The Absurdity of Jubilee Politicians’ “Prayer Rallies” for William Ruto
The ongoing prayer rallies by the Jubilee politicians for William Ruto who is accused at the International Criminal Court (ICC) of murder, persecution and organizing attacks during the 2007-08 post-election violence (PEV) in Kenya, are sheer acts of absurdity. On February 21, 2009 an article in the Daily Nation titled “Ruto: Why I Prefer The Hague Route” specifically quoted William Ruto saying: “Kofi Annan should hand over the envelope that contains names of suspects to the International Criminal Court at The Hague so that proper investigations can start. Mr. Annan should allow us to move forward. We cannot just get stuck in one place addressing the same thing.” The statement confirmed that Ruto preferred to have his case taken to The Hague. Why then, are the Jubilee clowns praying for his acquittal?
Although the ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has already closed Ruto’s case and awaits his defense team to begin defending him, Jubilee sycophants believe that political theatrics in the name of prayers will rescue him. The prayers include speeches that insult former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, calling him the real cause of the PEV, and that he should be the one facing trial. Recently, their proverbial wag Moses Kuria claimed he had earlier teamed up with former Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Martha Karua to solicit ICC witnesses against Ruto. Karua quickly got the High Court to slap a gag order on him not to issue statements connecting her to such allegations.
The article mentioned above further states: “Mr Ruto’s latest stand contradicts the position of Prime Minister Raila Odinga, leader of his ODM party, who prefers a local tribunal. A government motion to set up a special local tribunal was defeated in Parliament earlier this month, raising the possibility that suspects whose names were given to Mr Annan in a sealed envelope by the Waki Commission could be taken to The Hague for trial.”
If Raila Odinga preferred a Kenyan tribunal for the PEV cases, why are the Jubilee clowns fooling Kenyans that he took Ruto’s case to the ICC? There is a lot of foolishness in these politicians who believe the ICC is like the Supreme Court of Kenya whose recent ruling in favor of the teachers’ salary increments was ignored by Uhuru Kenyatta. They often refer to the ICC as a political court which in their twisted minds, can be bribed in favor of their corrupt wishes. Meanwhile, many must sing Raila’s name to remain relevant, since they have nothing to offer their constituents.
Prayers for what?
Jubilee politicians normally herd poor Kalenjin and Kikuyu folks like cattle at the prayer rallies whose selfish agenda is for Ruto to be freed. These politicians should know that the ICC “is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. The ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system.”
Within Kenya, Ruto has been linked to numerous corruption scandals, yet the prevailing impunity in Government protects him from prosecution. Ironically, this prince of impunity troops to church every Sunday to worship God, which renders prayers a mere joke. Dictator Daniel arap Moi also worshipped in Church every Sunday, yet Kenyans suffered immensely under his corrupt leadership, and the country declined socio-economically.
Fatou Bensouda has now been allowed by the ICC trial judges to use recanted statements from five witnesses as evidence against William Ruto and former journalist Joshua arap Sang. On the matter of Raila Odinga having ‘fixed’ Ruto at the ICC, the July 20, 2014 Daily Nation article titled “ICC: How Mutea Iringo Plotted to Fix Ruto” noted that: “Deputy President William Ruto’s defence Friday claimed Interior PS Mutea Iringo and the President’s advisor on political affairs Nancy Gitau recruited ICC witnesses to fix the DP. The two were alleged to have funded the witness protection programme, and coordinated recruitment of witnesses to provide evidence to the Waki Commission to implicate Mr Ruto and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party.” William Ruto was fixed at the ICC mainly by former President Kibaki’s Mount Kenya allies, among whom are current senior government employees in Uhuru Kenyatta’s government, yet Moses Kuria and his Jubilee sycophants have refused to accept it.
By demonizing Raila Odinga, Jubilee is hoodwinking Kenyans that there is a Kikuyu-Kalenjin political unity, yet sadly, many surviving Kikuyu PEV victims in Rift Valley are neglected, live in pain and poverty, and are not being prayed for publicly.
The Prayer meetings are bogus and intended to massage Ruto psychologically after reality sunk in to the effect that with Bensouda having been permitted to use recanted evidence by witnesses who had been intimidated or corrupted by Jubilee, Ruto may be facing prison at the ICC. Jubilee is ignoring all proven facts and circumstances that landed Ruto at the ICC because they are bidding farewell to Ruto through the fake prayers, having understood that he may be locked in at the ICC. They keep blaming Raila Odinga for Ruto’s ICC problems because without embedding Raila’s name in the narrative, the propaganda value of the dumb political exercises across the country are reduced to zero.
Jared Odero
Kenya Stockholm Blog 
NYS report altered to drop names, main suspects left out of list
BY STAR REPORTER
October 6, 2015
THERE are new claims that powerful individuals doctored the final report prepared by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations in the probe into the Sh791 million fraud at the NYS.
Some crucial names were deliberately removed from the initial list of key suspects, according to reliable sources both at the DCI and the Devolution and Planning ministry.
Also deleted was crucial information that had been obtained from Family Bank, where huge deposits and withdrawals of cash diverted from NYS coffers had been made.
According to insiders, a top CID officer demanded the file when it emerged some powerful individuals in government were being implicated in the fraud.
The investigations were being conducted by a 12-member team, but the matter was taken over by higher powers when investigations were 95 percent complete.
Contacted yesterday, DCI boss Ndegwa Muhoro said he was in a meeting and promised to call back.
Already, Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko has questioned why a number of witnesses were not interrogated and statements recorded.
He questioned why the DCI did not record any statement from the Financial Reporting Centre (FRC) and the Central Bank of Kenya.
This is after it emerged that huge deposits were made to and withdrawals made from accounts held by individuals and companies at Family Bank KTDZ branch.
Insiders have now told the Star that that the DCI team initially handling the investigations “did a thorough job”, including sourcing information from the Central Bank of Kenya and Family Bank.
The officers, according to insiders, were pursuing the angle of a possible offence under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act as well as the Prevention of Organized Crimes Act.
The details were however left out in the final report that was handed to the DPP. “They were warned that anyone who will question anything will be transferred to Lokichar in Turkana,” said a source yesterday.
The Star established the scheme to water down the report involved a top CID officer, a senior official working in the ministry of Devolution and not a member of the Cabinet, and another senior official at the NYS.
Also involved is a prominent wheeler dealer who was linked to mega corruption scandals that shook the governments of both former Presidents Daniel Moi and Mwai Kibaki.
Sources also told the Star that an ex-government official who wielded immense power during Kibaki’s government and served for some months during the Uhuru government is also involved.
– See more at: http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/nys-report-altered-drop-names-main-suspects-left-out-list#sthash.hwa64OdR.TWLGSXnz.dpuf
Raila claims Uhuru used Moses Kuria to fix Ruto at the ICC
Cord leader Raila Odinga on Tuesday claimed that President Uhuru Kenyatta procured and coached witnesses to fix Deputy President William Ruto at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Mr Odinga claimed Mr Kenyatta used Gatundu South MP Moses Kuria to obtain and coach witnesses who were to testify against Mr Ruto at the ICC.
Mr Kuria, the Cord leader stated, was an employee and political assistant to Mr Kenyatta at the time.
“Moses Kuria was an employee and a political assistant to Mr Uhuru Kenyatta when he arranged the procuring of witnesses to fix Deputy President William Ruto,” Mr Odinga stated.
He added that Mr Kuria worked for Mr Kenyatta as a political assistant between 2008 and 2014 and was based at the UK Centre at Baden Powell House in Nairobi.
“This is the period when, by Kuria’s own admission, witnesses were being procured against Mr Ruto. The work Kuria did during the course of his employment must be presumed to have been done for and on behalf of his principal, Uhuru Kenyatta,” he went on.
“Uhuru and the Jubilee team cannot claim to be ignorant of what was being done by his own employee Moses Kuria. It is safe to assume that these things were done under his direction. If not, Uhuru must tell the country,” he noted.
President Kenyatta’s spokesman Manoah Esipisu could not be reached for a comment on the allegations.
WAR OF WORDS
The latest allegations are likely to escalate the war of words between Jubilee coalition politicians, led by Mr Kuria and National Assembly Majority Leader Aden Duale, and Mr Odinga over Mr Ruto’s cases at the ICC.
Mr Kuria has stirred controversy following his claims that it is Mr Odinga, Narc-Kenya leader Martha Karua and Kisumu Senator Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o who conspired to send Mr Ruto to the ICC.
The Jubilee leadership has picked up the claims, with Mr Duale challenging Mr Odinga to tell Kenyans his role in the case facing the deputy president at the ICC.
Mr Odinga and Prof Nyong’o have, however, laughed off the claims but Ms Karua has obtained court orders barring Mr Kuria from linking her to Mr Ruto’s cases.
The claims have also attracted the interest of ICC officials, who have written to Mr Kuria requesting a meeting with him this Friday to interview him on the matter. It is not clear whether Mr Kuria will appear before the ICC officials as a witness or a suspect.
“The time has come for Uhuru to come out and tell Kenyans what his role was in the fixing of his deputy Mr Ruto,” Mr Odinga stated.
“These other machinations disguised as prayers and attempts to drag other people’s names into the witness procuring scheme that was known only to Kuria are only meant to lull Mr Ruto’s supporters and create a false sense of security for them. Uhuru owes Kenyans and his deputy the truth,” he added.
Mr Odinga said it was hypocritical for Mr Kuria to allege that the ODM leadership “fixed” Mr Ruto, whom he described as a “comrade” who represented the party in the negotiations that ended the post-election violence and gave birth to the grand coalition government.
‘PRIME TARGET’
“Mr Ruto was, at that time, a prime target of those who stole the elections. Facts as narrated above make claims by Jubilee a most preposterous proposal and one of the biggest lies ever peddled in our country,” Mr Odinga stated.
