. For the first time, they experienced the phenomenon of land shortage.
In the struggle to survive, many peasants were forced to leave their homes in the reserves to become ‘squatters’ on settler farms in the White Highlands. It was the emigration of the Kikuyu to the Rift Valley, long regarded by the Masai and the Kalenjin as their traditional home, which was to sow the seeds for future tribal friction.
While most indigenous people experienced painful changes, there were some who profited from British rule and benefited from its policies. Already in the 1920s and 1930s, some prosperous indigenous farmers were demanding guaranteed private titles to the lands they were cultivating. And when colonial policy makers proposed and implemented a policy of consolidation of small farmholdings to make them more viable for capitalist farming, some of these more prosperous elements took advantage of this opportunity to expand their holdings and consolidate their growing power. The foundations were thus laid for the emergence of a new class within indigenous society which welcomed the new social and economic order.
But such prosperity and wealth was confined to a small minority. The vast majority were traumatised by colonial policies, none more so than the Kikuyu. They had borne the brunt of evictions from their traditional homelands and, as cultivators of the soil, land shortage impacted most heavily on them. Not surprisingly, it is they who were in the forefront in voicing the demand of the indigenous peoples for the return of lands expropriated by the white settlers. The 1952 Mau Mau rebellion, while unquestionably a nationalist anti-colonial armed revolt to end British rule, was largely a Kikuyu response to land deprivation and other indignities of colonial rule.
Not all responses to British colonial oppression, even within the Kikuyu community, were so uncompromising, however. There were conservative nationalists (best represented by Jomo Kenyatta) who, while opposed to British rule and policies, were only prepared to wage a peaceful and constitutional struggle to win freedom. And there were ‘loyalists’ comprising the rich landed classes (‘landed gentry’), ‘traditionalists’ and the influential Christian communities who were on the other side of the divide.
The war against the Mau Mau rebels proved to be one of the most savage and brutal colonial wars in modern history. It began in October 1952 with the declaration of a state of emergency and dragged on for some seven years, during which some 20,000 rebels were killed in combat while 1,090 of them were sent to the gallows. Some 150,000 Kenyans were detained, mostly without trial. Unspeakable atrocities, including public executions, rape, torture and starvation, were committed with impunity by British security forces against men, women and children.
The Mau Mau rebellion aggravated Kenya’s land crisis. The British punished all those who took part in, supported or were merely suspected of supporting the revolt by confiscating their lands. Thus Mau Mau fighters, who took to the hills and forests, and all those charged in court or detained without trial lost their lands, which were given over to loyalists as a reward for their support. When the state of emergency was lifted in 1960, large groups of people so dispossessed (mainly Kikuyus) began moving to the Rift Valley to start a new life. This served to further worsen ethnic relations between the new settlers and the Kalenjin, the Masai and kindred groups who regarded the Rift Valley as their traditional home.
As British forces managed to turn the tide in the war against the Mau Mau, they slowly began planning the transition to a post-colonial order.
The key figure in this transition was to be Jomo Kenyatta. Kenyatta had opposed the Mau Mau but so total was the political myopia of the colonial authorities that they connived to have him convicted and sentenced to seven years’ jail on a trumped-up charge of ‘managing the Mau Mau’. ‘Hardly the mastermind of the movement, he instead did everything in his power both before and after independence to marginalise those who had fought and been detained in the war’. When the British subsequently realised that he was not their real foe, steps were taken for his rehabilitation and he was afforded the opportunity to play the role of ‘The Great Reconciler’, a role he revelled in playing.
Ostensibly, the reconciliation was to be between all those who had opposed British colonial rule (including the militants) and the loyalists who had collaborated. In reality, the reconciliation was between the conservative nationalists and the collaborators, as the militants, especially the Mau Mau insurgents who survived, were to become non-persons in independent Kenya. The history of their struggle was consigned to oblivion and any mention of them was taboo.
The post-colonial order
While the colonial regime was guilty of blatantly exploiting ‘tribalism’ to maintain its hegemony, the tragedy of Kenya is that successive post-colonial administrations have displayed no compunctions about using ethnicity to consolidate their power. The mobilisation of mass support by the use of patronage afforded by political power and office has been the stock in trade of the Kenyan ruling class. Among the many objects of patronage used for such mobilisation, none has proved to be so enduringly valuable as land.
After Kenya became independent in 1963, and Kenyatta became its first president, no serious attempt was made to tackle the burning issue of land by carrying out deep-seated land reforms. Instead, Kenyatta’s regime agreed to accept a huge loan from Britain and the World Bank to finance the purchase by Kenyans, at exorbitant prices, of the land which the settlers had in fact stolen. Under a number of government settlement schemes (the most notable being the Million Acre scheme), some half a million people were resettled from the land purchased from the settlers. But while the problem of land hunger among the poor was in this way temporarily assuaged, the rich were not forgotten. ‘In the end, about 40% of the European mixed-farm areas [became] settlement schemes, and roughly 60%, or two million acres, African-owned large farms.’
Significant as the class bias was, the more significant aspect of the land distribution programmes was their use for ethnic mobilisation. Kenyatta, a Kikuyu, used the programmes for consolidating his political base within his ethnic community. No doubt, under the ‘willing buyer, willing seller basis’ on which the programmes were based, the Kikuyus, with their more developed commercial enterprise arising from their greater exposure to the market, would have profited most. But the disproportionate number of Kikuyus on government land schemes and the large number of Kikuyu purchasers of the large farms reveal more than the normal operations of the market.
The ethnic bias was especially evident in the purchase and distribution of white settler farms in the Rift Valley, an area which has traditionally been regarded by the Kalenjin and the Masai as their home. As pointed out earlier, the Kalenjins had already been aggrieved by the large-scale influx of Kikuyu squatters during British rule. Now the inflow of more Kikuyu land purchasers threatened to inflame the situation. As a sop to assuage Kalenjin sentiment and to help him to defuse a volatile situation, Kenyatta in 1966 appointed Daniel arap Moi, a Kalenjin, as his new vice-president in place of Oginga Odinga.
Oginga Odinga, who had resigned from the post as a result of serious differences (including over land policies), had been naive enough to believe that Kenyatta was ‘the father of Kenyan nationalism’ and had served him loyally. Sincerely believing that a one-party state ‘would end disunity and tensions among the people’, he had set about tinkering with the Kenyan constitution which (he complained), far from being ‘a constitution of checks and balances’, had ‘more checks than anything else’. By the time he realised the folly of his action in helping to concentrate power in what was to become a one-party state, it was too late.
Kenya’s post-colonial administrations have never hesitated to use the full power of this repressive state to silence dissent and opposition parties and movements, including the movements by Oginga and his son Raila to restore democracy. They have done this with the full knowledge that, beyond some occasional and brief suspensions of economic aid, the West has never been prepared to do anything to alienate a staunch ally, first in the war against Communism and more recently against Terror.
Oginga Odinga’s resignation had great significance in ethnic terms as it signalled the end of the alliance between Kenya’s two biggest ethnic groups, the Luo and the Kikuyu. Moi was prepared to tolerate Kenyatta’s pro-Kikuyu policies only while the Old Man was alive. Once Moi succeeded him after his death, he began his own mobilisation among the Kalenjin, which provoked charges by Kikuyu of discrimination.
The climax of such ethnic mobilisation was towards the end of 1992, when, faced with a strong opposition and calls for an end to one-party rule, his ministers decided to rally support in, not unexpectedly, the Rift Valley. ‘At a series of political rallies, ministers told their supporters that they should regard the Rift Valley as an exclusive zone for the [ruling] Kenya African National Union (KANU); those who were not Kalenjin or KANU supporters or who were “outsiders” in the Rift Valley province should be required “to go back to their motherland”. The main target of this attempt at ethnic cleansing were Kikuyu residents and anyone who favoured multi-party politics.’
The results were predictable. In October, violence erupted between the Kalenjin and non-Kalenjin residents spreading across the province, continuing until 1994, with a death toll reaching 800. Tens of thousands were forced to flee their homes.
The same pattern of violence was repeated in the Rift Valley in the recent outbreak of hostilities. Far from being the oasis of peace and stability the Western media has projected it to be, Kenya has in fact for many years been a country riven by social tensions expressed in ethnic terms. The threat of such ethnic violence will continue until the issue of land hunger is tackled.
It is difficult to be optimistic that the new Kibaki-Raila Odinga coalition will be able to come to grips with this problem. As the two leaders continue to wrangle over cabinet posts, the Daily Nation (Nairobi) (25 March) reports that in the Mt. Elgon area near the Ugandan border, a full-scale military operation by a combined army and military police has been underway for more than a week to crush a militia group which has been running ‘a makeshift government’ in the district for the past two years! The report speaks of ‘bombs dropped from the sky’ and ‘phosphorous-laden explosives unleashed by military gunships pounding Mt. Elgon’. The report says that ‘interviews with residents indicate that hundreds of suspects have died in the bombings and at the hands of military torturers. A source said “many” boys were bombed in a cave … after defying an order to surrender’.
Significantly, the militia group against which this full-scale war has been launched calls itself the ‘Sabaot Land Defence Force’. The group claims to represent the Soy, a sub-clan of the Sabaot people (who in turn are a sub-tribe of the Kalenjin). Their grievance is that a rival sub-clan had been given land hived off the Elgon forest which had been their home until they were evicted and moved to a reserve by the government. The seeds of this dispute, like much of Kenya’s current tensions, were sown in the 1950s when the British moved this rival sub-clan from their traditional homeland and settled them near the top of Mt. Elgon, from whence they were resettled in the Elgon forest reserve in the 1960s by the post-colonial government.
The SLDF has been accused of committing atrocities and being involved in a ‘reign of terror’ against the people of the district. It certainly is no Mau Mau, but the land dispute that has given birth to it is just one more of the myriad conflicts in Kenya which, according to an activist, ‘stem from historical injustices to indigenous people, use of land for political patronage and neglect on the part of successive Kenyan governments in addressing these issues.’
T Rajamoorthy, a senior member of the Malaysian Bar, is an Editor of Third World Resurgence.
Kikuyu, Kalenjin presidential aspirants should give up for the good of country
Updated Saturday, November 7 2009 at 00:00 GMT+3
By Kilemi Mwiria
Already we have many presidential aspirants for the 2012 race. Some of them are busy crafting ethnic alliances, despite the trouble such alliances caused in 2007. I would like to make a rather undemocratic suggestion informed by the experience of Tanzania.
