Robert Mugabe, not guilty. William Ruto, not guilty.
One of the basic tenets that just and democratic governments are founded on is the rule of law.
Justice we hold to be, amongst other things, the right of the individual to a fair trial. The presumption must always remain that prior to and all through the trial, the individual is innocent until, due process followed to its logical conclusion, proven guilty. When the trial is done, the verdict returned, justice, we hold, must be done and seen to have been done.
That is the law, as set up for the just government of men and executed through judicial systems that are and must be seen to be fair and impartial. Yet, in capitalist democracies like Kenya and Zimbabwe, while we hold that all men are equal in the Court of Law, we also know it to be true that not all men are equal in the Court of Public Opinion. Men who are by virtue of their lofty standing in capital, society, and politics can and must - unfair as it may seem - continue to be judged and found guilty in the Court of Public Opinion on the basis of hearsay, slander and unsubstantiated rumour. They remain guilty until, at their own trouble and with the employ of their own devices, they can prove their innocence.
In the Court of Public Opinion, Judge J.Q. Public presiding. In the matter of William Samoei arap Ruto and Robert Gabriel Mugabe KCB versus the People of Kenya and Zimbabwe. The jury, as representatives of the people, finds the defendants guilty of Gross Human Rights Violations and varied acts stated and unstated amounting to war and economic crimes.
The Court of Public Opinion has only one premise: Moral High Ground. The Court takes the Moral High Ground in passing judgement but its jurors need not have any morals. It is a simple and justifiable stance, the high and mighty that the jurors judge are by default bound by the principles of Noblesse Oblige to a moral code that is nothing short of impeccable. The judge and jury in the Court of Public Opinion, on the other hand are mere mortals; the ignorant masses; people whose daily lives are steeped in such savagery that their adherence to a strict moral code can only be at the risk of going to bed (or the every-day-man's equivalent) hungry. The defendants in this court find themselves there because they have chosen, or sometimes through the ill-luck of noble birth been thrust into, a life in the public gaze. They, because they are leaders of men- opinion shapers, trustees of societal values; democratic ideals; piety and even the criminal justice system- must be held up to a more rigorous test; answerable to demands on perfection way above those that the hoi polloi can safely and honestly apply to themselves.
The Court of Public Opinion is never objective and in choosing who to judge and who not to, at any given time, needs not to be seen as so.
William Ruto delivered a massive voting bloc to the ODM camp in Kenya's last general election, Robert Mugabe on the other hand has, without garnering a majority, found the backing of a significant number of Zimbabwean voters. It is true then that Ruto and Mugabe have a huge political following and support base amongst the masses, while uniting a large swathe of the masses and the political class in opposition to them. That is the bane of politics, to be loved and hated in equal measure across the popularity divide. That politicians have their detractors is not an issue then, it is what their detractors say about them that is of the essence. For Ruto and Mugabe, and others of their ilk, what those opposed to them - amongst the masses and not the political class - have to say against them is their, Court of Public Opinion, indictment.
To serve an illustrative point, let us consider the case of one Raila Amolo Odinga, Kenya's presumptive (or designate, if you will) Prime Minister. As there were many millions of Kenyans backing his presidential candidature so were there millions opposed to it. What his detractors had to say in their arguments against him can be reduced to two key points: they cannot be ruled by a Luo - and therefore uncircumcised - man; Raila is power hungry. The weight, rationale or even democratic credence those two arguments bear is neither here nor there, what is important is that none of them allude to or suggest his commission of or complicity in crimes against the people. In the height of political contests and as part of their lives in the public limelight, what is whispered about Raila is worlds apart from what is whispered about Ruto and Mugabe.