He maintained that he firmly supported the formation of a local tribunal to try those who sponsored and unleashed the post-election violence but his efforts failed due to strong opposition from MPs who insisted that those who bore the greatest responsibility for the chaos be tried at the ICC.
“Eventually Kofi Anan handed over the famous (envelope) to the ICC. This was the origin of the ICC cases,” he stated.
He further said that Mr Ruto’s Eldoret backyard bore the brunt of the violence, which he said was sponsored by the State to suppress opposition protests that followed the disputed 2007 elections. Mr Ruto had just been re-elected the Eldoret North MP on an ODM ticket.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/Raila-claims-Uhuru-used-Moses-Kuria-to-fix-Ruto-at-the-ICC/-/1064/2901392/-/ilg8v9/-/index.html
WAIGURU “abuses” Kenyans as she buys a house near Kitisuru worth 150 million (VIDEO)
The Kenyan DAILY POST News 06:56
Tuesday October 6, 2015 – Devolution Cabinet Secretary, Miss Anne Waiguru, has reportedly bought a palatial home near Kitisuru worth Sh 150 million despite many corruption scandals facing her.
According an impeccable source, Waiguru, who is on the spot over the loss of Sh 791 million from the National Youth Service (NYS) and another Sh 15 billion that belongs to Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), is alleged to have bought the palatial house in March this year, just 2 years and 8 months as a Cabinet Secretary.
The expansive house which is situated in Kihingo Village, off Kitisuru, belonged to a prominent family from Nyeri and Waiguru is said to have bought the house using proceeds from the NYS and IDPs looting spree.
Waiguru, who was ranked the second most corrupt woman in Kenya by Ipsos Synovate, currently earns a salary of Sh 1.2 million a month and it will have taken her 15 years to save that amount but because she is the mother of corruption in Kenya, it has taken her just a couple of months to raise Sh 120 million .
Waiguru is also said to be living large thanks to being close to power.
To get a glimpse of her cosy living neighbourhood, watch the video below of a virtual tour of Kihingo
Mr. Moses Kuria does not realize that he has started digging his own grave by offering to be a defense witness for DP Ruto. If he knows what is good for him, he should start pleading insanity otherwise he will be sent to meet his maker before he even smells Rotterdam. I am sure he remembers one George Thuo who also offered to be a defense witness for Kenyatta. He was sent to meet his maker instead of going to the Hague.
Kenyatta’s lawyers will not allow Ruto’s lawyers to put Moses Kuria in the witness box at the ICC for the simple reason that under cross examination by the ICC Prosecutor, Kuria will have to confirm who was paying for the witness ‘procurement’, a very serious crime to which he has publicly confessed.
As he was Kenyatta’s employee during the period in question, and knowing how loose his tongue is, he is bound to mention Kenyatta (Remember one Mr. Nguyai who inadvertently connected Kenyatta to the Mungiki during the confirmation of charges hearing). The ICC Prosecutor will immediately ask for Kenyatta to be charged with witness tampering. At this point in time, Ruto’s lawyers want and are ready to scuttle his trial by any means necessary, including sacrificing Kenyatta.
ICC states reject bid against recanted testimony in Ruto’s case
FELIX OLICK
October 6, 2015
PRESIDENT Uhuru Kenyatta’s diplomatic offensive to reverse the use of prior recorded testimony against Deputy President William Ruto at the ICC has hit a snag.
The adverse details emerged as ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda asked the judges to lock out Attorney General Githu Muigai in the ongoing Ruto appeal on recanted testimony.
The Star has established that the committee responsible for coordinating the upcoming Assembly of States Parties meeting, known as The Bureau, has opposed Kenya’s request to have the controversial Rule 68 revisited.
Bureau members pointed out that there is an ongoing judicial process concerning the matter and emphasized there should be a clear separation between judicial and political issues.
ASP President Sidiki Kaba is expected to communicate anytime The Bureau’s decision to the government of Kenya.
“This essentially means that the issue of prior recorded testimony will not be on the agenda of the ASP meeting next month,” sources told the Star.
The move is likely to infuriate the Jubilee team, amid claims by Ruto’s URP brigade that the government machinery has taken its foot off the political and diplomatic accelerators after Uhuru was let off the hook.
At the United Nations General Assembly last week, Uhuru rallied states to help reverse the use of recanted testimony when the Court’s 123 signatory states meet next month.
The weeklong ASP meeting kicks off on November 18.
In August, Kenya sent a protest note to the ASP after the ICC directly admitted into evidence the testimony of five recalcitrant witnesses – a move that has sent shockwaves into the DP’s political inner circle.
Through its Permanent Representative to the United Nations’ Macharia Kamau, Kenya accuses the Court of betrayal and, to a larger extent, also the ASP.
“We wonder why the Court would take this course of action when it is surely aware of the understanding and decisions of the Assembly,” Kamau protested, alluding to claims that the rule was not applicable in the Kenyan cases.
“The legal and moral hazard of such actions ought to be self-evident, as it undermines the legislative oversight of the Assembly.”
The evidence ruling has since triggered anti-ICC rhetoric and prayer rallies.
But amid criticism from the URP team over government commitments to “save” Ruto, Bensouda too is setting up more roadblocks.
In her latest application to the ICC Judges, Bensouda said that Githu cannot claim to represent Ruto and his co-accused Joshua Sang’s interests, since he is not their legal counsel.
“The Rome Statute itself is premised on the ability of the accused themselves, through counsel, to present arguments in their defence and to seek the assistance of the Court in preserving their rights, as may be required,” she stated.
Githu had requested the judges to allow him to participate in the Ruto appeal as a friend of the Court.
– See more at: http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/icc-states-reject-bid-against-recanted-testimony-rutos-case#sthash.GrngrFi3.dpuf
The cacophony of political and religious prayers made by people without any scruples of what happened in this country is maddening. Those who talk of approaching the PEV issue from a wholes tics point are seen as insane and the only view on this issue that stands is one premised on the cleavages that have torn this country for slightly over half a century with the main players being the Kenyatta and Odinga families and by extension their ethnic groupings.Ruto is just a pawn in the bigger scheme of things. He has to be sacrificed one way or the other and you can take that to the bank.
ICC is part of idle international civil servants who have to justify their jobs depending on who calls the shorts in terms of bigger funding. Once Kenyatta case was withdrawn it was almost certain Ruto’s case will go to trial and a conviction is most likely. Forget the convoluted legal opinions. My deductive predictions have always comes to pass.
Use of recanted statements serves the prime purposes of obviating witnesses either being killed or bribed once they make statements or bigger players seeking office to facilitate witness liquidation.ICC is a geopolitical court and the players are not minions like Duale and Murkormen. Uhuru’s case was not withdrawn because of application of political pressure, Obama had to visit. Systems had to facilitate that. Check when Kenyatta is out of power if what I am saying will be valid.The genesis of PEV was thus:Political competition between Mwai and Raila caused it.
Rift Valley provided a fertile ground for reprisals of people whose only fault was to vote for their favorite candidate.Naivasha provided the ground for retaliation and the old cleavage played out that revenge was on people who did not exact the initial violence but on the opposite political divide no matter what they did or did not do. The man who is suspected to be at the center of the initial action is in court and he will answer to his innocence or otherwise in a geopolital court. It will act as a deterrent to future real or suspected warlords that bigger brother is watching legality or otherwise.
A judge has barred MPs from debating a Motion to impeach Devolution Cabinet Secretary Anne Waiguru.
The order suspending all impeachment Motions was given by Mr Justice Joseph Onguto after the Commission on the Implementation of the Constitution went to court to question the fairness of the parliamentary rules which allow MPs to impeach Cabinet Secretaries.
Standing Order 66 of the National Assembly spells out the procedure for the removal of a CS. What the High Court order means is that plans by Nandi Hills MP Alfred Keter to bring the Motion for the removal from office of Ms Waiguru are for now in limbo.
Under the rule, Mr Keter was allowed to collect signatures from fellow MP to introduce the Motion for debate.
“An order is hereby issued directed at the Speaker of the National Assembly and to the effect that all Motions brought under provisions of Standing Order 66 of the National Assembly shall be held in abeyance and stand suspended until this petition is determined,” ruled Mr Justice Onguto.
However, the impeachment motion against President Uhuru Kenyatta by the opposition is not affected by the order and Cord legislators are free to go ahead with it.
Mr Justice Onguto’s ruling was issued as Mr Keter and Makueni MP Daniel Maanzo prepared to submit the Motion to impeach Ms Waiguru to the Speaker of the National Assembly for approval.
Mr Keter had vowed not to withdraw the Motion despite pressure from his Jubilee Coalition, which has distanced itself from it and claimed that the MP was acting at the behest of the Opposition.
CIC has filed an urgent case to save Cabinet Secretaries from impeachment arguing that Section 66 of the Standing Orders was unconstitutional and should be declared null and void.
Standing Order 66 provides the procedure for removal of a Cabinet Secretary, and spells out the process which starts by a presentation of a Motion by a member of the National Assembly and supported by at least 88 MPs — a quarter of the members.
Yesterday, Mr Maanzo said at least five MPs from the United Republican Party had withdrawn their signatures and were no longer willing to support the Motion. Mr Maanzo said the MPs “deleted” their signatures by scribbling over them until it was no longer possible to tell who had signed.
“Ukicheza anakwambia atararua list yote (They threatened to tear the whole list),” said Mr Maanzo, who declined to name his colleagues on the basis of mutual respect and the fact that they had already sought to distance themselves from the bid.
Mr Maanzo said Ms Waiguru should step aside voluntarily like other Cabinet Secretaries alleged to have been involved in corruption.