One of Nyerere’s greatest legacies was to entrench a presidential identification system which informally locks out politicians from the large ethnic communities from contesting the presidency. It is an unwritten constitutional provision that addresses the fear of smaller ethnic groups that, with political power, large ethnic groups would be too dominant.
The violence witnessed in 2007/2008 had more to do with ethnic competition and less with the manifestoes of the presidential candidates. During the 2007 campaigns, there was much anti-Kikuyu sentiments, especially in the Rift Valley where Kikuyu and Kalenjin residents have had a history of conflict over land resources. This conflict manifests itself in a most ugly way when Kikuyu and Kalenjin candidates are involved in the presidential contest. Although other ethnic groups suffered from the violence, the key players were Kikuyu and Kalenjin — just as was the case in 1992 and 1997.
Those who suffer are always poor workers, peasants and the unemployed because they vote against local preferences. Unfortunately, those they sacrifice for often desert them in their time of need while embracing their elite political opponents with whom they have much in common. These political elites show little guilt in crafting alliances with their adversaries as evidenced by talk of a Kikuyu-Kalenjin alliance.
My take, therefore, is that potential Kalenjin and Kikuyu presidential aspirants should temporarily drop their claim to the top seat until we find a permanent solution to our ethnicised politics. After all, Kikuyu and Kalenjin politicians have dominated the presidency since independence.
Even if we distributed the presidency among all ethnic groups, it will take about 420 years for all our 42 tribes to have a shot at a two-term presidency.
In any case, given the tendency by most Kenyans to vote tribal, Kalenjin and Kikuyu candidates may be rejected, despite their credentials because their communities may be said to have had their turn. The candidates in question may be aware of this unfortunate reality but may go all the way hoping to use their candidature to negotiate powerful positions in the next government.
Kikuyu and Kalenjin communities need the goodwill of their neighbours for their business and farming success more than they could ever hope to get from one person in the name of a president. For no president can single-handedly make a difference for his ethnic community in these days of equitable distribution of national resources. Those who reap personal gain from associating with the president are often big businesses and a few close friends and relatives. More importantly, peaceful elections are good for the country’s economic stability and therefore the majority of Kenyans.
Although this proposal is undemocratic, we should also remember that we have hardly witnessed truly democratic elections in Kenya. We do not vote for presidential candidates because of their manifestos but more because of their ethnic background.
In any case, democracy is of no use if it only serves to divide people. Western democracy as practised in most of Africa has tended to promote greed, tribal conflicts and privileges for a few elites. Maybe we should consider entrenching in the new constitution a provision that checks political dominance by the large ethnic groups while stemming dictatorship by the smaller ones.
While we tinker with this idea, however, individual politicians gunning for the presidency can do Kenya a great deal of good by sacrificing their ambitions for the good of the country, especially where such ambition may intensify ethnic conflicts.
Tribalism damages Kenya
By Leif Norman
Kenya, like other African countries, has undergone rapid urbanization. But many people experience greater loyalty to their ethnic group than to their nation.
Suddenly, it was Kenya that was on fire. The ethnic cleansing was so utterly ruthless that a shocked world drew in its breath. Women and children from one ethnic group were burnt to death in a church. Outside stood a mob and “warriors” from another ethnic group armed with pangas and machetes and stopped any attempt to flee the flames. Neighbour drove off neighbour with fire and violence in villages and cities. The roads were closed off by barricades where people were stopped and killed if they had the wrong surname, that is, one that gave away their ethnic affiliation.
In a region where conflict and civil war have prevailed for decades, Kenya had symbolized stability, development and security. As it turns out, at least 1,500 people were killed because of their ethnicity and 600,000 were driven from their homes.
There was considerable surprise around the world. There was also some in Kenya as well; at the start of the conflict, young Kenyans told the world media that ethnic hate was completely foreign to them.
Tribe and tribalism are words that we Scandinavians in particular often find denigrating, indeed racist. Taboo words. We have no problem talking about ethnic conflicts in the Balkans. But we have a hard time where Africa is concerned. To speak critically about tribalism and the ruthless favouritism Africans show their own ethnic group is to place the burden on a continent we mainly feel sorry for, an innocent, exploited and afflicted part of the world. Our bad conscience over the damage caused by colonialism has got its claws in us all.
Nonetheless, these taboo words were relevant and totally appropriate in Kenya. They have always been, even though no Kenyan politician would ever own up to it in public. Every Kenyan politician who is hoping to play a role as statesman regrets and condemns tribalism. In truth, they are often ensnared by and dependent on it because Kenyans, like many other Africans, vote according to their ethnic affiliation.
Ethnicity in Kenya is a question of culture and tradition, an affiliation that delimits social networks and determines political influence. But it is not always easy for an outsider to see.
It is understandable that the world was shocked by the bestiality of the ethnic cleansing in Kenya, as was the alarm over the vulgar, simplified arguments used to justify the violence. It is more difficult to understand the great surprise that Kenya too is a nation divided by ethnic loyalties.
Afterwards, they emerged among the golfers at Karen Country Club, smiling like Cheshire cats, as one observer wrote. The two who finally emerged after protracted negotiations over the sharing of power were Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga – a Kikuyu and a Luo.
Both had declared themselves victors in the presidential election three months earlier – an election that observers criticized and that the sitting president Mwai Kibaki’s men had rigged. So, basically, a fairly normal African election. But the Kikuyu elite surrounding the president failed to consider either the discontent over the perpetual corruption that penetrates all the way down society and poisons the everyday lives of the poor – or the ethnic explosive force arising from the fact that the challenger, Raila Odinga, was a Luo. Or else they could completely care less about it. The fraudulent election results released a flood of pent-up ethnically-tinged discontent.
The two self-satisfyingly smiling leaders at Karen Country Club had both played a high-stakes game and both now appeared to be winners – an equal number of ministerial posts for the two parties in government and at the executive level. One was president; the other prime minister. Still, both continued to try to undermine the real power of the other.
In the camps, with their long rows of tents, no one felt like a winner. There were just people who no longer had any home. IDP – internally displaced people – is the latest term for them. Here, the bitterness and fear are much more deeply seated than the pragmatically polished conscience of the elite.
There are some twenty major ethnic groups in Kenya. The richest and most powerful of them is the Kikuyu, who have dominated the economic and political scene since independence in 1963.
Jomo Kenyatta is the prominent figure; he was the leader of the Mau Mau Uprising against the British. His people, the Kikuyu, were forced out of the temperate highland that was excellent for coffee and tea plantations. During the uprising, Luo, from the western part of the country, and Kikuyu fought together. To quell the uprising, the British recruited warriors from other ethnic groups that already had an aversion to the Kikuyu so that the ethnic conflicts were further exacerbated.
Kikuyu were the ones who lost the most land to the farmers under colonial rule. But they were also the group that the British used most often as low-ranking civil servants on the local level, the group that got an education. When independence came, it was also the Kikuyu who had the most influence and appropriated the greatest economic compensation. As a result, they could become established in areas where other ethnic groups were found, like the Rift Valley, the long, fertile fault fissure where the Kalenjin traditionally dominated.
Jomo Kenyatta, who succeeded in uniting the major tribes in the struggle against colonialism, quickly became a despot who awarded land and contracts to his own group, the Kikuyu. Under Kenyatta, corruption rapidly became a part of Kenya’s economic life and has permeated all political activity since then. Today Kenya is also one of the most corrupt states in the world. Very few contracts or agreements are signed in Kenya without a large percentage going directly into the pockets of those holding power.
The current president, Mwai Kibaki, was part of Kenyatta’s innermost circle. When Kibaki was elected in 2002, it was in part because of his promise to fight corruption. It turns out to have been an empty promise. Oginga Odinga was a Luo and the vice president. He was the father of Raila Odinga, one of the two main figures in the current power struggle. That is how close-knit Kenya’s political elite are, and yet it has been fifty years since independence came within reach.
Oginga Odinga could not bear the naked robber mentality that Jomo Kenyatta allowed and which favoured the Kikuyu most. Oginga Odinga quit the ruling Kanu Party as a protest against the growing gaps in society and between ethnic groups.
When the respected minister Tom Mboya, a Luo, was murdered on the open streets of Nairobi in 1969, the ethnic tension intensified further. The Luo were convinced that Kenyatta was behind the murder. Kenyatta basically ran the country as a one-party state, before it in fact became one as a result of the constitution, supported by his closest associates, all Kikuyu.
When Jomo Kenyatta died in 1978, he had seen to the elimination of his strongest political rivals. His vice president, Daniel arap Moi – believed by many to be a political lightweight who would not threaten the Kikuyu’s power – succeeded him. Moreover, Moi belonged to the Kalenjin, a smaller ethnic group. Yet he came to hold power for 24 years. He had far more political shrewdness than people around him thought. He survived attempted coups, recurring student riots and Oginga Odinga’s stubborn refusal to conform to the Kanu Party again.
Daniel arap Moi’s shrewdness did not exclude brutal methods. The dirty yellow high-rise along Uhuru Highway in Nairobi called Nyayo House contained the cells where journalists as well as opposition politicians and activists were beaten and tortured. It is located so close to the Parliament and the Intercontinental that sometimes I thought I should have been able to hear the screams from my hotel room when Nairobi’s narrow little city centre fell quiet at night. Raila Odinga was imprisoned there for six years during this period.
In 1989, the foreign minister, Robert Ouko, a Luo, was murdered. It was assumed that Ouko had considered trying to intervene against the shameless corruption of other ministers, especially the notorious Nicholas Biwott, who was close to the president. Most people thought the murder carried all the way to the top; the Luo were convinced of it.
The demands for democracy and a multiparty system began to grow in the early 1990s, even though Africa’s numerous despots-for-life fought against it. More parties would encourage tribalism at the cost of nationalism, they claimed – an argument they used mainly to hold onto power, but which was to a large extent true.
Just before the election of 1992, President Moi had to give in; other parties besides Kanu were allowed to take part. Oginga Odinga joined in and pressed for democratic elections. He was one of the founders of FORD, the Forum for the Restoration of Democracy. I was to follow him for a day during the election campaign.
