faker than the fake one
written by Timothy Wainaina , November 28, 2007

First of all this documents reads as a damage limitation exercise.

On the other hand, NAMLEF a national umbrella platform of all leaders of Muslim organizations desires to see our country Kenya as a just, harmonious, peaceful and a prosperous nation based on good governance, constitutionalism and the rule of law, pro-poor policies, enhanced democratic space and where Kenyans effectively participate in shaping there destiny and the positive upliftment of the status and welfare of Muslims in Kenya and the correction of historical and structural injustices and marginalization meted on the Muslim through deliberate policies and programmes.

In entering into this agreement, NAMLEF and the Muslim community in Kenya recognize the fact that president Mwai Kibakis government has meted out calculated, deliberate, unprecedented discrimination, intimidation and harassment of sections of Kenyans, including the Muslims. NAMLEF and the Muslim in Kenya desire to see an end to this.

This is very clearly campaign language from Orange House and not from NAMLEF. It is a little too obvious in the way it seeks to turn NAMLEF into a spokesperson for all Kenyans. Pity.

Secondly, this document was a rushed job, try to put it through word and see how many errors there are in it. Someone quickly bashed it together, a bundle of inanities and published it for the consumption of the gullible.

C. This MUO is made in utmost good faith
E II. Accord NAMLEF both an advisory and partner role in his government on all muslin affairs.
E III where Kenyans effectively participate in shaping there destiny
E IV violations and discrimination under the guise of whatsoever,as has specifically been witnessed by the Muslim community in the pasty
F. NMALEF as a credible national........Hon Raila Odinga as a dible national leader

Now as someone who has worked on MoU's in the past, I can tell you that this one was not drafted by a lawyer, it was not looked over by more people than the one who typed it out, was not even spell-checked. There are so many errors in it, it is far too vague and seems intentionally designed for the mollification of the Kenyan Christian reader rather than as an MoU. If Raila did read it before he signed it then Kenyans must be very wary of his ability to stand in their place, to sign documents for them. Did his lawyers go over it before he signed it?

This document is a fake.

UKWELI MTUPU
written by SMwangi , November 28, 2007

Thank you for the information. It is so true. Raila is desperate to win the presidency but kenyans must not give him the time and space. That MOU read like an ODM advert. Keep up the good work.

...
written by aeichener , November 28, 2007

It might be a fake. But if so, it is at least a better one than the hilarious previous fake.

More likely however is that a written MoU did not exist at all, in the very first place, and that this document was now rapidly cobbled together to placate the public.
(The third, less likely alternative would be that the *real* MoU exists but still remains secret, and the presently presented version has only been slapped together in haste and hurry as a propaganda text, to placate the public because they would not believe - version 2 - that such a document does not exist)

Alexander

taqiya
written by emmo opoti , November 28, 2007

More likely however is that a written MoU did not exist at all, in the very first place, and that this document was now rapidly cobbled together to placate the public.
Alexander

This is actually the least likely thing, and more than that you are the only person in the world who believes this. The very words MoU demand an actual document.

A legal document outlining the terms and details of an agreement between parties, including each parties requirements and responsibilities.

If there was even the slightest idea in the Kenyan conscious that an MoU could be but a written document, Raila and the NAMLEF would simply make up a story the day after the Nakuru debacle, there would after all be no refuting their account right? Remember also that the very first thing the NAMLEF youths did when Raila was reported/mis-reported for having made this MoU was to state that they had been witnesses to him and Balala signing it.

ubaguzi
written by Amir Ibrahim , November 28, 2007

Well, even were we to accept this as the real thing, I still insist that there must be no MoUs with religious groups. None at all.

...
written by aeichener , November 28, 2007

I love your judicious (and snide) way of inserting the taqqiya concept into the discussion. :-) Very apt when matters islamic are concerned (I can hear the orthodox sunnis protest; yet many Kenyan muslimin are indeed shi'ites).

I agree that the word memorandum of understanding demands a written form, as to conserve for memory. However, a wrong use of terms would certainly be more expectable here than a correct one. That talks between Raila and one muslim group were held, has been acknowledged by both parties. Such talk must not necessarily result in a written pact. Indeed, it will often be wiser that they don't.

If something was signed at the time however, then it is very doubtful that it would have been the same as the present proganda paper.

Alexander

Thanks for the Information
written by Masaa , November 28, 2007

This is very comprehensive, well thought information.
I will surely pass it around for further discussion. Keep up the good work.

I\'m with emmo
written by cirdan , November 28, 2007

Alex, it seems reasonable to expect the MOU to have been written, if only because, as Raila has proved, politicians will deny anything inconvenient.

But if the MOU was written, and was this innocuous, then it is would have been mad not to have publicised it at the time the story first broke. Since it was not publicised, it was not, almost certainly, not as innocuous as this document. Emmo is onto something, even though there was no need to use th t-word.