“Although people have been intimidated and others forced to withdraw their signatures, she should just step aside. Other than violating the Constitution, she has also not distributed the resources under her equitably as required by the Constitution,” he said.
Mr Maanzo said that among the grounds cited in the Motion was that NYS programmes had not been fairly distributed in various parts of the country.
Others are gross violation of the Constitution in the management of the National Youth Service leading to loss of public funds, financial irregularities, concealing information to perpetuate financial impropriety and improper procurement and non-existent supplies which amount to fraud.
Ms Waiguru has also been accused of “misuse of her office and violation of the law by abusing, intimidating and threatening public servants under her jurisdiction”.
Her treatment of NYS Director-General Nelson Githinji and her appointment of Mr Adan Harakhe in unclear circumstances has also to come under scrutiny.
The Cabinet Secretary would be given a chance to defend herself both at the 11-member committee and before the whole House when the report is debated.
In his sworn statement against the introduction of the Motion, CIC chairman Charles Nyachae argued that the provisions in the Standing Orders would not accord any CS a fair hearing before the National Assembly. He said the Standing Orders were also inconsistent with Article 50 of the Constitution which gives every accused person the right to fair trial.
“The process of dismissal of a Cabinet Secretary by the National Assembly as operationalised by Standing Order 66 abridges the right of a CS to a fair trial and the right to have a dispute resolved by an independent and impartial process,” said Mr Nyachae in his affidavit.
According to the commission’s lawyer, Mr Paul Nyamodi, the provisions allowed the National Assembly to act as the complainant, investigator, prosecutor and executor of its own resolutions.
“All constitutional provisions should be read together which will prove that the commencement of removal of a CS must come from an independent body rather than the National Assembly,” he said.
CIC is seeking a declaration that provisions of the National Assembly Standing Order 66 are void to the extent that it is inconsistent with the right to a fair trial which should be accorded to the Cabinet Secretaries.
Mr Justice Onguto directed National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi, who is listed as the respondent, to file his reply before the hearing on October 26.
A country worth a visit-Kenia.
RAILA AND RUTO: WHAT CAUSED THE SPLIT?
BY SARAH ELDERKIN
‘If someone goes round saying they hate you, do you invite that person to be best man or best maid at your wedding and expect them to bless and support you as you set out on your journey into the future?’
The removal of Mvita MP Najib Balala from a position where he was representing a party he didn’t believe in was hardly surprising, was it?
Why would a party leader who has spent decades fighting for multi-party democracy suddenly change his spots to support someone who very clearly has neither concept of the party as the matrix of our political establishment, nor belief in the particular political party to which he belongs?
If parties are to have any meaning – and let us pray that the lives and efforts of all those who have lived and suffered and died for multi-partyism were not in vain – then that meaning lies in parties’ ideologies and policies and manifestoes, and in their members’ loyalty to those ideals and to a common strategy for achieving them. Where else in the world would you be able to go round maligning and denouncing the party you belong to, and its leader, and then expect still to be part of it – and not only part of it but representing it in the Cabinet? How do you represent what you don’t agree with?
If someone goes round saying they hate you, do you invite that person to be best man or best maid at your wedding and expect them to bless and support you as you set out on your journey into the future?
Balala in response to his sacking was like a broken record. He had nothing new to say, merely parroting hackneyed, non-specific, improbable, propagandist drivel against Raila Odinga. Contrary to his claims, Balala’s sacking had nothing to do with internal dissent. The clue here is in the word ‘internal’. Let Balala tell us which internal discussions he had with the ODM party leader and on which points of principle. Let him tell us the arguments put forward by each side and the areas where they disagreed.
It’s all humbug. Balala has never had such a discussion in his life. His dissent has not been internal but very much external, and very calculatedly so. He has associated with the enemies of his party, denounced the party leader on non-existent grounds, incited other party members to leave ODM, even offered to fix them up with some alternative shenzi briefcase arrangement, and finally announced that he would be forming another party to take him to the presidency. (And that’s democracy for you. At least, it’s democracy as far as Balala and most other political leaders seem to understand it. You declare yourself ‘nominated’ without the benefit of any constitutional nomination exercise and then muster your supporters to intimidate the unconverted. That’s progress. Oh. No. Wait a minute. It’s not progress. It’s exactly what Kanu did from the 1960s to the 1990s.)
Let’s get real here. These shenanigans have been allowed to go on for too long. It is long overdue that people like Balala – people with nothing but contempt for political reform and political responsibility and progress – are being called to account. Regrettably, we still lack credible national gatekeepers who are themselves committed to political accountability – because so far, we appear to have no rules that govern behaviour among political party members.
And most of the so-called younger generation of leaders don’t understand party affiliation. What a disappointment they have proved, when older leaders, and even leaders of the past, are and were more enlightened. We see it most clearly with Uhuru Kenyatta, who last week responded enthusiastically to calls from his supporters that he just name his party, and they would support him, wherever and whatever. Such parties are not worthy of the name. They are merely conveniences. There is no question of commitment to a party philosophy – “Just give us a name so we use it to get to a position of power!”
Perhaps it is because this younger crop has never fought for anything in their lives – merely being in the right place at the right time to achieve elevation through clinging to someone else’s coattails. This is certainly true of Balala, who has never struggled at the grassroots. He became mayor of Mombasa in 1997 after being nominated a councillor, he clung to the Narc wave to get elected to parliament in 2002, and ditto to the ODM wave in 2007. It’s called opportunism. Balala has never really fought for anything. Well, he’s certainly going to get the opportunity during the coming elections.
It is equally true of Kenyatta, who couldn’t make it to parliament in 1997 even in his father’s old constituency, then got nominated to parliament by President Daniel arap Moi in 2001, then became Moi’s project (and failed in his presidential bid) in 2002, finally got himself elected to parliament that year and has since evolved as the project of President Mwai Kibaki and others of his tribesmen.
William Ruto is no different. Ruto also has the outstanding distinction of never having seen a payslip in his entire life until he got to parliament. He made millions through YK92, spent the next five years doing land deals, won the Eldoret North seat under Moi’s patronage in 1997, threw in his lot with losing presidential candidate Kenyatta in 2002, then hitched his wagon to Raila Odinga’s star in 2007 when he saw that Odinga was unstoppable in Rift Valley Province, as elsewhere.
Ruto has spread the myth that he brought Rift Valley to Raila Odinga in 2007. In the ODM 2007 presidential nomination results, Ruto not only came third behind Odinga and Musalia Mudavadi, but he also got fewer votes from Rift Valley delegates than either of them. So much for that myth. It is nothing short of nonsense. Odinga got 2,656 votes. Mudavadi got 391. Ruto got a miserable 368, more than seven times fewer than Odinga. Neither Mudavadi nor Ruto complained that it was a fix – because they knew darn well it wasn’t. In the previous general election, 2002, Mudavadi had not even managed to keep his parliamentary seat. Both he and Ruto knew that, this time, they had got to where they were because of the name ‘Raila Odinga’.
Rift Valley voters fall into many ethnic blocs, some of them loosely lumped together as ‘Kalenjin’ (a word and concept that did not exist until the 1950s). And the ‘Kalenjin’ are by no means a homogeneous body of people. They comprise the Elgeyo, the Endorois, Kipsigis, Marakwet, Nandi, Pokot, Sabaot, Terik, Tugen, Sengwer and Sebei. These communities do not speak with one voice. In fact, some hardly speak to each other. Some actively dislike one another and have frequently engaged in warfare.
Then there are the other substantial, non-‘Kalenjin’, communities represented in Rift Valley – Turkana, Samburu, Somali, Kisii, Luhya, Luo, Maasai, Kikuyu.
Many among these who voted for Odinga in 2007 certainly did not do so because of Ruto. On the contrary, they voted in large numbers for Odinga at the 2007 ODM presidential nomination as a deliberate choice against Ruto as a leader.
But to ensure that everyone felt comfortable after the exercise, and no one was left feeling marginalised, Odinga gathered all who had stood for presidential nomination – Mudavadi, Ruto, Balala, Joseph Nyagah and himself, five people – and called them the ‘Pentagon’. He announced this in his victory speech.
None of the other four had much popular support but Odinga’s approach has always been grounded in being inclusive and encouraging to his colleagues – and that meant also accommodating Kitui Central MP Charity Ngilu when she wanted to join in, making a Pentagon of six.
Ruto was no supporter of Odinga even then, but he knew he had no option – and it was the Rift Valley community that left him with no option. They had made it clear that Odinga was their candidate – just as, when the election came, the voters in a total of six of Kenya’s eight provinces made clear that Odinga was their candidate. This was certainly not because they wanted William Ruto.
Indeed, Ruto has never been able to influence voters. He failed to influence them to vote for Kenyatta in 2002, and he failed again in the ‘No’ constitutional referendum campaign of 2010. His standing among voters in current opinion polls confirms this, hovering around a dismal eight per cent. In fact, apart from his time in YK92, when he had money to buy anyone, Ruto has never done well – except when he has been on the same side as Raila Odinga. Without Odinga, Ruto has always been a loser.
Many of those who didn’t vote for Ruto on past occasions would never vote for him in future, either. His claim to be the undisputed Rift Valley leader is merely that – a claim. Because Ruto is loud, he is heard. His influence might extend to part of the North Rift but not much further. And repeating a lie does not, contrary to what Ruto would like to believe, make it true. If it were true, busloads of people would not have had to be ferried into Rift Valley towns for recent ‘prayer’ meetings. There is no way that his G7 partners are unaware of this fact.