It was my first African election, and it took place in an atmosphere tense with ethnic animosity. Close to a thousand people had already died and tens of thousands had been forced to flee. The ethnic fighting also took place this time largely in the Rift Valley and western Kenya. The Kalenjin, President Moi’s ethnic group, tried to eliminate the Kikuyu, and they were of course encouraged from above to do so.
Oginga Odinga had thick glasses, a chequered cap, shirt, tie and sweater under his jacket, perfectly creased trousers and freshly shined shoes. He would probably have blended in on a London street, perhaps as a retired teacher. But we were headed for dusty villages and towns. He was just over 80, still enthusiastic.
Our little caravan of cars started out early, and it was still morning when we came to the first village. All the posters that were not for the ruling party had been torn down. We drove into the sandy little marketplace, where Oginga Odinga took out a megaphone and began to speak. Slowly, a few tentative listeners approached. After fifteen minutes, several hundred had rallied; there would probably be no more showing up.
That is when they hit. I could not understand how they could turn up so suddenly. Baseball bats hammered with frightening force at heads and backs; the sound as they hit made me nauseous. Long, black wooden batons swung relentlessly over anything that moved. There was total panic. Totally unprepared, I fell to the ground, fortunately behind an imposing tree trunk that served as a watershed for this rushing throng of humans.
It was over in a minute or so, the listeners vanished, so too the police officers in civvies with their baseball bats and the ruling party’s violent political hacks. A cloud of dust swirled around the marketplace after the turmoil; there were traces of blood in the sand.
We climbed into our cars and rode on to the next place, where the exact same thing was repeated. Seven times that day, Oginga Odinga got out of his car and began speaking with his megaphone; each time it ended with attacks, pounding baseball bats and wild flight.
When evening fell, dusty, tired and rattled but with no serious injury, I sat down next to Oginga Odinga. The chequered cap was not even dented; he chuckled and his eyes twinkled behind those thick glasses. He thought it had gone well – the ruling party was worried, the one-party system was singing the last verse. It was, I realized, a fairly normal day in an African election. These are rarely fought out simply in ideas and arguments. The ban on meetings, sabotage and violence were part of the picture, even in elections described as free.
The ruling party won, of course.
During the next election campaign, I followed a woman politician from the opposition party. She had just been released from the hospital after having been beaten unconscious and left to die on the street. As we now sat in a car on the way to a meeting, she suddenly began to scream in horror and covered her face with her hands.
“That black car,” she sobbed, “that black car, they’re the ones that did it.”
A big black Mercedes with men in dark suits and sunglasses slowly drove past us. It was Vice President George Saitoti’s henchmen. We were in his district. He did not intend to lose. George Saitoti was a Kikuyu but sometimes claimed he was a Masai because that was the largest ethnic group in his district. These were not exactly picture-postcard Masai that he sent out to beat and frighten other politicians. Or to attack people who took part in meetings in central Nairobi. The Masai attacked with frightening brutality on Saitoti’s orders. In the hotel vestibules, tourists waited for their safari, indulging in their Out of Africa dreams and romanticized Karen Blixen atmosphere. They loved the stately Masai.
The groups accounting for the violence this year do not have advanced weapons either, and that makes the killing even more bestial. Machetes, pangas, clubs, poisoned arrows and especially fire – that’s good enough for the common folk.
The militia, which are not simply groups of angry young men quickly cobbled together but have instead been involved in paramilitary activities for years in their various fields, often get direct support from people at the top level of their ethnic group. So, for instance, Mungiki is Kikuyu, the Kalenjin Warriors are of course Kalenjin, Sabaot Land and Defence Force is a subgroup of the Kalenjin, Chinkororo is Kisii, Taliban is mainly Luo and active in Mathare in Nairobi’s slum, Baghdad Boys Luo, in Kibera – the other major slum area in Nairobi – and Kosovo, which consists mostly of Luo and Luhya, also in Kibera.
For many years, I visited Nairobi on a fairly regular basis. It is the junction of East Africa; people have to pass through in order to reach the major conflicts that have grabbed more attention: Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda and Rwanda.
Each time I arrived, it seemed that a new high-rise sheathed in glass had been started. And each time I thought the streets and pavements had developed even more life-threatening holes and cracks. Money from the large-scale corruption is invested by the elite and laundered in these big projects. But there are no general funds to repair the streets.
At the same time, I could also see how Nairobi’s slum simply grew and grew. Not many decades ago, Mathare Valley was a brook hollow close to Nairobi’s narrow city centre. It had rapidly become one of the most densely populated slum areas in Africa – a conglomeration of corrugated metal and narrow, winding muddy paths. Close to half a million people in a few square kilometres. The number of people infected with AIDS was frightening, and unemployment sky high. Street children sniffed glue and often died before they could move on to more expensive drugs. In the morning, tens of thousands of people poured out from the holes between shanties and headed for Nairobi, a long, snaking river of people who had no job but hoped to find something, at least for a few hours.
I kept in contact with a football club, Mathare United. I was impressed by their work with youth. The club had been formed from slum children and in a short time had become Kenya’s football sensation, playing in the top league. They sent youth teams to the Norway Cup. At first, the players were housed in Brumunddalen, known as one of the more xenophobic, not to mention, racist, neighbourhoods in Norway.
One day on one of Mathare Valley’s dusty, sandy fields, I heard the players shout Brumunddalen over and over. That was the name, it turned out, of one of the players on a boys’ team. He had taken it after travelling there and winning in the Norway Cup. Perhaps he felt his stay there had changed something. Families from Brumunddalen, so full of prejudices, had come wide-eyed to Mathare Valley.
Had some kind of victory been won there in the fight against racism? And who then would not want to be moved by a story like that?
I asked some of the players on Mathare United, who it seemed to me thought they were living in a different world than the one traditionally divided, whether ethnic values had nonetheless forced their way into their everyday lives. The old big-league teams were still dominated by ethnic groups, Gor Mahia by Luo and AFC Leopards mostly by Luhya.
“We’ve become the people’s team because we’re completely beyond any ethnic boundaries conventions,” Alfred Chege, a defensive player, told me. “Here in Mathare Valley, poverty is just getting worse and worse, and we’re all the same in the face of it.” Every time they televised shots of burning shanties in Mathare Valley and Kibera around the world, Chege and his words reverberated in my head.
The ethnic cleansing was as brutal and merciless in Kenya’s urban areas, where 40 percent of the population now lives, as it was in areas where there were land disputes. And it was worst in the slums.
When conflicts like the one in Kenya break out, there are inevitably attempts to explain how it is not at all a question of ethnicity. Usually, it is experts in the West and Africans in exile who want to explain that it is really the fault of the economy or the constitution. As if they want to protect Africa from once again coming across as brutal and lacking democratic refinement.
A question that people often find themselves pondering in Africa is whether people identify first with their ethnic group or their country. Is a person first Kikuyu or Luo and then Kenyan? If I ask the question as a foreigner and a European, the answer is usually that, obviously, they are Kenyan. But I am not sure that the answer would be the same in other contexts.
A black professor once said to me when we were discussing nationalism and ethnicity: Don’t forget that it was only recently that the nearest marketplace was the central focus of most Africans’ lives and view of the world.
In today’s Africa, where urbanization is happening incredibly quickly and more and more people have access to new, fast technology, the marketplace has become much wider – yet is still characterized by tribalism.
It is perhaps a cliché that Africa lives both in my age and in another, but it is difficult to resist for someone who has lived in Africa a long time and has been forced to observe that our conceptions of the world often run along different lines.
Translated by Susan Long
I have just returned from rwanda.there is a big difference with kenya.
rwanda the leadership is not corrupt and acts tough on impunity.
in kenya,impunity is tolerated at the top.why would kibaki allow uhururuto to use four jets at tax payers expense and pretend to be president when we know this is waste ,impunity and corruption pepetrated at the top.to make it worse this are excesses even before being sworn in what plunder will take place at treassury and other national resources since uhurutu has shown appetite and greed to fleece kenyans?
tell me why visit treasury,kenya ports authoirty is not looking where loot will come from?
why does uhuruto not see this ?
rule of law,intergrity is really absent and nothing will work now that kanu and old politics of eating ,influence peddling and corruption is back and kibaki seems to smile.
even kenya national exams have failed to issue results slip after results of ksce and you can guess the reason.
with lords of impunity and corruption in charge,thieves,crooks,tax evaders,smugglers, robbers,corrupt security,terrorists,fraudsters,computer errors in banks ,cheats,drug lords.loggers,environmental crooks will finish our forests have a field day in kenya aand there is no motivation of 42 tribes in kenya to grow and be proud to be kenyans.
when will kenyans wake up to avoid the swirling evil hanging around brought by theft of elections ?
James, more love to you. You have stated it so well, summarizing all the problems caused by Kibaki’s Government (the GEMA ruling class). These people are out to continue enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. They don’t pay taxes and bleed the Treasury of millions of shillings crippling all development plans for the country.
I am glad you have a comparison with Rwanda where President Kagame has zero tolrance for corruption. Kenya is down on her knees with the Mt. Kenya Mafia milking everything. Anglo-Leasing and KenRen which is still being paid for nearly 40 years after Kibaki and his group began the White Elephant in the 1970s.
Look at Kibaki’s eleder brother and sister living filthily yet Kibaki is a multi-billionaire. Shame!
But Kenyans are very funny Primitive creatures! Why cant you animals unite this time and stop Uhuru and ruto to rob your hand-worn democracy? How comes you cannot reson ?Just stop kikuyu ruling class from taking power by force so simple as that ! keeping yapping at bla bla will never work Just stop Nsis/etc from thieving ! Just swear this time NO NO No No and Big one No No No !We have peoples President ! Kitu -Gani !
#25 Bure kabisa, there is a case in the Supreme Court which will give us the whole truth. Be patient.
Ati Muthaura General Ali are free Is ICC joking here the Evidence>It is not diff to re-issue arrest warants of Gen:Ali hussein and Muthaura the court has Power to do that!http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-13470/mungiki-were-iteere-list-state-house
UHURU KENYATTA and WILLIAM RUTO’s Government – The KIKUYU/ KALENJIN question
By Msemakweli Kabisa
As Kenyans march towards March 4, General Election, it is important for them to reflect on their country’s statehood over the last 50 years. It is also important to evaluate the consequences of the governance provided by their political leaders.