...
written by Kamale , November 28, 2007

My view is that apart from this document being a fake, the press conference and Raila's subsequent statement only plays the fool on us, and I think we are all too smart to see right through this. Here is my response to Onyango Oloo in Jukwaa after he published the article in his forum:
Oloo,
I am honestly disturbed that you can actually post this rubbish from Raila and actually believe that what he says is true. You see, I told you earlier that the previously circulated MoU was a fake, and I am even more convinced that the one circulated yesterday is an even worse fake and I have written elsewhere why I think it is a fake. Now it seems that this statement by Raila was intended to complete the choreography of trying to get him out of the hot soup.

He claims to be witness to an MoU that was signed in 2002. Was it signed with NAMLEF and how come no other Muslim entity including NAMLEF that has been studiously silent about the MOU talked about the 2002 one. From a propaganda point of view, that SHOULD have been Raila's plank all along. But between 29th August and 27th November no one told us about a Kibaki MOU signed by Kibaki and witnessed by Kalonzo Raila and Balala in the presence of Wamalwa and Ngilu. You see, now the pressure will be on Kibaki and Kaonzo to talk about the MOU of 2002 and if they DENY and ask Raila for proof, then you can imagine how much damage it will do the man.
In fact I am increasingly not convinced about this 2002 MOU signed in Mombasa at Nyali Beach by Kibaki;just before the elections;. I actually looked up some dates and I would like anyone with the details to fill out some missing dates as I do not think this thing is right:
23rd October 2002 - Rainbow coalition turns into NARC at Hilton Hotel.
25th October 2002 - Moi dissolves parliament
8th November 2002 - Raila addressing Kenyans in Maryland in the US
18th November 2002 - Presidential nominations and NARC rally at Uhuru Park
19th Nov - 21st November 2002 no reports of any NARC leaders activity in coast province.
22nd November - Parliamentary nominations.
28th November - Kikambala terrorist attack. None of NARC summit members in Mombasa. Only Mudavadi flies into the area as Moi is in US on official visit. At this time Oloo suggests that it is possible that the attack on Kikambala was tied to the elections on 27th December 2002.
3rd December 2002 - Kibaki has his famous car accident coming from campaigning in Ukambani where he had been for two days.
4th December 2002 - Kibaki is flown to the UK for further treatment.
8th December - Wamalwa is admitted to same hospital as Kibaki suffering from 'gout'.
15th December - Kibaki returns home from UK.
18th December - Kibaki addresses first press conference since return from UK.
24th December - Khelef Khalif talks of promises by the NARC government promising more jobs and devolution for Muslims - notably no mention of an MoU and certainly Muhuri (Muslims Human Rights Organisation) was not part of NAMLEF.
27th December - Kibaki votes in Othaya.
What I have done is dig up events from the day NARC was formed to the election date and track up Kibaki's movements up to his accident to see if infact he could have been party to an MoU with some Muslims calling themselves NAMLEF. Perhaps someone can go a step further and fill in the dates I am missing that would have Kibaki in Mombasa in the company of Raila, Kalonzo, Wamalwa, Ngilu and Balala all together in Mombasa for a campaign function where such an MOU could have been discussed and signed. I am not even for a moment looking for a news report suggesting that it was signed...just a report that would indicate that between 23rd October 2002 and 27th December, an MOU was signed with NAMLEF in the first instance and if this is not true, with any OTHER Muslim organisation. I have scoured the media reports of those days and cannot find anything.
As Raila misquotes the Bible, Thou shalt not LIE. Now help me find this truth!!!

Opinion
written by InSidious , November 28, 2007

I point to differ with some of your comments, 'Emilio sir'. First, this is an independent forum and as such, your opinion(s) are welcome. Second, i might not be on the PNU bandwagon but it has been an unwritten rule to display some etiquette and restrain and therefore i couldn't disagree with you more; Furthermore, I doubt you are the barometer on intellect.

That said, memoranda's don't vote, people do and I fail to see why PNU adherents are clinging on to any indication of a misstep in the Raila Camp to smear it as they deem fit.

I must remind my colleagues that we can go back and forth on issues however a significant electorate lacks access to the internet and money to purchase newspapers. Most are simplying trying to live. These are the folks to whom spin means little else than a nuisance.

Take a cue.

Mr Emilio....
written by Masaa , November 29, 2007

please note the following:
If you think this site is boring, why don't you go elsewhere, somewhere you will feel entertained?
Secondly, since you are the one purporting, that we argue on facts, dare I say PNU has brought more facts to the table than ODM to this date and in any case, why don't you bring up an argument based on facts and we will argue together with you?
Thirdly, the reason why the MOU has been discussed at length is because of the mere fact that it touched and still does touch a raw nerve. The allegations on the REAL MoU were issues that would have (still could depending on the outcome of the election) affected the lives of many especially coast province so to dismiss it as a small issue is utter folly.
Raila made a big mistake signing that MoU and it is only logical that a political opponent will exploit that.
ODM has been talking about the Raila- Kibaki MoU forever......now have a taste of your own medicine and learn to accept criticism....
call me what you like but I am also a PNU sympathiser and that is no secret and also willing to argue in an amicable way.
I am ready to argue with you on facts and this is just one of them.
have a nice day all the same..