People like Ruto will always be surrounded by a certain caucus, particularly a caucus of other self-interested leaders – but voters are another matter altogether. Ruto talks big but he can’t deliver. His forte lies in untruths, snide remarks and propaganda. But depend on him for voters at your peril. Ruto already has a major problem with the Kipsigis, who comprise about half the ‘Kalenjin’ bloc. People of the South Rift justifiably feel Ruto is contemptuous of them and that he is more than ready to try to interfere, in his usual dictatorial manner, with their democratic choices. Recently, Kipsigis emissaries sent out feelers indicating their support for ODM. And that will not be the end of such reactions within the often fractious ‘Kalenjin’ brotherhood.
Many other Rift Valley people have already protested that Ruto is wrongly claiming their support for his dictatorial leadership. And if they won’t even vote for Ruto himself, why would they instead vote for anyone else Ruto told them to support? This should be a sobering thought for anyone imagining Ruto can ever be a kingmaker. He never has been. Far from his making Raila Odinga in 2007, Raila Odinga, on the contrary, made him. And that fact eats away at William Ruto – to the extent that he has had to manufacture dissent with Odinga, whom he then accuses of forcing him out. It is all too pathetically transparent.
Ruto’s whining began when Odinga shortlisted – to represent ODM in the 2008 negotiations with PNU under former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan’s chairmanship – Sally Kosgei (who knew and had good rapport with Annan), Henry Kosgey (ODM’s chairman) and Kipkalya Kones (pillar of the ODM 2007 campaign among the Kipsigis, which, as noted, is by far the most populous of the ‘Kalenjin’ communities).
Ruto stamped his foot and made a big fuss, saying HE should be the one. When he didn’t get his way, he began to shout that the ‘Kalenjins’ had always been short-changed. (I don’t know quite what he thinks happened for 24 years under Moi.) To quieten him down (like giving the naughty boy in class a job) Odinga decided to include him. The team that was finally named, initially supposed to be three people, was Kosgei, Mudavadi, James Orengo and ….. Ruto. That kept him busy for a while.
The next grouse came when Odinga distributed the 20 ministerial portfolios he was allowed under the National Accord, and Ruto petulantly complained that Rift Valley didn’t get enough. Nairobi, Eastern Province, and North-Eastern Province each got one portfolio (regional development, co-operatives and arid lands respectively), while Coast Province got two (tourism and East African Community). Western Province got three (local government, planning and fisheries) and Nyanza got five (lands, medical services, public service, immigration and public works).
And which province got the lion’s share? Yep, you’ve guessed it. Rift Valley, with seven portfolios (heritage, agriculture, roads, industrialisation, higher education, youth and sports). Ruto barely drew breath before going on to cause a lot of tension in ODM that eventually resulted in the party being forced to create two deputy leader posts to accommodate him. He got his way once again. But his moaning and complaining that Odinga short-changed Rift Valley has never ceased. Is it justified? I leave you with the facts and figures and you can decide for yourself.
Ruto’s next bellyache in 2008 concerned Rift Valley youths who had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in post-election violence. He said that Odinga was now contentedly sitting in government and didn’t care about those youths. Actually, youths had also been arrested in Nyanza, Western, Coast and Nairobi. But Ruto had no interest in them. Indeed, Ruto was not interested in the release of any youth anywhere. He was only interested in using the issue as a weapon against Odinga.
It was Odinga who raised the matter in the Cabinet. He said he was alarmed that many youths had been unduly held. The Cabinet directed the attorney-general to bring a list of those charged and those on remand, then directed that youths held without charge be released immediately. Far from Odinga being the cause of the youths’ problems, it was his intervention that saved them. But don’t expect that fact to prevent Ruto distorting it to suit his purpose.
The next issue Ruto decided to exploit was the evacuation and reforestation of the Mau Forest, which is nationally important as Kenya’s main water tower. By 2009, when the Mau’s deforestation had reached alarming proportions, the problem was already well known. The Ndung’u Commission report of June 2004 had detailed a mind-boggling litany of illegal allocations of land under the Moi and Jomo Kenyatta governments – all done through political patronage for personal gain.
The Ndung’u report said that all allocations of forest land that had been made contrary to the provisions of the Forests Act and the Government Lands Act should be cancelled. It said all the titles thus acquired should be revoked. It said the forests should be repossessed and restored to their original purpose.
And 2009 was not the first time there had been attempts to remove people from the Mau Forest. Moi had tried to remove them in 1997, using administration police. In 2005, Kibaki and the then internal security minister, John Michuki, sent in more administration police, together with GSU personnel. They burnt homes and beat people up mercilessly while forcefully evicting them.
But 2007 was an election year and the people were told they could return. Once again, it was political patronage for personal gain – and no one gave a damn about the devastating effect this might have on the country as a whole. Come 2009, and Odinga, acting on a unanimous (including Ruto) Cabinet decision, convened a conference to which all Mau Forest stakeholders were invited, including all the Mau area MPs and the ministers for land, environment, forestry, regional development, agriculture and water, along with civil society representatives and the media. The participants sat in the KICC amphitheatre and spent a day discussing how to rescue the Mau Forest.
Everyone had a chance to speak their mind, and the meeting resolved that a task force be set up to survey the Mau environment and report on the extent of the damage and the logistics needed to reverse the trend and regenerate the forest. The task force included local leaders nominated by their communities – Maasai, Ogiek, Kipsigis – as well as large-scale farmers from the area and the ministries of forests and agriculture. It was chaired by the University of Nairobi’s Professor Fred Owino, a forestry specialist with more than 25 years’ experience facilitating dialogue on national forest programmes and partnership negotiations across 16 African countries.
The task force was given six months to complete its work. Towards the end of this period, the PM was petitioned by a number of MPs who said they had not yet been interviewed. The PM extended the life of the task force by two months.
The task force report showed how the 500,000 hectares of the Mau Forest had over the years been invaded and encroached upon. The real damage had begun in 1992. (Surprise, surprise, it was an election year.) In 1997, there was a surge in excisions. (What do you know, another election year.) And guess when it happened next? Right on the money – 2002, another election year. Each time, people’s votes had shamelessly been bought through land allocations in the Mau Forest, progressively destroying a lifeline vital to all Kenyans.
The Mau complex consists of several forested areas – including Mau East, Mau West, Mau South and Maasai Mau. Group ranches in Maasai Mau border the forest. These had gradually extended their boundaries and grown into the forest. Some of those claiming to live on group ranches were actually living on forest land. Other areas had been excised and the ground cleared but there was as yet no settlement, while yet others were heavily inhabited. Forestry minister Dr Noah Wekesa presented the task force report to the Cabinet. It recommended a five-phase restoration programme.
In Phase 1, the government would take back unsettled land and begin replanting trees.
Phase 2 dealt with Mau West, which still had forest but also settlement without titles. The report recommended that the settlers be asked to quit.
Phase 3 covered fully settled areas that needed to be repossessed, and the report recommended compensating these settlers with alternative land or cash in lieu.
Phase 4 covered the so-called group ranches, which were populated mainly by Kipsigis people. The report recommended a survey to determine the actual ranch boundaries. And then Phase 5 would deal with Mau East. The Cabinet unanimously (including Ruto) approved the report and all its recommendations. It was then tabled in parliament (with Ruto and all the Mau-local MPs present). It was approved by the House. The secretariat to spearhead implementation was gazetted and established. The Mau reclamation would be an operation headed by Wekesa and the forestry ministry. And because there were several other agencies involved, the Prime Minister’s office would act in its usual role of co-ordinator.
Phase 1 of the recommended action was implemented, and then Wekesa (not Odinga) issued a gazette notice giving settlers time to quit the area referred to in Phase 2. Quite a number of them, who had no titles, began to move. It was at this point that the noise started. Not from the settlers. No. It was Ruto and pals who decided to take advantage of the situation to push their own political agenda. They went to the area and incited title-less settlers in Phase 2 not to leave until they had been paid compensation.
These were the same leaders who in Cabinet and parliament had approved the task force and unanimously endorsed its recommendations. Now they saw a way of irresponsibly messing up the process to advance Ruto’s agenda against Odinga. Some business people, particularly Kikuyu business people, were encouraged to say their kiosks had been looted, and that this had forced them to run away to the camps where those previously displaced during the 2007-8 post-election violence were living.
Ruto and the other leaders behind the forest agitation encouraged these settlers to go to the camps and wait for land, along with the IDPs. They told them, ‘You voted for Raila – this is how he is repaying you. This is how he is inflicting pain and suffering on our people.’ The agitators ferried families to makeshift camps, called in the media, and blamed the “inhuman” exercise on Odinga. A compliant media went along with it, regrettably too lazy to research the facts, or too inept, or too partisan to point out this was a necessary and collective Cabinet decision to which Ruto was party and which was actually being implemented by Wekesa.
And driving all this was the same William Ruto from whose Eldoret North constituency and nearby Kuresoi tens of thousands of people had been displaced in the 2007-8 post-election violence. Ruto has never said a word in their defence, nor offered them so much as a blade of grass from his own extensive land holdings. On the contrary, he apparently decided to acquire for himself 100 acres of one unfortunate displaced person’s land.
On that score, Ruto has recently offered the astonishing excuse that “no one was living there”. The last time this excuse was used was about 100 years ago, when colonial settlers voiced precisely the same sentiment as they casually took over land wherever they felt like it and regardless of whose land it was. Who expected to hear of such a callous attitude in modern-day Kenya?
In 2010, seeking a solution to the problem of the Mau Phase 2 settlers, Odinga recommended that they be treated like other landless Kenyans, and that the ministry of lands provide them with some land for settlement. It was at this point that Ruto conspired with his friends in the Treasury to have the funds for that compassionate exercise withheld, so that he could continue to blame people’s suffering on Odinga. It was not until early June 2011, nearly a year later, that the government finally released the money – shs. 1bn to buy land for those forced to quit the Mau Forest.
In the intervening period, Ruto had a field day demonising Odinga. But the net result of his dirty-tricks campaign was that the Mau Phase 2 evictees were heartlessly subjected to long and difficult months under canvas, as they waited for then finance minister Kenyatta to stop dragging his feet and release the money for their settlement.