At independence in 1963, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta from Kiambu, also known as “kabete gacune maitho ni mbaka” an euphemism of people with uncanny vision for business and political austerity, took over as Prime Minister under the Queen Elizabeth of England. One year later Kenya became a Republic under President Kenyatta. A majority of Kenyan voters know very little or nothing about Kenyatta’s government.
Briefly, as soon as Kenyatta took over power from the departing British colonialists, he adopted their laws to govern the country as a carbon copy of the British governor. This cut-and-paste governance meant that the Mau Mau freedom movement that forced the British government to its knees and eventual departure remained an “illegal terrorist organization”. That was the status of Mau Mau for 40 years until 2004.
Former Mau Mau fighters were ordered to surrender unconditionally and those who did not were hunted down by Kenyatta’s security forces and killed. The freedom fighters and their sympathizers lost their land most of which had forcibly been confiscated by the colonial government during the state of emergency 1952-1960.
The freedom fighters were criminalized and their families condemned to poverty as Kenyatta ganged up with anti-Mau Mau home guards, traitors and double dealers to grab fertile tracts of land and businesses from the departing colonialists. They acquired some of the land through the infamous constitutional “willing buyer, willing seller” dogma in which some of the white settlers were coerced to surrender their land and buyers were funded through the “Resettlement Fund”.
The fund was given by the British government to resettle and rehabilitate the Mau Mau fighters and their families who were the first internally displaced persons (IDPs) living in villages where they had been forced to by the colonial government in an effort to contain the Mau Mau insurgency. The selective distribution of the resettlement fund to Kenyatta loyalists made nonsense of the “willing seller, willing buyer” colonial settlers land acquisition.
As the chief administrator of the resettlement fund, Kenyatta turned out to be the chief beneficiary and claims that he “bought” the massive tracts of land owned by his family in the Rift Valley, Central, Coast and Eastern provinces is hogwash. Kenyatta’s land grabbing appetite saw him fall out with his first vice president Jaramogi Oginga Odinga as did the second Joseph Murumbi. Even his former “Kapenguria 6”co-detainees Kung’u Karumba, Bildard Kaggia and Achieng Oneko could not condone the gluttonous behavior exhibited by Dictator Kenyatta.
The only man who perfectly fitted into Kenyatta’s gravy train co-driver’s seat was one Kelenjin politician in the name of Daniel Toroitich arap Moi. The two ran Kenya as a Wild West no man’s land where most prime land and businesses were literally their exclusive right. By the time Kenyattadied in August 1978, discontent over the country’s governance under the Kanu single party rule was running high. The coincidence of Kiambu-Kalenjin tyranny over Kenyans is shocking.
Kenyans were ready for a new vibrant and visionary president if the country went to the polls after the constitutional three month period vice president Moi was supposed to act. The most obvious choice then was the then finance minister Mwai Kibaki. Kenyans hopes were dashed by a Kiambu leader in the name of Charles Mugane Njonjo, who was then the attorney general and lives as a typical example of a colonial edifice. Kiambu leaders had conducted oathing ceremony at Kenyatta’s Gatundu where it was sworn that presidential motorcade “will never cross River Chania” (itikaringa Chania).
The so-called Kiambu Mafia had declared that Kibaki, who stood out as the obvious Kenyatta successor after Tom Mboya was assassinated in 1969, would be blocked by all means and one of them was the oath swearing the presidential escort would not cross River Chania headed for Nyeri. That oath must have informed the events that guided Njonjo in the Kenyatta succession. It also reflected the deep hatred that existed between Kiambu, Murang’a and Nyeri Kikuyus.
Njonjo imposed Moi on Kenyans by having him sworn in as unelected president. A majority of Kenyan voters grew up with Moi as their president for 24 years. Moi faithfully watered the trees of tribalism and corruption that were planted by the Kenyatta regime and also planted his known as impunity. It was during the Moi era that the Rule of Law made nonsense to millions of Kenyans, justice was for sale and corruption was the official religion.
Moi would later dispose Njonjo like toilet tissue and put him into disgrace he has never recovered from. The Kikuyu lawyer-turned-politician has been trying to sell Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) presidential aspirant Raila Amolo Odinga, but even fellow Kiambu tycoons like Stanley Githunguri won’t buy him as he seeks Kiambu governorship on a Kanu ticket. Kanu is in the Amani Alliance led by United Democratic Forum (UDF) presidential candidate Musalia Mudavadi.
Moi‘s presidency put the Kenyan Nation into a reverse gear that saw small Asian countries like Singapore, South Korea and Malaysia develop into economic giants while Kenya stagnated as a pariah state. It was the sheer determination by Kenyans that saw president Kibaki take over the government against a spirited multi-billion-shilling effort by Kiambu and Kalenjin politicians in the names of, you guessed right, Daniel Moi and Uhuru Kenyatta.
As the country goes to the polls on March 4, voters will be facing another challenging onslaught by Kiambu and Kalenjin politicians whose leadership and governance abilities are in question – Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto. The two men are facing crimes against humanity at The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC). Both are desperate to escape from long jail terms by getting Kenyans to elect them to State House.
Uhuru has not told Kenyan voters why he cannot face justice like his father who braved 10-year long trial, jail term and detention before he vied and won the presidency in 1963. The senior Kenyatta was arrested in 1952, tried, jailed and detained until 1962 when he was freed.
But like his father Uhuru wants to deny the victims of 2007-2008 pre-and-post-election violence justice by ganging up with an indicted chief suspect, the same way Kenyatta ganged up with home guards to rob Mau Mau fighters and their families a piece of the independence cake. Kenya appears to he hurtling towards a despondent fate with destiny – its disgraceful, scandalous and discreditable history could repeat itself in the coming years.
Uhuru and Ruto are part of the three sides of Kenya’s turbulent political coin – one side beingKenyatta and Moi, the flip side Moi and Njonjo and the fringe side Uhuru and Ruto. Ruto is a political creature created by none other than Moi himself.There can be no doubt that Kenya will be headed for another term of reverse gear degeneration especially when the consequences threatened by the West and their partners take effect should Uhuru and Ruto take over.
The sad part of the coin is that the Kiambu and Kalenjin players involved in the past enriched themselves into billionaires without a drop of sweat. None of them, not Kenyatta (if he resurrected), not Moi (still eating from public coffers) or their sycophants can justify their ill-gotten wealth.
These are people who never asked themselves what they could do for the country to move it forward but always sought to get as much as they could from their motherland at the expense of the rest of the citizens.Moi is best remembered for his failed long train of Nyayo projects, which cost billions of shilling to rehabilitate during the Kibaki era.
They Kiambu-Kalenjin looters grabbed massive amounts of land, forests and beach plots. They superintended over the slaughter of our natural heritage including elephants for ivory and looted national wealth in public coffers and natural resources. Their greed has been insatiable and uncontrollable while Kenyans watch like impotent, helpless and blind-folded fools – a ritual they will dutifully repeat to perpetuate the status quo on March 4th.
Both Uhuru and Ruto have tainted land related history. Uhuru by virtual of inheritance and Ruto by sheer corruption. Ruto is currently defending his alleged “purchase” of a farm whose Asian owner was displaced in 1992 so-called land clashes. The court hearing the dispute was told all transaction documents relating to the 100-acre parcel were forgeries including the title issued to the alleged owner when she was 8 years. Ruto and corrupt land deals are inseparable. Read -http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Ruto-hatched-plot-to-grab-100-acre-land-court-told–/-/1056/1699094/-/18yn15/-/index.html
Kenyans must ponder over the question of why Kiambu and Kalenjin politicians hate their motherland to the extent of treating her as their exclusive self-aggrandizement play ground and cash cow to the detriment of the general good for all citizens with equal claim to their God-given space to enjoy their country’s wealth. Kenya is headed towards disaster.
Kenyan young voters must be informed in no uncertain terms, while the old ones must be reminded that it was during the Kenyatta and Moi era (with some Luo seasoning) that no national targets were ever met despite lofty election manifestos every five years Kanu was in power 1963-2003. Not the eradication of ignorance, disease and poverty. Not the Session Paper No 1 on African Socialism. Not the Kenyanisation of commerce and industry. Not water for all households by the year 1980. And certainly, not the peace, love and unity in Kenya fake Nyayo philosophy despite the free Nyayo milk.
Jomo Kenyatta, who ruled first as prime minister (1963-64) and then as president (1964-78) was realistic about the difficulties that lay ahead after Independence from the British. In his first speech as president he warned of the hard work which lay ahead and the need to save Kenyans from poverty, ignorance and disease, to educate their children and to have doctors, to build roads and to improve or provide all day-to-day essentials. He talked of harambee – the ‘coming together’ of all Kenyans in a spirit of brotherhood and unity. All fine words.
But is it really human nature for the powerful to deceive hope so cruelly? Does power always corrupt? Following independence, Kenyatta began increasingly to give preferential treatment to his own Kikuyu group, at the expense of others. The Kikuyu obtained much of the fertile land in the process of the Africanization of the White Highlands, and effectively became the political and economic elite of independent Kenya (they certainly retain their economic power to this day). They also received a lot of Maasai land, who were not represented in the new government.
Then, in 1969, Tom M’boya, then the KANU secretary-general, was assassinated by a Kikuyu in circumstances that have never been satisfactorily explained. The Luo population saw his death as an ethnic affront and as an attempt to intimidate it politically. Luo-Kikuyu enmity escalated rapidly over the next few months, reaching a point in October, 1969, when the KPU was banned, and its principal leaders, including Odinga and seven other party representatives, were detained. The banning of the KPU in effect brought a return to the single-party system, which lasted until the early 1990s.
Unsurprisingly, with the Kalenjin President Moi in power since 1978, things have changed somewhat, and the Kikuyu now find themselves in opposition, and have been the primary targets of ethnic violence since the 1990s. Of course, the government is still corrupt – in fact, corruption has never been more widespread or blatant. The country is financially on the brink of ruin (thanks largely to the illegal expropriation of its resources and finances by politicians), the infrastructure has either collapsed or is in a mess, and I really could go on and on and on for pages.
Yet for all its abuses, the seeds of Kenya’s presently parlous state were laid during Kenyatta’s reign, through his ultimate refusal to place the interests of the Kikuyu second to the interests of the new country. All that has happened since is merely repetition of that simple formula.
As a Nakuru farmer who had fought in the Mau Mau said in 1978 (a comment that could just as easily apply now):
“The land, which we expected to be distributed free to the poor and landless, was grabbed by the former homeguards and the big politicians… most of the beneficiaries from our glorious struggle are the former collaborators, and not the legitimate freedom fighters… if the situation continues to worsen, our children will be forced to fight – to fight for the same things we fought for.”