As far as economic crimes go, William Ruto's "criminal case filed in 2004 and involving a staggering Sh282 million is before the constitutional court, where Ruto has filed for a constitutional reference ." (Under Kenya's sub judice rule, matters before a court of law cannot be commented on publicly and therefore this article cannot discuss the merits or demerits of the case. It should be noted though that the Court of Public Opinion is not about whether the glove fits or not but whether or not the jury, in their minds eye, chose it to fit or not. In the case of Ruto, where a verdict has not been passed in the criminal case against him, that case continues to be used against him in the Court of Public Opinion. His acquittal in a court of law will not translate into an acquittal in Public opinion. For precedence, please refer to O.J.Simpson v the People of America). Legal technicalities notwithstanding, this charge against him - coupled with his position as Treasurer of Youth for KANU '92, an organisation that the Kenyan public remembers with loathing, distrust, and a dim-eyed glaring at its political and financial operations - serves as Ruto's damning and daunting indictment in the Court of Public opinion.
Robert Mugabe on the other hand has not been brought before Zimbabwean courts for the mounting array of alleged economic crimes levelled against him. But Robert Mugabe is the President of Zimbabwe and thus, just like his Kenyan counterparts, above the law of the land and such dictums of natural justice as demand every individual be held responsible for wilful acts of commission or omission that, while undertaken in the line of duty and in one's capacity as holder of a public office, can be seen to be criminal and or negligent behaviour.
But the allegations of economic malfeasance levelled against both Mugabe and Ruto pale in the light of crimes against humanity and the orchestration of massive human rights violations and activities that border on ethnic cleansing cast against them. Cases in point are the Gukurahundi operations in the Matabeleland and Midlands provinces of Zimbabwe in the early eighties and the ethnic violence that rocked the Rift Valley province of Kenya after the December 2007 General Election. That Mugabe is culpable in the former and Ruto in the later can only remain a matter of conjecture at the moment in the absence of a fair trial. The question that needs to be asked then is: is a fair trial possible?
As I write, the election results in Zimbabwe remain unannounced, and word on the street is that Mugabe's ruling party is bracing for a run-off election: a situation that serves to prolong his hold on power and delay the will of the majority to oust him. Back home in Kenya, a new cabinet is yet to be announced and the lobbying for posts continues apace. A group of parliamentarians have already called a press conference led by Najib Balala (he that wants ODM to isolate Kikuyuland and 'reduce them to an island like Lesotho ') to demand William Ruto's inclusion in the new coalition cabinet. These two positions are not only negotiations for political power but also for freedom from prosecution. It is obvious to anyone that as long as Mugabe stays on as President of Zimbabwe, he cannot be prosecuted for his alleged crimes. In a similar set of circumstances, a cabinet post for Ruto is tantamount to a laundering of his image in the eyes of every Kenyan who thinks him guilty of fuelling parochial feuds to earn a bargaining chip at the National table. A Cabinet seat for Ruto is a way of saying: lets bury these issues, so what if a bunch of peasants are dead, let us just accommodate this and that person for now so that at least we can keep the presidency and the premiership and govern the living for now. For now until the next election and then we start all over again?
The onus is on both Ruto and Mugabe to clear their names, but they cannot do it while continuing to hold national office. Saying that Ruto should not be in the cabinet does not in anyway take away his privilege as a representative of his people. William Ruto remains the elected representative of the people of Eldoret (yes, that Eldoret) North. They chose him because he represents certain qualities to them that the rest of the world outside his constituency cannot question outside of there being evidence that his win in the parliamentary election was not free and fair. But for Ruto to take up a position in the Government of Kenya, to act as an agent, servant and representative of the People of Kenya in any intergovernmental convening, he must clear his name, publicly. On the other hand, Robert Mugabe should do the honourable thing and resign as President of Zimbabwe. His resignation, though, should not be premised on his being availed a safe passage out of that country. Mugabe must resign and remain in Zimbabwe to respond to his accusers. Any option that offers him a safe exit; any country that gives him refuge is an insult and negation of the will and right to justice of the people of Zimbabwe.
__________________________
Njoroge Matathia is a Kenyan writer.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
What they need to do is give th man a job until the time when they have enough proof to take him to a court of law. If theres nothing stopping a minister from being charged with criminal offenses, then that there's no problem. You can see the problem from accusing people based on no proof. It's the same thing that might come to haunt us when Bush attacked Iraq on tramped up charges. That h got away with it, means that any other power can follow suit in the future, otherwise known as setting a bad precedent. Compare what happened to Saddam when he decided to attack Kuwait.