If anyone was “inhuman” here, it was certainly not Odinga but, rather, someone who has no compunction whatsoever about using people for his own ends. Ruto was only interested in playing political games and dragging out the evictees’ suffering to try and gain a political advantage over Odinga. He had no care for the pain of the evictees. And yet this is one of the matters that Ruto, with a straight and self-righteous face, refers to as his “differences in principle” with Odinga.
Then, of course, there is the ICC issue. “I am paying the price for having supported Raila in the last elections and eventually being turned into a sacrificial lamb,” Ruto is quoted as saying. How touching. And how false.
In late 2008, after the Kriegler and Waki reports on the 2007 general election were submitted, ODM sat down as a party with its national executive council and parliamentary group to discuss the matter, eventually deciding to suggest that a local tribunal be established to try those suspected of being instrumental in post-election violence. The party issued a statement to this effect.
Ruto was not present at that meeting, being away in The Netherlands, allegedly negotiating a fertiliser deal. But as soon as he arrived at Nairobi airport, he told the press that he was opposed to the establishment of a local tribunal. He said such a tribunal would end up trying only the small fry, while letting the big fish go scot-free. Ruto then teamed up with Kenyatta to make a career out of opposing the tribunal idea, and the two of them ‘lobbied’ (to put it politely) hard among MPs to oppose the parliamentary motion that sought to establish a local tribunal independent of the judiciary.
In the meantime, Odinga, Kibaki and then justice minister Mutula Kilonzo tried their best to persuade their parliamentary colleagues to support a local tribunal.
When it came to the vote, Ruto, Kenyatta and their pals voted against the local tribunal and carried the day. They appeared to imagine that the matter of justice would thus be delayed (Ruto even stating at one point that it would take 99 years for the Hague cases to be heard) until they were in government themselves, whereupon they would presumably ensure non-compliance with the Hague and the matter would go the same way as so many other scandals in our history.
After parliament rejected the local tribunal, Annan arrived and categorically stated that The Hague was not a good idea. He said he would give parliamentarians another six months (beyond the original deadline of the end of 2008) to rethink. Failing a change of attitude, he would have no choice but to hand over to the ICC the sealed envelope of perpetrators’ names given to him by Justice Philip Waki. Annan then held on to the envelope from January to June 2009. Kilonzo spearheaded a second attempt to have parliament agree to form a local tribunal. His efforts were shot down by Ruto and Kenyatta in Cabinet.
A third attempt was made in parliament by Imenti Central MP Gitobu Imanyara. This was also shot down. At every stage of this process, Ruto and Kenyatta strongly opposed the local tribunal, while Odinga, Kibaki, Kilonzo, Imanyara and several others continued to support it. In the end, Ruto and Kenyatta succeeded in killing completely the idea of a local tribunal, and Annan was left with no option but reluctantly to hand over the sealed Waki envelope to ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
Even then, Ocampo himself volunteered that he did not have to prosecute – if only Kenyans could get their act together. Minister for internal security Professor George Saitoti led a team consisting of Kilonzo, the then attorney-general Amos Wako and lands minister and shadow attorney-general Orengo to the ICC, where they told Ocampo they needed more time. Ocampo gave them another four months.
But opposition led by Ruto and Kenyatta was still so strong that Saitoti’s team could achieve nothing. Finally, Ocampo gave up, went to the pre-trial chamber and sought permission to begin his investigations. This was granted in March 2010. The ICC began its work. On December 15 that year, Ocampo named the six suspects he considered had the biggest responsibility for the crimes committed. And then, suddenly, out of the blue, it was Raila Odinga who was the author of the whole thing! He just wants us out of the way, said Ruto and Kenyatta, so that he can win the election.
What? You say he supported a local tribunal? Ah, forget about that! It’s clear that he gave the names to Ocampo! (This didn’t quite explain why Odinga would include his own party chairman on the list, but anyway, details, details.) He is the devil incarnate!
What? You say the Waki envelope went straight from Waki to Annan and then, still sealed, from Annan to Ocampo? Ah, forget about that too! Raila chose the names in that envelope!
Oh dear. I suppose this means that Waki, Annan, Ocampo, Trendafilova, maybe the UN, definitely the entire ICC, the British government, probably the entire European Union, not to forget Obama, of course – the whole lot must have been corrupted by Raila Odinga and are now in on the deal. Boy, is that man powerful or what!
Unfortunately for Ruto and co, they have discovered that reality eventually bites back, and evidently it bites even more fiercely than Michuki’s rattled snake.
Kalenjin representation. Detained youth. Mau Forest. ICC. Ruto’s perpetual whining and griping about Raila Odinga covers issues where it is patently obvious that Odinga played only statutory and above-board roles, while at the same time doing his best to accommodate all Ruto’s demands.
Ruto’s complaints are completely insubstantial and disappear like puffs of smoke when subjected to any kind of scrutiny. And yet these are the issues he refers to as his “disagreements in principle” with Raila Odinga. Ask Ruto to explain exactly what “principles” he is talking about, and you might wait a long time for an answer. We can talk about lack of principles when Ruto maligns the party that sponsored him to parliament, is hostile to his party leader, and goes all out to form an alternative party without having the guts or principle to resign from a party he “ditched long ago”.
Traversing the country spouting dangerous, fabricated nonsense that pits Kenyan against Kenyan and can only do harm has nothing to do with “democratically expressing divergent views”, as Ruto so disingenuously likes to put it. It has to do with a frighteningly cold and calculating disconnect from the reality of the threat of future mayhem in Kenya. That is what is being stoked. Already the authorities are sounding the alarm bells, as they made plain earlier this week.
Ruto has been like a dog with a bone over this matter of Raila Odinga. For the past four years, we’ve watched as he keeps burying it in the dirt and then digging it up and chewing on it again and then burying it again and then digging it up again. There’s something ancient and primitive in a dog’s DNA that makes it do this compulsively, over and over again. I don’t know what to say about Ruto. There are plenty of haters out there who won’t like this truth and will prefer to avoid the issues and clog the blogs with mindless hate-speech and obscenities. All I can say is, this country needs to make informed choices based on facts.
Perhaps some of these facts might also help so-called political commentators such as Mutahi Ngunyi, who responded to the Balala sacking by calling Odinga a “Machiavellian” who “cannibalises” people. What shallow, ill-informed tosh! Shame on you, Mutahi. All it takes is a little bit of research. But that, of course, depends on the will to do it and not being otherwise compromised, I suppose. If anyone doesn’t want the facts, it’s their prerogative to ignore them. But the truth remains constant. And at least this way, if the truth is laid bare and it still all goes wrong, no one will ever have any excuse for coming back to lament, “Why wasn’t I told?”
The writer is a freelance journalist
– See more at: http://www.the-star.co.ke/article/raila-and-ruto-what-caused-split#sthash.ebF39Mcq.dpuf
William Ruto The “Willing Seller” Betrays Joshua Arap Sang
By: Moses Kandie
It can now be revealed that Joshua Arap Sang’s frustration emanates from his personal stand and principle to confront the allegations against him with stubborn facts. Many will agree that Sang, a former popular radio presenter was a surprise inclusion in the famous Ocampo six.
Life is not easy with a tag of “ICC suspect, now the accused”, Sang was forced to learn quickly how to live with his new status, he developed a good rapport with his co-accused William Ruto. This may have been made easy by the fact that both are young, come from the Nandi community and above all they are born again Christians. Pundits agree that it was Sang who in a sense made Ruto what he is today in the Rift Valley, using his prowess in radio broadcasting.
Soon after the exit of Mzee Moi from the political scene, a big vacuum was left that was hard to fill. They say, it was Sang who stood in the gap through his radio show Le nee emet until William Ruto came along. Again, it was Sang who endeared Ruto to the masses by carefully and cunningly weaving Kalenjin issues around the leadership of Ruto through his popular radio show.
Without Sang, Ruto would not be enjoying even half the clout he currently wields.
The chemistry between Sang and Ruto saw him attend high profile meetings especially the infamous prayer rallies for the Ocampo six (Muthaura and General Ali did not attend most of the meetings). In literal sense, Ruto adopted Sang as his son. You could always spot him wherever Bill was.
The warm heart exhibited by Ruto towards Sang is not new among the Kalenjin community. Traditionally, it is normal to adopt a baby from a poor family or even support them – remember Moi had many of such adoptees. The chemistry went even a notch higher when both Sang and Ruto adopted a similar strategy – they picked on the same counsels, with Katwa Kigen as their lead counsel at the ICC.
Around the same time, Ruto’s relationship with Raila Odinga was getting increasingly strained owing to among other things, the Kibaki led bureaucracy continued detention of the youth from the Rift Valley alleged to have been involved in post election violence. It is worth noting that Raila appealed for the unconditional release of the youth, but, Kibaki with his then powerful constitutional minister Martha Karua declined leaving Raila a frustrated man.
Ruto’s quest for power and influence accelerated his parting of ways with Odinga. Ruto was getting frustrated by the fact that the ODM side of government’s 50% was being sidelined in key government decisions. And, with ODM sticking to the party’s hierarchy that put Musalia Mudavadi ahead of him in party and government affairs, Ruto led a rebellion in his party.
Suddenly, Ruto became a darling of the powerful Mt. Kenya clique though he knew very well that it was the same clique that got him in the Ocampo list. To Ruto, if you can’t beat them, join them! And there he was working closely with PNU side.
That is where trouble started!
Sang’s approach is to use the way of truth to exonerate himself from the allegations leveled against him by the ICC. Ruto took the political way of manipulating the electorate to demonstrate to the ICC that the two feuding tribes can live “happily ever after” joining Jubilee Alliance. However things are not working as per Ruto’s strategy, it is a well known fact that Ruto’s ICC case was a set up by Uhuru Kenyatta/Kibaki controlled NSIS, Martha Karua and some NGOs.