In Maina wa Kinyatti (ed), Kimathi’s Letters. Nairobi, Kenya: Heinemann, 1986; London UK: ZED Press, 1986
Maina wa Kinyatti himself, in Kenya: A Prison Notebook (1982), wrote:
“Fifteen long years of Kenyatta’s undemocratic rule left neo-colonial Kenya impoverished, depoliticized and disunited. He made way for Moi to misrule us. A rule of talk, talk, talk and do the opposite. The nauseating demagogy which Moi and the traitorous clique around him employ to mask their unpopular rule has failed to hide the all-around suffering of the Kenyans. One notices the intensified pauperization of the Kenyan people, as evidenced in ever rising unemployment, sky-high inflation, famine and starvation, wage freezes, forced cash contributions (under the pretext of Harambee), to the already wealthy ones.”
I’m sad to say that I agree.
The Kenyatta Affair
What Kenya and its allies can learn from Austria’s Nazi legacy.
BY JAMES VERINI |MARCH 20, 2013
NAIROBI — For now, Uhuru Kenyatta is the president-elect of Kenya. On Saturday, March 9, after a week of suspense following voting, he bested his main rival and former boss, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who’s challenging the results in court (and now claims, without furnishing much evidence, that he won). This is causing a lot of handwringing among allies of Kenya’s who make human rights a centerpiece of their foreign policies, because Kenyatta is facing trial in the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the violent wake of the last election, in 2007, ICC prosecutors allege, Kenyatta helped organize death squads.
Before this election, U.S. and European officials let out vague minatory noises about what would be done if Kenyatta won. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson warned, in what may have been the most embittering and most meaningless phrase of the campaign, that “choices have consequences.” Kenyans have chosen. Now those consequences have to be defined. What they may entail, beyond making a point of not phoning Kenyatta to congratulate him, no one has said publically, but it’s commonly agreed that the situation is unprecedented. The West has had to deal with reprobates already in power, but never has it suffered the anxiety of watching a man accused of crimes against humanity run for and then win the highest office in a friendly nation (and with British counsel). The journalist Steve Coll wrote in the New Yorker that “Kenyatta might well become the first democratically elected alleged criminal on that scale in history.”
That’s not entirely true. A quarter-century ago, the United States and Europe faced a similar diplomatic tribulation. This one, closer to home, involved Nazis. Peculiarly Mitteleuropean though it was in tone, it provides an instructive precedent for what might be called “The Kenyatta Affair.”
In 1986, Kurt Waldheim ran for the presidency of Austria. Waldheim, who’d served as his country’s foreign minister and then secretary general of the United Nations, was vain and unburdened by excessive intelligence (he once used his U.N. diplomatic pouch to send soft American toilet paper back to Europe) but otherwise seemed innocuous. Austrians, and most of the rest of the world, believed he came with a reasonably clean bill of history. Waldheim had always maintained that after Germany’s 1938 annexation of Austria, he’d been conscripted into the army, sent to the eastern front, invalided by a grenade, discharged, and then returned to Vienna, where he sat out the remainder of hostilities studying law and rubbing his shattered ankle. He claimed he’d never even bothered to join the National Socialist party. (To see how well-practiced the story was, watch this 1974 television interview.)
But for years, rumors circulated that Waldheim was lying. In the U.N. archives sat a file, opened by its War Crime Commission in 1948, which said that Waldheim was connected with a massacre of prisoners in the Balkans and was wanted there for war crimes. The file was mysteriously closed when Waldheim considered running for a third term as secretary general in 1980. As he readied his presidential bid in Austria six years later, however, the file reappeared, along with other files from other archives indicating that Waldheim had not just been a Nazi, but one hell of a Nazi. He’d joined a Nazi youth organization three weeks after the Anschluss, then the Brownshirts, and then served on the staff of a general involved in the Final Solution, who was later hanged in Belgrade. In addition to the Balkans massacre, for which Waldheim was decorated, he was, the evidence indicated, involved in the deportations of Greek Jews.
The first people to connect the dots were Waldheim’s opponents in Austria’s Socialist party. They contacted a Vienna magazine, which printed the revelations. No one in Austria much cared. So the World Jewish Congress, an international advocacy organization, sent its general counsel to Vienna to investigate, and he brought his findings to the New York Times. Confronted by the paper, Waldheim slipped into the exculpatory-yet-incriminating ungrammar that would constitute his responses to the allegations for the rest of his life. “I regret these things most deeply,” he told the reporter, and “it is really the first that I hear that such things happened.”
What transpired next still astounds. Waldheim’s opponents assumed that their exposures would provoke international condemnation and force Waldheim to drop out of the race (the World Jewish Congress gave him three days to fold). They were half right. Countries from Canada to Britain got in a lather. But they underestimated Waldheim’s glibness, and overestimated the national conscience. His opponents failed to appreciate that Austrians, Hitler’s real Landsmänner, had never seen the point in the paroxysms of guilt suffered by his adopted countrymen the Germans. Many Austrian politicians of Waldheim’s generation had been proud Nazis, some with more appalling résumés than his. The president of parliament, Friedrich Peter, had served in an S.S. extermination unit and had probably personally killed hundreds. As late as the 1980s, Austria was lousy with Hitler nostalgists. These weren’t thugs in black nylon and crew-cuts, either, but everyday people, the satisfied children of historian Daniel Goldhagen’s willing executioners, if not the executioners themselves. In 2010, I interviewed Neal Sher, who was at the time of the Waldheim Affair, as it came to be known, the chief prosecutor in the Office of Special Investigations, the U.S. Justice Department division that investigates war criminals. Sher recalled a pair of old Austrian women who, having seen his picture in the newspaper, approached him in a Vienna café. He smiled and greeted them. “Judenschweine!” they hissed back.
Waldheim’s campaign managers, on the other hand, understood Austria perfectly. Even while he denied the charges, they designed campaign posters that looked like National Socialist propaganda. They warned crowds of a Jewish plot emanating from New York. (At the same time, because of his years at the U.N., Waldheim chose as his campaign theme song “New York, New York.”) It worked. The Socialists realized that every time they brought up the war, they didn’t win voters, but lost them. Someone, maybe from Waldheim’s campaign, maybe just a fed-up citizen, posted flyers announcing “We Austrians Will Vote For Whom We Want!”
Nor was the indignation limited to nationalists. In her account of the Waldheim Affair in the New Yorker, Jane Kramer recorded that the mother of the magazine journalist who exposed Waldheim — a resistance fighter interred at Auschwitz — actually voted for Waldheim, because “of the hypocrisy of the whole campaign” against him. Jews voted for Waldheim, too, including, probably, Bruno Kreisky, the popular chancellor who had included Holocaust-collaborators such as Peter in his government. Kreisky was the soul of pragmatism: if he excluded competent one-time Nazis from posts, he pointed out, he wouldn’t have much to work with. Kreisky was also tired of hearing about the past, just as most Austrians, including Jews, were tired of hearing about the past — just as most Kenyans are tired of it today. (And if they had to hear about it, they certainly didn’t want to hear about it from the Americans, who in the late 1940s, it was well known, had recruited Nazis, including some prominent Austrians, to use against the Soviets.) No less than Nazi-hunter Simon Weisenthal came to Waldheim’s defense.
Waldheim won the presidency handily. This presented a headache in Washington, which, it was easy to forget, he’d often gone out of his way to help. In 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, he’d acted as a shuttle between Israel, Egypt, the White House, and the Kremlin (eliciting from Henry Kissinger the most un-Kissingerian sentence of his career: “Thank god for the United Nations”). In 1979, Waldheim had flown to Tehran to try to negotiate the release of American hostages, and for his troubles was abused by the Ayatollah’s drudges.
Unluckily for him, however, World War II was an inviolable canon for then president Ronald Reagan. (Unlike Waldheim, he hadn’t fought in it.) When the Justice Department reached its conclusions — that Waldheim had “assisted or participated in the transfer of civilian prisoners to the SS for exploitation as slave labor, the mass deportation of civilians to concentration and death camps” and “the utilization of anti-Semitic propaganda; the mistreatment and execution of Allied prisoners; and reprisal executions of hostages and other civilians” — Reagan, whose sense of humor was always undervalued, did two things: He sent Waldheim a congratulatory note on winning the election; then he added his name to a list of people barred from entering the United States.
It was the strongest international rebuke. Israel merely recalled its ambassador. Nevertheless, Moscow denounced the Washington-Zionist axis, as did Arab League nations; never particularly interested in Austria before, they now extended effusive invitations to Waldheim. Pope John Paul II not only met with Waldheim but, bizarrely, conferred on him a papal knighthood. He was followed by Vaclav Havel, who, as usual, stole the show. Invited by Waldheim to address the Salzburg Festival in 1990, the Czech president agreed, defying a tacit boycott of Austria by European leaders. Havel spoke on the redemptive powers of confronting one’s past.
Waldheim died in 2007, never having come clean about his war record, even after more revelations emerged. Before expiring, he was, amazingly, invited to Israel. He went, and without actually telling the truth, apologized for not being more truthful.
What can Kenya’s allies learn from the Waldheim Affair? One lesson is that diplomatic isolation makes a nation’s internal neuroses worse, not better. After Waldheim, Austria went from being unremorseful about its history to aggressively conflicted. It twice elected Nazi apologist Jörg Haider to a governorship, and then imprisoned historian David Irving for denying the Holocaust. Something similar may already be coming to pass in Kenya, where, after inviting in scores of international observers and media organizations to cover the election, the government, unhappy with the coverage, is threatening to expel foreign journalists. (Uhuru Kenyatta has accused the British government of trying to deny him the election.)