Of interest is the systematic vanishing (never to be traced) ICC Prosecution witnesses who were to testify against Uhuru Kenyatta, the ICC prosecutor has admitted that Uhuru case is difficult since the Kibaki government has failed to give incriminating evidence against Uhuru, whereas the evidence and witnesses against Ruto are intact, there are signs that the government is cooperating to ensure Ruto is jailed by the ICC.
The Hypocrisy of the Kibaki government (controlled by Uhuru) is what Arap Sang is protesting about, he believes once Uhuru is elected president the regime will compromise the country’s ability to address long term issues as captured in agenda 4 of the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Frame-work.
Sang confirms Raila Odinga did not scheme to take the Ocampo six to The Hague. Raila’s role in the attempts to set up a local tribunal is well documented. However, Ruto chose to settle scores with Raila at the expense the hague trials unknowingly and this is set to affect the resolving of historical injustices in Rift Valley if Uhuru wins the March 4th election.
The great betrayal
Owing to Ruto’s closeness of convenience to the Mt Kenya mafia, it was decided that the Ocampo six’s legal and travel expenses will be taken care of by the government of Kenya. It was agreed that each of the Ocampo six will get KShs 50 million. Sang’s share of the fees was passed on to his new found friend and god father Ruto. This was done in the belief that Ruto is a trusted friend to Arap Sang.
A Source close to Sang revealed that Ruto did not pass all the cash (legal fees and travel expenses from the government) to his good friend, brother in Christ -the adopted son, co accused. Sang only received 2 Million of total the 50M. Ruto later stopped answering Arap Sang’s calls.
A few weeks to the ICC status conference held on February 14th, with time running out, Sang decided to go to Ruto’s house to seek part of the remaining 48M to facilitate his travel to the Hague. The guards at Ruto’s Karen home could not let him in, Sang scrapped around for cash and traveled! to date Ruto has neither paid the 48M nor answered his calls. And that is betrayal by a brother, godfather and brother in Christ.
Sang is reported to be preparing for a press conference to set the record straight. He will also use the opportunity to explain his decision to endorse CORD’s Raila Odinga for the presidency, and Mt. Kenya mafia’s tricks on Ruto, the Rift Valley people and the Kenyan electorate.
We can only hold our breath as this dramatic story develops. Will Arap Sang’s magic words that made Ruto King tilt fortunes this time and safe Ruto from the Mt Kenya Clique? Well, we can only wait but going the ground mood, the Kalenjin are steadily moving to CORD.
Iwill visit Spain Macao.and kenia
ODM alleges 10 points linking President Uhuru to Ruto ‘ICC fixing’
By Standard Reporter
Updated Friday, October 9th 2015 at 12:48 GMT +3
Share this story:
NAIROBI, KENYA: ODM on Friday laid bare ten alleged reasons linking President Uhuru Kenyatta to ‘fixing’ of his deputy William Ruto in his ICC case.
The opposition alleged that the critical evidence against DP William Ruto was supplied by the then Director of Intelligence Mr Michael Gichangi who testified on July 21, 2008 and gave dossier that named and implicated William Ruto.
It said the ICC Pre-trial Chamber relied a lot on the evidence supplied by Mr Gichangi to confirm the charges against Ruto.
“Later, Michael Gichangi’s name was submitted to the I.C.C as one of the witnesses for Uhuru Kenyatta’s case. This made it clear who Michael Gichangi was working for all along. On this matter of ICC, Gichangi was working for Uhuru Kenyatta,” said the ODM.
Moses Kuria has confessed that he procured and coached witnesses against William Ruto in 2008. At that time, ODM says Moses Kuria was an employee of Mr Uhuru Kenyatta. According to the party, Uhuru had seconded him to the P.N.U Presidential campaign which Uhuru had joined when he agreed to support Mwai Kibaki’s bid for a second term. After the 2007 elections, ODM goes on to say Moses Kuria joined the U.K centre which was the headquarters of Uhuru Kenyatta’s political activities. “He continued to work there until he was elected Member of Parliament for Gatundu South. Moses Kuria was always an employee and agent of Uhuru Kenyatta in procuring and coaching witnesses against William Ruto,” says ODM.
Full statement by ODM titled ten reasons Uhuru fixed Ruto
As a party, we believe truth and honesty are the best tools with which to govern a nation. We detest politics of lies, misinformation and mere survival. We therefore reluctantly return to the matter of the case facing Deputy President William Ruto and Mr Joshua arap Sang at The Hague because we believe this nation needs to be set free and only the truth shall set us free.
We are here to restate the position we took this week that President Uhuru Kenyatta was fully aware of and funded the procuring of witnesses against his Deputy William Ruto. We also restate that contrary to what Jubilee is saying, Uhuru Kenyatta has done nothing to make sure the case facing Ruto, ends in Ruto’s favour. Here are our reasons. They are ten in number.
Moses Kuria has confessed that he procured and coached witnesses against William Ruto in 2008. At that time, Moses Kuria was an employee of Mr Uhuru Kenyatta. Uhuru had seconded him to the P.N.U Presidential campaign which Uhuru had joined when he agreed to support Mwai Kibaki’s bid for a second term. After the 2007 elections, Moses Kuria joined the U.K centre which was the headquarters of Uhuru Kenyatta’s political activities. He continued to work there until he was elected Member of Parliament for Gatundu South. Moses Kuria was always an employee and agent of Uhuru Kenyatta in procuring and coaching witnesses against William Ruto.
Moses Kuria claims that P.N.U is the one that funded the procuring and coaching of witnesses. We all know that immediately after the elections, the bank accounts of P.N.U were looted by its officials and cronies of President Kibaki. P.N.U was left broke. It never paid its suppliers for campaign materials or its employees after the election. It had no money to conduct the exercise of procuring witnesses which Moses Kuria was engaged in. The money for procuring witnesses came from the U.K. Centre.
The head of the U.K. Centre was Mr David Murathe, who is currently the JAP Vice Chairman. The U.K. Centre employed Moses Kuria and funded the procuring and coaching of the witnesses. David Murathe is one of Uhuru Kenyatta’s closest confidants. Uhuru cannot therefore claim to be ignorant of what David Murathe and Moses Kuria were doing.
Very critical evidence against William Ruto was supplied by the then Director of Intelligence Mr Michael Gichangi. He testified on 21st July 2008 and gave dossier that named and implicated William Ruto. The ICC Pre-trial Chamber relied a lot on the evidence supplied by Mr Gichangi to confirm the charges against Ruto. Later, Michael Gichangi’s name was submitted to the I.C.C as one of the witnesses for Uhuru Kenyatta’s case. This made it clear who Michael Gichangi was working for all along. On this matter of ICC, Gichangi was working for Uhuru Kenyatta.
In November 2013, long after Ruto and U.R.P. had assisted Uhuru Kenyatta to become president, Ruto asked Uhuru to let him have evidence held by N.I.S. The evidence was to assist Ruto in his defense. Uhuru refused, even despite the fact that Ruto was now Deputy President and entitled to receive any information he needed from N.I.S. The information William Ruto needed was in the custody of Michael Gichangi. But they would not allow Ruto to have it.
When the I.C.C named Ambassador Francis Muthaura, then the Head of the Civil Service, as a suspect, the government shopped for a lawyer to represent Muthaura. That lawyer was Karim Ahmed Khan. Khan was sourced for and retained by the government and the P.N.U/Uhuru faction of suspects. After the charges against Ruto were confirmed, the P.N.U/Uhuru faction convinced Ruto that Karim Khan was the lawyer that would help him and that he should reject O.D.M’s offer of George Oraro who had managed to free Henry Kosgey. Until this day, Karim is paid by Uhuru Kenyatta and his government. And Ruto’s case keeps going from bad to worse.
Dr. Jendayi Frazer, the then Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the United States Government, came to Kenya as early as 5th January 2008, at the height of the Post Election Violence. Dr. Jendayi Frazer is a close family friend of the Kenyattas. She spends most of her time in Kenya, with the Kenyattas. Jendayi went to school with Uhuru’s siblings. Dr. Jendayi Frazer was very instrumental in getting I.C.C to take on the Kenyan cases. But she turned against the international court when they also indicted Uhuru Kenyatta. After she left State Department in 2009, she dedicated her time to fighting the I.C.C on Uhuru’s behalf, calling the case against him “a weak one based on hearsay”, and saying the “I.C.C has fallen from high ideals of global justice and accountability”.
Ever since Uhuru’s case was dropped, Dr. Jendayi Frazer, no longer fights the ICC and is quite happy with the court continuing with the prosecution of William Ruto. On his part Uhuru Kenyatta has not seen the need to ask Dr. Jendayi Frazer to help William Ruto. In fact, all the international lobbyists who had been retained by the government to help fight the ICC have been stood down ever since Uhuru’s case collapsed. When Uhuru visited New York late last month, two of the lobbyists who helped with his case sought audience with him to figure out if they could be of service to Ruto. Uhuru never granted them audience.
One of greatest challenges of Ruto’s case at the I.C.C is Rule 68 that allowed the prosecutor to introduce recanted evidence. This Rule was passed by the Assembly of State Parties with the full consent of Kenya through foreign secretary Amina Muhammed. The government was not worried about Rule 68 because all Uhuru’s witnesses had already died or disappeared. Rule 68 was NOT going to affect Uhuru.
Instead, the government was only worried about amending Rule 134 so that Uhuru could be exempted from having to attend trial and allowed the use of video technology for trials.
When questioned about how Kenya had handled these amendments, Amina said everything had been done in the spirit of “give and take.” It is clear someone was being given away and another one was taking their freedom. The question then is, give to who? Take away from whom?
Later, after Rule 68 had been successfully used against Ruto, Amina Mohammed started a flurry of activities to have the Rule reviewed by the Assembly of State Parties. Of course this is not possible since Kenya consented to it in the first place. In fact, since Uhuru’s case collapsed, Kenya has resumed paying its dues to the ICC faithfully, unlike when Uhuru’s case was active. The current campaign is therefore an exercise in futility to cover the eyes of Ruto’s supporters and give them false hope.
Despite being described as “doing a good job for the President and his Deputy” at The Hague, Ambassador Ruthie Chepkoech Rono was removed by Uhuru Kenyatta as High Commissioner for Kenya to The Hague. Ambassador Rono is from Ruto’s Kalenjin Community. She had been at The Hague since the Kenyan cases began. There was every reason to retain Rono at The Hague especially while Ruto’s case is going on.
Instead, Ambassador Rono was removed and replaced by a junior diplomat, Ambassador Rose Makena Muchiri, from Uhuru’s Kikuyu community, just when Kenya needed its best and experienced diplomat at The Hague.
At the height of the case against Uhuru, the T.N.A. brigade in Jubilee started the move to withdraw Kenya from the I.C.C. Ever since Uhuru’s case was dropped; nothing has been heard of this again. Uhuru sponsored a motion at the African Union seeking to have an international Criminal Court for Africa to replace the I.C.C. the motion was adopted. Uhuru even paid 1 Million dollars from Kenya to the A.U. to start the process. Ever since his case collapsed, Uhuru has not spoken on that issue again. We have no option to conclude that Uhuru Kenyatta did everything to get Ruto to The Hague and has done nothing to get Ruto out of The Hague.
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000179117/odm-alleges-10-points-linking-president-uhuru-to-ruto-icc-fixing?articleID=2000179117&story_title=odm-alleges-10-points-linking-president-uhuru-to-ruto-icc-fixing&
http://karanjazplace.blogspot.co.ke/2015/10/every-young-black-man-should-watch-this.html
4/2/2012
They voted for Hague but are now praying with ICC suspects
On the evening of February 12, 2009, MPs Lewis Nguyai, Isaac Ruto and Ekwe Ethuro burst into celebration.
The same day, President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga walked out of Parliament crestfallen.
The trio were among 93 MPs who humbled the two coalition principals when they voted to reject a Bill proposing the formation of a special tribunal to try those suspected to have organised the post-election violence of 2007/8. (READ: Kenya MPs vote against local tribunal)
This effectively paved the way for the criminal proceedings at The Hague-based International Criminal Court involving eminent Kenyans – including Mr Uhuru Kenyatta and Mr William Ruto. (READ: Annan to send Kenya violence chiefs to The Hague)
About turn
But in a dramatic turn, the group that supported the trials at The Hague has embraced the two accused, emerging as their most vocal supporters in and outside Parliament.
Probably unexplored is the inconvenient fact that the MPs who are posing as their comrades-in-arms by turning up in large numbers at their rallies and spewing rage at the ICC proceedings are members of the very cast that ensured the suspects will stand trial at The Hague. (DOWNLOADS: MPs who voted against the Bill and MPs who voted for the Bill)
The narrative of the meetings has been the push for a unity pact to stop Prime Minister Raila Odinga from succeeding President Kibaki.
In doing so, the accused have resorted to hyperbole and hysteria into which their respective communities have been drawn.
Cry for victims
Justice minister Mutula Kilonzo has been critical of the “prayer” rallies, saying the focus should be on victims, not the accused.
He says: “I see preachers in rallies praying for the accused, but who will speak for the voiceless? Don’t the victims deserve prayers, too? We must not forget the victims of the post-election violence.”
Mr Nguyai – and indeed most of the naysayers – must rue the statements they made in their campaign for the trials to be held in The Hague.
On February 4, 2009, the Kikuyu MP declared that The Hague option was the “only way” to end the culture of impunity in Kenya and ensure that justice was done. (READ: House still divided over tribunal Bills)
He argued that a local tribunal had no capacity to prosecute the violence suspects.
Mr Ethuro was critical of a letter by Head of Public Service Francis Muthaura lobbying MPs to attend Parliament and vote in support of the tribunal Bill.
He was categorical that the high-profile lobbying would not deter MPs from voting for The Hague option.
In a somewhat cruel twist of fate, the same Mr Muthaura would more than two years later be indicted by the ICC, dealing a body blow to his otherwise acclaimed career in the public service.
“We have also to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. and we will have an opportunity very shortly to demonstrate our determination and will against the Bill,” said Mr Ethuro ahead of the crucial vote as President Kibaki and Mr Odinga sat a few metres away.
Today, Mr Ethuro (Turkana Central) is a senior member of Mr William Ruto’s United Republican Party.
A review of the Hansard recordings during the tribunal debate reveals that a majority of Kalenjin MPs known to be close to Mr Ruto voted for The Hague option.
Mr Ruto’s allies who voted to reject a local tribunal include Zakayo Cheruiyot (Kuresoi), Cyrus Jirongo (Lugari), Isaac Ruto (Chepalungu), Fred Kapondi (Mt Elgon), Joshua Kutuny (Cherangany), Wilfred Machage (Kuria), Sammy Mwaita (Baringo Central), Kazungu Kambi (Kaloleni) and Moses Lessonet (Eldama Ravine).
Mr Ruto of Chepalungu is often reminded about his much-quoted declaration: “Let us not be vague, it is The Hague.”
In addition, the majority of the Kalenjin and Kamba MPs allied to Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka supported The Hague option.
And, although Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto voted with the government, their troops were sufficiently mobilised to reject the tribunal.
Kibaki succession
Those in the Kenyatta camp who supported The Hague option are Ferdinand Waititu (Embakasi), Jamleck Kamau (Kigumo), Emilio Kathuri (Manyatta), Joseph Kiuna (Molo), Lenny Kivuti (Siakago), Abdi Nuh (Bura), Peter Mwathi (Limuru) and Clement Wambugu (Mathioya).
Because it strikes at the heart of the Kibaki succession, the ICC debate has been characterised by the most dramatic of somersaults by the politicians – negative tribal sentiment, doublespeak, mudslinging and breathtaking hypocrisy – exposing the repulsive side of the Kenyan politician. It has also “united” strange bedfellows.
Events after the 2007 General Election revealed that there is no love lost between members of the Kikuyu and Kalenjin communities who wielded machetes against each other in the Rift Valley.
Now the ICC twin cases have united their leaders even as their supporters remain apprehensive about their new-found friendship.
But, even then, mistrust between the communities and supporters persists with each insisting that they will back their own for State House.
This was evident during the Eldoret rally where the crowd was split into two, one side cheering Mr Kenyatta while the other celebrated Mr Ruto in his hometown.
But why the sudden change of heart over the ICC proceedings? It is noteworthy that although ICC had not yet linked Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto to the violence, reports by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights had already named the two. This report had been transmitted to ICC.
The Waki Commission, which had identified high-profile individuals suspected to bear the greatest responsibility for the violence, had insisted that they must be tried, either by a special court at home or by the ICC.
While Mr Ruto called into question the credibility of the report by the Waki Commission, Mr Kenyatta was more defensive and strident in trashing the findings.
Mr Ruto had also declared that ICC would take one hundred years to conclude the matter.
To the contrary, the Kenyan case has been defined by its fast pace with indictments issued less than two years after the start of investigations.
Self-preservation
A leaked diplomatic cable on a conversation between then US embassy officials with Kinangop MP David Ngugi captures the thinking at that time. The vote was an act of self-preservation.
The November 4, 2008 cable said leaders from central Kenya had agreed that the Waki report should be implemented, but that it must be handled cautiously because of the inflammatory nature of the charges likely to be levelled against Kikuyu leaders.
“Many Kikuyus feel that Kikuyu leaders implicated in post-election violence were engaging in self-defence and should not be equated with Rift Valley organisers, who engaged in unprovoked violence,” said the cable.
On the other hand, ODM politicians held that The Hague process would not only take years but would also spare actual perpetrators of the violence, especially in Naivasha, and police who are alleged to have killed civilians in Kibera and Kisumu.
Then there is the small matter of Mr Odinga. It is understood that PNU politicians, in supporting The Hague, were convinced that having inspired mass action during the violence, his name could appear in the Waki envelope.
Mr Odinga and his handlers have not been effective in fighting deeprooted propaganda that he engineered The Hague proceedings to eliminate his opponents from the presidential race.
“I am not Judge Philip Waki or Kofi Annan,” he told the Sunday Nation in reference to the judge whose team identified the ICC suspects and the former UN secretary-general who handed over the names to ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
After the prosecutor made the names public, Mr Isaac Ruto led MPs allied to Mr Kenyatta and the Eldoret North MP in a parliamentary effort which saw them secure a vote for Kenya to withdraw from the Rome Statute.
Legal capacity
But Mr Odinga criticised MPs who were pushing for Kenya’s withdrawal from the Statute, saying they were the very ones who frustrated the government’s efforts to set up a local tribunal.
“Mr Ruto (Isaac) said that we should not be vague, we want The Hague; it is Ruto who took us to The Hague, Mr Speaker,” Mr Odinga said during debate.
But in a dramatic about-turn, the MP argued that Kenya did have the legal capacity to try the suspects.
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/They+voted+for+Hague+but+now+pray+with+suspects/-/1064/1320534/-/item/0/-/y5ibl2z/-/index.html
12/2/2009
Kenya MPs vote against local tribunal
ANTHONY KARIUKI
The Kenya Government has lost a motion that would have provided for a local tribunal to try suspects of the 2008 post-election violence.