Another lesson is that while a proud nation can endure its own shame, it won’t abide the shame of others. That Kenya received $875 million in U.S. assistance in 2012 doesn’t make Kenyans feel any more obliged to Washington’s best hopes for them. Nor does the fact that Kenya is a signatory to the International Criminal Court, while the United States is not. After Carson made his remark about choices and consequences, there was much talk about the new Kenyan friendships with China and Russia. Kenyatta’s sworn-enemy-turned-running-mate, William Ruto, who’s facing charges at the ICC for backing the Kalenjin gangs that battled Kenyatta’s Kikuyu gangs, responded to Carson by saying “We know that you have a stooge, a puppet. But now that you have realized your stooge is going nowhere, you have resorted to threats.” He was referring to defeated Prime Minister Raila Odinga, and, though exaggerating for effect, he was essentially right. Odinga was the candidate of the West, as well as of the Kenyan intellectual classes, not just because he isn’t indicted — though, according to Kenyan reports, he probably should have been — but because he represented, they felt, Kenyans’ only chance to confront their past. Imprisoned and tortured in the 1980s for his efforts to reform Kenya, Odinga evokes the tragic strain in its history. He sees himself as an essential lump in the national throat, offering liberation through truth, if only Kenyans would agree to weep.
But most Kenyans don’t want to weep. They want to forget the past, as this election shows, not confront it. They didn’t care to hear, again, about the murders and evictions that accompanied the 2007 election, nor about the decades of grief that came before. Kramer wrote of Austrian Jews in the 1986 that they “liked the euphemistic surfaces of Austrian life,” and the same can be said of Kenyans today. A nation of aspiring entrepreneurs (and, like Americans, lifestyle-aspirants in the ballot booth), they preferred to recall the theme of success in Kenyan history. Perhaps the most telling summary of this election that I heard was a ten-second FM radio service announcement that aired a few weeks before voting: “It’s important the youth remember Kenya is a brand,” the DJ purred, “a brand people are comfortable investing in.” Nobody symbolizes the comforts of investment like Kenyatta, maybe the country’s richest man, through little effort of his own. His family is the premier brand in Kenya.
What Kenyatta’s foreign critics, like Waldheim’s, failed to concede — this may be the most valuable lesson — is that countries will confront their pasts, or not, only on their own terms. In post-conflict societies, many public figures have blood on their hands. Kenyans are as aware of this now as Austrians once were. They can take it. What they don’t want is sanctimony. They’d far rather see defiance, even if it entails a certain sadistic hypocrisy. So, like the Auschwitz survivors who voted for Waldheim, Kenyans who saw family and friends killed after the last election voted for Kenyatta, though they knew he may have ordered those deaths. No, because he may have ordered those deaths. He allied with Ruto not to avoid these dark imputations, but to drive them home. Though tribe was the watchword of this election, their alliance, and their victory, was nationalistic, not tribal — just as Waldheim’s was. Their unspoken but resounding message was this: Yes, we killed. We killed for you, for Kenya. And we’d kill again. It’s the most seductive platform in politics.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/20/the_kenyatta_affair_kenya_election?page=0,0
George Oraro: CORD Petition Will Overturn IEBC‘s Certificate To Uhuru
March 16, 2013
CORD lead counsel George Oraro has hinted that Supreme Court will overturn the decision by IEBC to declare Uhuru Kenyatta winner of the disputed 4th March election.
Oraro confirmed that Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (Cord) has enough evidence to prove its case at the highest Court in the land.
“We (Cord) have a strong case and are sure we are going to overturn IEBC (Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission) move to declare Uhuru Kenyatta as President-elect,” Mr Oraro said Saturday.
Oraro said IEBC had not provided all the information Cord needed but it had “sufficient evidence” to mount a strong case.
Oraro said Prime Minister Raila Odinga is the petitioner in the case while Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), Isaack Hassan(IEBC Chair), President elect Uhuru Kenyatta and deputy president elect William Ruto are the respondents.
Mr Oraro leads a high level team of experience lawyers including senior counsel Mutula Kilonzo, former AG Amos Wako, Pheroze Nowrejee among others to argue its case before the Supreme Court.
H said Cord was dissatisfied with the way vote counting was done and that party agents did not sign Form 36.
Raila accuses IEBC of negligence and failure to conduct free and fair elections in the March 4 elections.
Meanwhile Prime Minister Odinga said his team has enough evidence to challenge IEBC results.
“I am not challenging the outcome of the IEBC results because I want to be declared President but rather let the will of the people prevail. We are going to court today. We have enough evidence”, Raila said.
The petition reads in part:
REPUBLI OF KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION NO.2 OF 2013
RAILA AMOLLO ODINGA…………………………………………… PETITIONER
VERSUS
ISAACK HASSAN………….………………………………………… 1ST RESPONDENT
INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL & BOUNDARIES COMMISS…………2ND RESPONDENT
UHURU MUIGAI KENYATTA…………………………………………3RD RESPONDENT
WILLIAM SAMOEI RUTO……………………………………………….4TH RESPONDENT
When corporate greed meets political vampires, what remains is a bleeding nation
Vulture Hunter on 2013-03-13
Kenyatta University’s low-cadre staff, who are servicing loans for land, are gridlocked by directors’ tussle over Sh1 billion profits looted from them. In the meantime, Equity Bank continues to enjoy steady interest fees.
Three years after Kenya’s independence in 1963, its iconic leader, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, invoked the powers of his office to award himself a “small” farm in Juja, on the fringes of his Gatundu homeland, an hour north of Nairobi.
The “small” farm was 509 acres. In this spirit of fairness, the grand old man also gave his son, Peter Magana Kenyatta, 200 acres next to his land. Now the two could be neighbours.
At the time, the president was telling millions of landless squatters that the new Government did not have free land to give out. Majority of the squatters had been disinherited and displaced by the colonial government as punishment for supporting the Mau mau.
Leading by example, Kenyatta paid for the two parcels of land he had obtained for himself and his son. The amount he paid was a princely sum of Sh5,472. That’s for some 709 acres! Essentially, he was buying each acre for Sh7.70. At least it wasn’t free.
On July 9, 1966, while executing the powers vested in his office, Kenyatta officially transferred the land to himself. The title deed reads in part: ”The President of the Republic of Kenya on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Kenya grant unto His Excellency Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, President of Kenya (Post Office Box 125 Ruiru) the piece of land situated in Nairobi, containing 509 acres Land Reference Number 11493…”
The only condition the “Government” gave to Kenyatta was that the land be used for agricultural purposes only.
Kenyatta would repeat the script on November 14, 1966, and sign off some 200 acres to his beloved son Magana. Documents relating to Magana’s land indicate that the title was freehold. He shared the postal address with his father.
After lying fallow for 45 years – which means the land acquisition was actuated by greed, not need – the two pieces of land were discreetly sold by the Kenyatta family for about Sh1.4 billion. One piece was sold through a front company, Edge Worth Properties Limited, on August 23, 2010, to Eastern By-Pass Estate Company Limited, with each acre fetching Sh2 million.
Eastern By-Pass Estate Company Limited, which was registered on May 17, 2010, had been formed by senior lecturers at Kenyatta University. The lecturers hoped to buy land and later sell it to their 1,017 middle- and lower-cadre employees for profit.
The company was spearheaded by Dr Muthumbi Waweru, who was then Dean of School of Engineering and acted as the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Other directors included Prof Muasya, Gitahi J I, Aaron Tanui, N Karagu, Ruth Ndung’u and C Ombuki. The directors were all working at Kenyatta University at the time.
A Memorandum of Understanding between Kenyatta University, Equity Bank and Eastern By-Pass Estate Company Limited indicated that interested staff would be granted secured individual loans (with the group title as collateral) to purchase the plot. The money would be recovered through the check-off system.
The plan by the company was simple. The directors bought and subdivided the 509-acre parcel into three blocks. Some 100 acres, which had earlier been used for quarrying, was designated as a low-prime area suitable for apartments. The company intended to sell an acre for Sh3 million and realise Sh300 million.
Another 50 acres was designated as prime area. Here, a commercial centre would be situated in each plot, measuring 0.028ha. This translated to Sh10 million per acre. In this area, the company would realise a total of Sh500 million.
The third block was meant for residential, single-dwelling houses. This was a total of 1,775 quarter-acre plots, sold at Sh388,000 each, and netting Sh688,700,000. In total, the company expected to realise Sh1.4 billion.
The proceeds, according to the directors’ projections, were enough to cater for the initial cost of buying the 509 acres from the Kenyatta family, and leave them with a “small” profit of about Sh300 million.
To maximise on their profits, the directors used the estimated Sh700 million paid by about 900 plot buyers to secure the second plot (Magana’s parcel) measuring 200 acres. Out of this, some 117 acres was to be sold as residential quarter-acre plots.
The initial price per plot was fixed at Sh900,000. This was later adjusted to Sh1.1 million. The company aimed at generating a whopping Sh1 billion after selling 1,060 plots. This was considered profit, to be shared among the directors.
Investigations reveal that although Eastern By-Pass Estate Company Limited was originally meant for Kenyatta University staff, its membership was expanded to include employees of Equity Bank and other interested buyers not affiliated with the two institutions.
Although the buyers were given allotment letters and share certificates as proof of having purchased land from Eastern By-Pass Estate Company, they later realised that it was unclear which parcel of land they had invested in.
When money began trickling in, things went wrong at the Eastern By-Pass Estate Company Limited, occasioned by major fallout among directors over the sharing of the Sh1 billion spoils expected at the conclusion of the deal.
Trouble started after the chairman, Muthumbi Waweru, claimed that some of his colleagues had secretly manipulated the company file at the Registrar of Companies, tampering with the shareholding. He had been issued 334 shares while Joseph Irumbi Gitahi had 333 shares. The remaining 333 shares had not been allocated.
In the original script, the shareholding formula was as follows: The chairman of board was supposed to get 40 percent, while the other two directors, one of whom was standing in for a senior university official, would get a 30 percent shareholding each.
In effect, each of the major shareholders would get about Sh400 million. The other two would rake in Sh300 million from the Sh1 billion profit realised from the two Kenyatta parcels of land.
In an affidavit filed in court on August 15, 2011, Muthumbi averred that he had received calls from Olive Mwihaki Mugenda, the Vice Chancellor of Kenyatta University, demanding that she be allocated 40 shareholding of the company.
I n his application against the Registrar of Companies, Eastern By-Pass Estate Limited, Equity Bank, Olive Mugenda and Joseph Irumbi, Muthumbi sought judicial review to have alterations made in the company shareholding to be quashed.
He claimed that after he refused to comply, Mugenda vowed to kill the company by getting Equity Bank to recall its loan. Later, Muthumbi alleged his lawyer discovered that non-company members had tried to change the shareholding of the directors.
The application opened a floodgate of suits, which saw the 809 buyers also join the fray, apprehensive that squabbling among the directors would lead to loss of their investments.