It was was unable to marshal support from Parliament for the Constitution of Kenya Amendment Bill 2009 that would have created a Special Tribunal for Kenya.
A total of 101 MPs voted in favour of the Bill, while 93 MPs voted against it. There was one abstention.
Speaker Marende ruled that according to Standing Orders 61 that provides if the government gains a majority of votes in a division but does not attain 65pc of members (145) and the opposition’s numbers are above 35pc (77), then the motion is lost.
Since the opposition side garnered 93 votes, it means that the motion is lost. However, the government has the option of re-introducing the Bill after six months.
Even the presence of President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga in the House to rally support for the Bill could not be enough to see the Bill’s passage.
The failure of MPs to pass the Bill has dealt a blow to government to have suspects who masterminded the post-election violence tried in Kenya.
The government had failed to raise the required number of 148 MPs needed to make a constitutional amendment two times.
In the first instance, only 52 MPs were in Parliament when the Bill was brought to vote.
On Tuesday, Leader of Government Business Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka attempt to withdraw the motion was thwarted by Deputy Speaker Farah Maalim, who ruled that it was the House Business Committee that should decide what should be in the Order Paper.
This followed a failed attempt by government to marshall support among its ranks after a meeting of ministers chaired by President Kibaki could not raise enough numbers.
The establishment of the Special Tribunal for Kenya was a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into Post Election Violence.
The Commission, chaired by Justice Philip Waki, was formed to investigate the post election violence.
Kenya was rocked by violence after the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) disputed the results of the presidential election that the Electoral Commission of Kenya declared President Kibaki the winner.
ODM said its candidate Raila Odinga was denied victory through rigging. The violence left at least 1,000 people dead and a further 350,000 others displaced.
President Kibaki and Mr Odinga agreed to share power after peace talks brokered by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Mr Odinga was named Prime Minister in a coalition government.
With the defeat of the motion, the suspects could now face the prospect of facing trial in the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
The Waki report had set a March 1 deadline for the local tribunal to be operational, failure to which the ICC process takes over.
The names of the suspects are contained in a envelope handed to Mr Annan by Justice Waki.
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/529618/-/u1yqau/-/index.html
MPs who voted against the local tribunal Bill (Nays)
1. Abdirhaman H.A – Kanu
2. Ahmed S.A.S
3. Akula B.E
4. Ali M.H
5. Aluoch O.J (ODM)
6. Chepchumba P (ODM)
7. Cheruyiot Z.K(ODM)
8. Ethuro D,.E
9. Gaichuhie N.R
10. Ganya F.C (ODM)
11. Gitau P.N
12. Githunguri S.M (KANU)
13. Gunda B.F (ODM)
14. Imanyara G. (CCU)
15. Jirongo K.S (KADDU)
16. Kaino B.K (ODM)
17. Kaloki P.K (ODM-K)
18. Kamau J.I (PANU)
19. Kamau J.M (PNU)
20. Kambi S.K (PNU)
21. Kapondi F.C (ODM)
22. Kariuki J.M (FORD ASILI)
23. Kathuri E.M (DP)
24. Khalwale B (NEW F-K)
25. Khasilwa W.O (ODM)
26. Kigen L.K (ODM)
27. Kiilu P.L.N (ODM-K)
28. Kilonzo J.K (ODM- K)
29. Kilonzo C.M (ODM- K)
30. Kiuna J.N. (PNU)
31. Kivuti L.M (SAFINA)
32. Koech D.K (ODM)
33. Konchela G.S ( PNU)
34. Kones J.K (ODM)
35. Kones B.J (ODM)
36. Kutuny J.S (ODM)
37. Laboso J. (ODM)
38. Lagat E.K (ODM)
39. Langat B.K (ODM)
40. Lesirma S.S (ODM)
41. Lessonet M.K (ODM)
42. Letimalo R.L (ODM)
43. Linturi F.M (KANU)
44. Litole W.M (ODM)
45. M’mithiaru N. (PNU)
46. Machage W. G (DP)
47. Magerer J.K. L(ODM)
48. Magwanga J.O (ODM)
49. Mbau E.P (PNU)
50. Mbugua S.M (PNU)
51. Mututho J. M. N (PNU)
52. Monda R.O (ODM)
53. Mung’aro G.M (ODM)
54. Mungatana D.M (NARC -KENYA)
55. Munyaka V.K
56. Muoki I.M (ODM-K)
57. Muoki D.M (ODM-K)
58. Mureithi E.K (PNU)
59. Murgor J.R (ODM)
60. Musyimi M. (PNU)
61. Mwadeghu T.L
62. Mwahima M.M (ODM)
63. Mwaita S.S.K (ODM)
64. Mwakulegwa D.M
65. Mwangi B.C Muturi (SISI KWA SISI)
66. Mwatela A.C (ODM)
67. Mwathi P.M (FORD-P)
68. Mwaura D.K.N
69. Mwiru A.M.M
70. Ng’ang’a L.N (KANU)
71. Nuh A.N
72. Nyamai C.M
73. Odhiambo A.B (ODM)
74. Ogindo M.O (ODM)
75. Ojaamong S.O (ODM)
76. Okemo C. (ODM)
77. Ombui W.M (ODM)
78. Onyancha C.
79. Rege J.G.K (ODM)
80. Ruteere S.M
81. Rutto I.K (ODM)
82. Sambu B.A.W (ODM)
83. Simiyu D.E
84. Waibara C.K (PNU)
85. Waititu F.N (PNU)
86. Wambugu C.M
87. Washiali B.J (ODM)
88. Were D.A (ODM)
NOMINATED
89.Abdalla S. (ODM-K)
90. Affey M.A (ODM-K)
91. Noor S.A (ODM)
92. Sirma M.C (ODM)
93. Yakub M.D.M (ODM)
Click to access Mps+against.pdf
MPs who voted for the local tribunal Bill (Ayes)
1. Kibaki Mwai (PNU)
2. Ababu Namwamba (ODM)
3. Abdikadir M.H
4. Abu Chaiba (PNU)
5. Ali M.M
6. Anyang Nyong’o (ODM)
7. Anyanga P.O.E (ODM)
8. Anyango Pollyns Ochieng (ODM)
9. Baiya P.N (PNU)
10. Balala Najib (ODM)
11. Baya Francis (ODM)
12. Bett Franklin (ODM)
13. Bifwoli Sylvester (PNU)
14. Dache J.P (ODM)
15. Duale B. A (ODM)
16. Gesami J.O
17. Githae Robinson (PNU)
18. Godhana D.G (ODM)
19. Gumbo Nicholas (ODM)
20. Gumo Fred (ODM)
21. Haji Yusuf (Kanu)
22. Jeffah Ammerson Kingi (ODM)
23. Kabando wa Kabando (Safina)
24. Kajembe Ramadhan (ODM)
25. Kamama Asman
26. Kariuki M.W
27. Karua Martha (PNU)
28. Kenneth Peter (PNU)
29. Kenyatta Uhuru (Kanu)
30. Keya A.M
31. Khang’ati Alfred (ODM)
32. Khaniri George (ODM)
33. Kilemi Mwiria (PNU)
34. Kilonzo Mutula (ODM-Kenya)
35. Kimunya Amos (PNU)
36. Kinyanjui L (PNU)
37. Kioni Jeremiah (PNU)
38. Kipkorir W.C (ODM)
39. Kiunjuri Mwangi (PNU)
40. Koli J.N
41. Kosgei Sally (ODM)
42. Kosgey Henry (ODM0
43. Kuti Mohamed (Kanu)
44. Lekuton Joseph (Kanu)
45. Magara Omingo (ODM)
46. Maina Ephraim
47. Mathenge Esther (PNU)
48. Mbarire Cecily (PNU)
49. Mbiuki J. M.K
50. Metito Katoo (Kanu)
51. Michuki John (PNU)
52. Mohammed I.E
53. Mohammed M.M
54. Mudavadi Musalia (ODM)
55. Mugo Beth (PNU)
56. Munya Peter (PNU)
57. Munyes John
58. Muriithi N (PNU)
59. Murungi Kiraitu (PNU)
60. Musyoka Stephen Kalonzo (ODM-K)
61. Mwakwere Chirau (PNU)
62. Mwangi D. W
63. Mwau Harun (PICK)
64. Ndambuki Gideon (ODM-K)
65. Ngilu Charity (NARC)
66. Ng’ong’o J.M
67. Ngugi
68. Nkaissery Joseph (ODM)
69. Ntimama William (ODM)
70. Nyongesa Paul Otuoma (ODM)
71. Obure Charles (ODM)
72. Odinga Raila Amolo (ODM)
73. Oginga Odinga (ODM)
74. Ojode Joshua Orwa (ODM)
75. Olweny Peter (ODM)
76. Omollo Cyprian (ODM)
77. Ongeri Sam (Kanu)
78. Onyonka Richard (PDP)
79. Oparanya Wycliffe (ODM)
80. Orengo James (ODM)
81. Otieno Dalmas (ODM)
82. Phoghisio Samuel (ODM-K)
83. Rai Gonzi (Ford People)
84. Ruto William (ODM)
85. Saitoti George (PNU)
86. Sambili Hellen (ODM)
87. Sasura Hussein (Kanu)
88. Shaban Naomi (Kanu)
89. Shitanda Soita (New Ford-K)
90. Sugow Aden (Kanu
91. Thuo George (PNU)
92. Warungongo Nemesius (PNU)
93. Wekesa Noah PNU)
94. Wetangula Moses (Ford Kenya)
95. Yinda Edward (ODM)
96. Abdalla Amina (Kanu)
97. Leshomo Maison (PNU)
98. Odhiambo Alfred (ODM)
99. Nyagah Joseph (ODM)
100 Nyamweya George (PNU)
101 Shebesh Racheal (ODM)
Click to access mps+for.pdf