What started as an investment scheme has turned into a convoluted scam where some senior university lecturers linked to the company have been sacked by Kenyatta University, as junior varsity and Equity Bank employees wait with baited breath, fearful that they might lose their lifetime savings.
The only benefactor in the whole saga is Equity Bank, which continues to receive monthly payments from plot owners it had granted loans as it also holds onto the ownership documents of the land the workers were meant to buy.
In the meantime, relatives of Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, who sold the pieces of land at the centre of the controversy for nearly Sh1.5 billion, continue to enjoy the fruits reaped from the scheme.
To reproduce your GEMA tribe, you have only two choices.
One, you can choose the path of incest. This is the path of in-breeding and sin. Although shameful, it is the path they chose in 2007 and more clearly in. And the results are obvious: Political incest can only produce mongoloids.This is what you have in the coalition government.
The second choice is the one taken by Gikuyu and Mumbi. They sent their daughters to breed with others. This is how the tribe survived. Your survival, therefore, depends on others; the Maasai, Ndorobo, Luo, Luhya and all.. Gikuyu had two categories of people; the ‘‘ahoi’’ and the ‘‘athomi’’. The ‘‘ahoi’’ were the poor.In rural areas they walk around without shoes, their feet all cracked up. And in urban areas, they are the ‘‘shamba boys’’, the drivers and the cooks. As a driver, he told us he was in the urban group of ‘‘ahoi’’. The ‘‘athomi’’ were the educated and propertied. They were also arrogant, insensitive and ruthless….(How else would leader utter words like join us or perish in a media coverage)
The ‘‘athomi’’ did not think much of the ‘‘ahoi’’. They saw them as slaves of sorts. And this is how you must understand Tribal rich chiefs. Most of you follow him blindly. In fact, because you are in the ‘‘ahoi’’ group, he expects you to.
Unfortunately, and together with the ‘‘athomi’’, he dragged you into a state of civil war. They used you. And since the ‘‘athomi’’ are untouchable, you bore the brunt of the violence. Where are your IDPs today? In the meantime, you think the presidency will be yours. Zero. It belongs to the ‘‘athomi’’.Allow me to describe your position as ‘‘ahoi’’ using a story. A man set out on a journey through a thick forest full of thorns and rocks. Suddenly, an elephant appeared and gave him chase. He took off and went to hide in a well. To his horror, he saw a huge snake at the bottom of the well.
He had to cling to a thorny creeper that was growing around it. Looking up, he saw two mice chewing the creeper he was hanging on. But just as he was contemplating his next move, he saw a bee hive next to his mouth. Occasional drops of honey were trickling from the hive. And this man tested the honey. He got confused.
Although a kind man offered to help him out of his trouble, he refused. He wanted to be excused until he had enjoyed himself to the full. Not clever. Good people, you are behaving like this man. You have seen a bee hive dripping with honey.And although you are hanging on a thin creeper between an angry elephant and a snake, you don’t care. You want to enjoy the honey, the presidency. Unfortunately, the creeper will snap and you will have to deal with the snake at the bottom of the well. On this, the choice is yours.
The third thought regards Mungiki. When our great grandfather joined Mau Mau, they called it a Mungiki-type movement. Yet it was a group of restless young people whose ‘‘wazees’’ had lost direction. I want to put it to you that you have no leadership. The ‘‘Athomi’’ in your ranks have reached intellectual menopause. And in this state, they have exhibited unnecessary arrogance towards others.As a not so humble Kenyan shareholder tribe, I submit that you need new leadership. A leadership that will cause you to climb down in the interest of the country. One that is not beholden to the ‘‘athomi’’ and one that will respect the other communities………
Mapenzi Oberana
LUO and KIKUYU: Why The hate-love relationship…..
It’s no use contesting that the two sets of Kenyans have shared great history since time immemorial. Tirades of speeches have been made by proclaimed lords of this communities but one thing for sure, the peasants views have never been given audience. Folks of both the regions believes each other are enemy and always seems to voice there projected stereotypes about the other. One thinks the other cannot be trusted, money hungry and envious. The other cant be convinced otherwise from the belief that his opposite is Shallow minded, ego driven and priority misplaced.
However, A chat with some of the ordinary kenyans from this communities revealed otherwise. Charles Owuor is a Graduate of Kenyatta university, He was brought up in The rural bondo area, Schooled there and is even working at a rural secondary school in the area. however his little exposure with members of Kikuyu community has helped him kill the octogenarian stereo type that he has grown to accept. he now views Kikuyu community as friends and has already made several friends from there. A few days later i met Irene Karuga who spoke pleasing words of her luo friends since she was in first year. She narrated to me how she had been warned not to engaged with ‘aliens’ while she was joining first year.
Looking back our National history, there is a lot to be learned about how this communities have related and even what went went wrong. Its with great convictions that i think the two communities have great potential if the innate qualities of both its people can be harnessed. Combined with talents and strength from other tribes, i believe we can achieve the Kenya we want.
Uhuru Kenyatta Brother in Crime Caged in hague>
http://www.voanews.com/content/congelese-warlord-bocso-ntaganda-in-custody-at-the-hague/1626594.html
what a nice article,sycophancy ..come 2018 even Ruto will be dumped since he is not a kikuyu.
NA BADO….revolution is the answer…let kenya go down to somali level so we can rebuild a better country…too much stigma to continue as it is….I want kenya to go down down down down to the pit.
Kenyan Officials Advise Against Calling New Election Despite a Vote’s Flaws
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Published: March 28, 2013
NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenya’s besieged election commission, accused of bungling the recent presidential vote, fired back in court on Thursday, with its lawyers dismissing the allegations as “reckless, misguided and without regard for the truth” and saying that even if there were a few irregularities here and there, canceling the entire election and calling for a new one would be even worse.
Kenya’s Supreme Court, which was recently overhauled through the passage of a new Constitution, has been asked to play referee in the disputed election, in which Uhuru Kenyatta, son of Kenya’s first president, was declared the winner this month. Mr. Kenyatta beat Prime Minister Raila Odinga in the first round of voting and averted a runoff, clearing the majority threshold by a wafer-thin margin of less than one-tenth of a percent.
On Thursday, Ahmednasir Abdullahi, a lawyer for Kenya’s election chairman, told the court that “in every election, votes get stolen.”
He then played down video images that appeared to show vote rigging, saying they were fraudulent, produced in a notorious, crime-ridden neighborhood of Nairobi. And he warned the Supreme Court that “there would be an enormous constitutional crisis” if the justices deemed the election invalid and called for a new one.
All eyes in Kenya are on the five men and one woman who sit on the Supreme Court, which is now widely considered one of the most professional and trusted public institutions in a country with a long history of corruption.
But that did not stop Mr. Kenyatta, the president-elect, from making a disparaging remark about the justices. On Wednesday, he was filmed at a meeting with political allies, offhandedly saying he was ready to start his job “once some six people decide something or other.”
On Thursday, he apologized via a Facebook message, saying, “My informality may be interpreted as disrespect for the court, and that is not the case.”
Kenyan voters streamed to the polls on March 4 in the first presidential election since 2007. In that contest, Mr. Odinga asserted that the presidency had been stolen from him through electoral fraud, stirring longstanding ethnic grievances and leading to clashes that killed more than 1,000 people.
Since then, Kenya has overhauled some of its public institutions — including the Supreme Court and the election commission — but ethnic identity remains a stubborn undercurrent of political life. Ethnicity has even come up in the choice of lawyers in this landmark election case, as lamented by letters to the editor on Thursday in the newspaper Daily Nation.
Mr. Odinga, the second-place finisher in the election, chose a lawyer from his Luo ethnic group; Mr. Kenyatta put his case in the hands of a lawyer from his Kikuyu ethnic group; William Ruto, Mr. Kenyatta’s running mate, picked a Kalenjin lawyer from his ethnic group; and even the election chairman, Isaack Hassan, selected a fellow Somali-Kenyan to represent him.
“We may need the intervention of psychologists,” said the first letter to the editor.
“It’s a big shame and a pity,” said another.
Mr. Odinga’s lawyers and several nonprofit groups have claimed that there was a conspiracy to pad the vote for Mr. Kenyatta, whose ethnic group has dominated much of politics and economics since Kenya’s independence in 1963. On Wednesday, they presented videotaped evidence that appeared to show that election results certified by the election commission differed from those announced at local tallying centers, giving Mr. Kenyatta an extra edge of several thousand votes, just enough to clear the 50 percent bar and be declared the winner.
“It would be a sad day if these grave irregularities can be ignored,” said George Oraro, Mr. Odinga’s lawyer.
But the election commission then presented a multifanged defense, citing case law from Uganda to India — even mentioning Bush v. Gore from the 2000 election in the United States — and urging the Supreme Court to consider the consequences of nullifying the results.
“Don’t crucify our nascent institutions,” said Lucy Kambuni, a lawyer for the election commission. “I ask you to be consequentialists.”
The Supreme Court basically has three options: uphold Mr. Kenyatta’s win; call for a runoff between Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Odinga; or call for a whole new election.
Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, a former human rights lawyer who presides from the bench with an iPad, has said that the court will decide by Saturday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/world/africa/kenyan-panel-warns-against-nullifying-election.html?smid=tw-share&buffer_share=fcd31&utm_source=buffer&_r=0
Kiambu Mafia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Kiambu Mafia is a pejorative term referring to a small group of the Kikuyu people primarily from the then Kiambu District of Kenya (now Kiambu and a portion of Thika District) who benefited financially and politically from Kenya African National Union (KANU) and Kenyatta taking power at independence.
These individuals earned wealth primarily in parcels of land “awarded” or “sold” to them by the government. For many years they were the predominant indigenous group in the Kenyan economy, controlling tea and coffee plantations, and retaining heavy influence over the tertiary sector as it developed.
Due to the influence the Kiambu mafia had, they could acquire lands from peasants in Central Province in exchange with bigger parcels of land in Rift Valley Province.
The plutocratic style adopted by the government of the day allowed them easy access to essential resources. Many of these individuals were well educated, having attended universities inside and outside Kenya. However it must be appreciated[according to whom?] that there are individuals associated with the Kiambu Mafia not from the Kiambu district.
When Kenyatta’s health started to deteriorate, the Kiambu Mafia was concerned about their continuing influence and so they decided to plan the succession in the event Kenyatta died by trying to amend the constitution so that the Vice president would not automatically hold power till the election is held. Njonjo, who was not one of the mafia, came out strongly opposing the succession talks by saying it was in fact treason to even imagine the death of a sitting president. When Moi came into power in 1978, he abolished all the tribal movements but his main aim was Kiambu Mafia, because he was not comfortable with it with the huge wealth and power. Kiambu Mafia is also believed[by whom?] to be behind retaliatory attacks in Naivasha, Nairobi and Nakuru during Kenya’s post-election violence in 2007–2008, having raised money and hired Mungiki to carry out retaliation against those perceived to be attacking Kikuyu.
Kenya is stuck with Uhuru Kenyatta, for better or worse
MP salary battle will prove first test for new president after supreme court rules that his election victory was free and fair
Simon Allison for Daily Maverick, part of the Guardian Africa Network
Tuesday 2 April 2013
After five years of torturous build-up, one day of voting, nearly a full, unexpected week of counting and another two weeks of court battles, Kenya finally knows for sure who its next president will be. Uhuru Kenyatta, take a bow, and the key to your new office in State House.
The supreme court’s verdict, when it came, was not unexpected. Defeated presidential candidate Raila Odinga, the perennial runner-up, had insisted from the moment it became clear that he was on the losing side yet again that the election was flawed, citing counting errors, technological faults and mysterious unmarked registers. But if there was a case to be made, his legal team bungled it with late submissions and dodgy affidavits which saw some of the most compelling evidence thrown out of court.
The election was free and fair, the court ruled, upholding Kenyatta’s victory in the process. As the judgment was read out, Kenyans turned their attention to Odinga, whose reaction could yet precipitate the kind of violence seen after the disputed 2007 polls. Odinga, however, rose to the occasion.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the court has now spoken,” he said in a statement. “Although we may not agree with some of its findings, and despite all the anomalies we have pointed out, our belief in constitutionalism remains supreme. Casting doubt on the judgment of the court could lead to higher political and economic uncertainty, and make it more difficult for our country to move forward.” In short, Odinga accepted the verdict, removing the last possible barrier between Kenyatta and the presidency. His supporters, for the most part, followed suit.
Where was the violence?
Before the polls, many foreign journalists had predicted – or at least raised the prospect of – a surge in violence during or after the Kenyan vote. On polling day, Kenyans on social media delighted in poking fun at the scare stories, many pointing out that Kenya was a different place now and that plenty of measures had been put in place to prevent a re-occurrence of the troubles in 2007-2008. And the Kenyans, sure enough, were right; by those standards, these elections were indeed peaceful and trouble free.
Of course, this is relative. At least 15 people died on the eve of elections. Another five were shot this weekend after the supreme court judgment, during angry protests in Kisumu and a Nairobi slum. These elections may have been more peaceful than last time, but they weren’t peaceful.
Nor did the lack of physical violence mean that Kenyans had put their differences behind them: “It is not true that this election has been peaceful,” wrote Kap Kirwok in Nairobi’s The Star. “Peace, as you would agree, is not just the absence of war or violence. It is freedom from disturbance; a sense of quiet and tranquility. The ferocious tribal clashes waged in the digital forum called social media puts paid to the notion of having had a peaceful election. In that arena, it is war minus the shooting.These cyberspace duels make two things very clear: the distance between digital slash and burn and actual physical combat is not as far as you might think; and, hatreds run deeper than we are willing to admit.”
Kirwok is grossly overstating the point – social media insults can hardly be compared with physical injuries and deaths – but what he’s trying to say is that the problems which underpinned the 2007-08 have never been resolved, and as long as this is true then Kenya will always be far closer to the abyss than is comfortable. As I argued in a previous article, the reason that analysts and journalists were so concerned about the elections was because of the apparent institutionalisation of violence in the political sphere. This did not manifest itself this time round in widespread electoral violence, but it certainly was not absent: don’t forget that Kenyans, of their own free will, chose two men accused of crimes against humanity to fill their top two political positions.
The ICC won’t go away
Some argue, in fact, that the International Criminal Court charges of crimes against humanity hanging over president-elect Kenyatta and deputy president-elect William Ruto actually helped rather than hindered their campaign. Kenyatta and Ruto were able to play the martyr card quite successfully, arguing victimisation by a neo-imperialist west trying to meddle in African affairs once again. It’s an argument familiar to anyone who has ever listened to a Robert Mugabe speech, and it’s been taken up by a surprising number of well-regarded Kenyan writers such as Binyavanga Wainaina who positioned Kenyatta’s victory as some sort of triumph against the crusading “missionary” of the International Criminal Court.
But the interesting question now is what influence the ICC charges will have on the Kenyan government. Certainly, Kenyatta and Ruto will have to direct significant amounts of time and resources to fighting the charges; time and resources better directed towards governing the country, which is what they have been elected to do.
There are also potential foreign policy implications. “Western nations have a policy of only ‘essential contacts’ with court indictees,” said James Macharia and Edmund Blair for Reuters. “They say that will not affect dealings with the government as a whole, but will worry the issue could drive a long-time ally closer to emerging powers such as China.” This seems inevitable; Kenyatta’s team has already expressed its displeasure with Britain’s “shadowy involvement” in the campaign, and China just last week reiterated its undeniably attractive no-strings-attached foreign policy. So for better or worse, the ICC will continue to shape Kenyan politics throughout Kenyatta’s first term – even if the charges go nowhere in the end.
To the business of governing
And so to the hard part, where Kenyatta and Ruto have to actually govern their country and make good on all those campaign promises. Initial signs aren’t good, with a bunch of new MPs agitating for higher pay and threatening to bulldoze the salaries and remuneration commission, which recently concluded that Sh535,500 was an acceptable monthly wage for parliamentarians in a country where annual GDP per head is three times less than that. This will be an early test of Kenyatta’s mettle as a leader, and his ability to stand up for people rather than politicians. Another will be whether he makes good on his pledge to use the money saved by avoiding a run-off election to set up a youth empowerment fund.
Not that Kenyans will be overly concerned. If the last five years of ineffectual unity government has shown us anything, it’s that Kenyans can look after themselves. Which is lucky, because chances are they’ll have to keep doing so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/02/kenya-africa
Uhuru is Mt. Kenya Mafia Damu. These people made a mockery of democracy with the tyranny of stealing elections and therefore only feel accountable to their electorate. His is basically a Kikuyu/Kalenjin coalition government. What I find funny is that we are all supposed to be loyal and patriotic when he runs the government like a tribal outfit. I have always known that Uhuru’s “out going” character is a charade. Inside he is a tribalist to the core.
By PSCU
Nairobi,KENYA: President Uhuru Kenyatta on Wednesday appointed Joseph Kinyua, one of the architects of Kenya’s economic programme, as the new Chief of Staff.
Mr Kinyua, who also becomes the Head of the Civil Service, was unveiled in his new role by President Kenyatta at a Cabinet meeting at State House Nairobi.
Njuguna Ndung’u has been replaced as the chairman of the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) following the passage of a controversial law seeking to trim the powers of the governor and foster good governance.
Economist Mbui Wagacha has been elected as the interim chairman awaiting a formal appointment by the President as per the rules passed last year. This is the first time this has happened since Independence in 1963.
The governor, however will continue chairing the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), meaning the board’s role will be administrative.
Lee Maiyani Kinyanjui has been appointed to chair the board of the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA).
President Uhuru Kenyatta made the appointment in a gazette notice with the new office holder expected to serve for a three-year term starting September 20.
Mr Kinyanjui is a former assistant minister for roads in the then coalition government.
He has replaced Joseph Kamau Thuo who served as the board’s chairman since April this year when NTSA was launched.
President Uhuru Kenyatta has appointed the head of the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration Board, clearing the way for creation of an out of court commercial disputes resolution unit.
Arthur Igeria, a partner at corporate law firm Igeria and Irungu Advocates, has been appointed the first chair of the board for a three-year term.
Mr John Mututho, a former Naivasha MP, was Wednesday appointed chairman of National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse to replace Dr Frank Njenga, whose five-year term has elapsed.
“I appoint John Mututho the chairman of Nacada board for a period of three years. The appointment of Dr Frank Njenga is revoked,” President Kenyatta said in a special issue of the Kenya Gazette.
UHURU KENYATTA appoints another KIKUYU as his advisor – NANCY GITAU to be KUTTUNY’s boss
The Kenyan DAILY POST Politics 07:37
Tuesday October 1, 2013 – President Uhuru Kenyatta has today appointed Mrs Nancy Gitau as his Chief Political Advisor.
Until her appointment, Mrs Gitau was former President Mwai Kibaki’s Political advisor who worked under Prof Kivutha Kibwana who was Kibaki’s Constitution Affairs Advisor.
Gitau will now be the new boss of former Cheranganyi MP, Joshua Kuttuny, who has since been appointed as Uhuru’s political advisor.
Gitau’s appointment comes a day after President Uhuru Kenyatta appointed Joseph Kinyua as State House Chief of Staff and Head of Civil Service.
The two are from the larger Kikuyu community.
President Uhuru Kenyatta appoints Arthur Igeria (a partner at corporate law firm Igeria and Irungu Advocates) as the head of Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration Board.
He recently appointed Joseph Kinyua-head of public service (GEMA),
Mutahi Ngunyi-senior political advisor (GEMA),
John Mututho-Nacada (GEMA),
Lee Kinyanjui-National Transport Authority Chair (GEMA),
Kiragu wa Magonchi- TSC Chair, (GEMA: nominated and rejected by Parliament)
William Mwita Makubo-TSC Commission member(despite becoming no 16/16)
Truly its a 50:50 Govt between William Samoei Ruto and Uhuru Kenyatta.
Appointments By Uhuru Kenyatta Confirm Battle Against Tribalism Is Lost!
Recent appointments by President Uhuru Kenyatta show that we have lost the battle against tribalism. They have left me deeply troubled. I don’t want to believe the appointments are due to bad advice. They are a reflection of his thinking. While the people appointed may merit the positions the appoints betrays ethnic bigotry and insensitivity towards our national diversity.
If someone born and raised in this city and educated globally can only locate safety and loyalty in an ethnic cocoon, is there any hope that victory in the war against tribalism is anywhere on sight? This trend must stop or else it risks dividing the country and aggravating ethnic animosity and intolerance. The consequences of such are too grave to even imagine.