...
written by Omwami , November 29, 2007

Don't you guys have anything good to talk about than waste your precious time discussing some useless MOUs. Who cares if the MOU that was released yesterday is authentic or not. All Kenyan care about is there daily survival, not some MOUs. Like or not Kenyans are ready for change. Like him or hate him, Raila is going to be the 4th president of the Kenya.

This is a Fake MOU
written by cogni , November 29, 2007

I thought the original MOU was a fake because it was too amateurish. That was unti I saw what Raila and NAMLEF have produced as the "Real MOU". This MOU they have released looks like a hurriedly put together substitute

just being us
written by Beast , November 29, 2007

the thought of how trivial we are as kenyans and how of short memories we do our voting we should all be apalled and shut up for the idea around is not to get the best for the nation,why is such a document which wont add you ugali to your plate be an issue and nto the corruption and larcency that characterises our politics?
i am shocked but not so for am kenyan we dont know what we want!!

Begging the Question
written by Advocatus Diaboli , November 29, 2007

The real one is the one in circulation is it? Comedy kweli.

...
written by sema , November 29, 2007

Where is Tony Gathungu get this document from? that is the question!

...
written by Timothy Wainaina , November 29, 2007

You ostriches keep moving on, a little difficult with your head in the sand but the MoU is not moving on. The charlatan and his hairy butt are exposed once and for all.

The real tragedy is that the Kenyan Muslims have to suffer for the foolishness of NAMLEF. We may express surprise about the reports in the Catholic paper describing this as showing preferential treatment for Muslims but it is a bare fact that any agreement that is signed with one section of Kenyans. and not the other is noxious to our attempts at national unity. Kenyans are inured against the use of linguistic clusters as bargain chips but what it seems the nation has refused to countenance is the suggestion that a politician, any politician can in darkness make a deal with a religious group.

The fanatics on may refuse to see the reality, but there is a reason why some Muslims, Amir Ibrahim- the Secret MoU and SupKem have put as much distance between themselves and this arrangement as possible. Now I do not know why that is so difficult to understand, but would ODM not have been best served by just shutting up about the MoU? Seriously, this story had started dying down, now it will take legs all the way to way past election day.

Advocatus Diaboli,
You are taking your moniker a little too far. Are you suggesting that your usually sagacious self believes this to be the real document?

re:
written by a guest , November 29, 2007

Where is Tony Gathungu get this document from? that is the question!

Where do you think?

A can of worms
written by pndiangui , November 29, 2007

As Wainaina, says Raila has just opened another can of worms that has possibility of reducing his support in social arenas where Bishop Wanjiru could have assisted. Not even enough, his strategy to open up a war of words with the 'men of cloth' is a dangerous route to take even though in Kenya tribal inclinations override religion bias.
But again nothing surprises me of Odinga's rhetoric these days.
The Kibaki Government has been boasting that since it took over in 2002, over 1,000 kilometres of roads have been tarmacked, but the truth is that not even an inch has been done in Muslim dominated areas Raila said.
Now, this is a sweeping statement made in the heartland of Muslim dominated area to seek sympathy votes of ignorant wananchi. Raila was minister for Roads for 3 year charged with budget allocation and execution of roads projects, if surely we dont have an inch of Roads in what he calls 'Muslim' areas, how can he alienate himself from this blame? Going deeper, havent I seen allocation of over 8 billion shillings for NEP and Coast for roads? Except the usual divide and popularize politicking I see very minimal facts in Raila's campaign either.

Do not speak on my behalf
written by New Day , November 29, 2007

Dear contributors,
What do some of you mean when you begin your sentences with 'Kenyans should' do/not do this and that? Who gives some people the prerogative to caution/threaten in the name of advice, which no one has asked for? If you are writing in response to the author's comments, kindly stick to your opinions and desist from running to hide under the 'kenyans' blanket.

Your message is better understood when it stands by its own facts based on your own research, instead of thinking that by alluding to the 'Kenyans' mantra your analysis wins majority support. Personally I can make my own judgements from what I see, hear and read and do not need anyone reminding me that since am a kenyan I should be like this and that.

Quoting Timothy Wainaina: 'If Raila did read it before he signed it then Kenyans must be very wary of his ability to stand in their place, to sign documents for them'. - I must say that this statement and others like it would do with editing as well, before it is put to post. New Day.

...
written by kariuki , November 29, 2007

An understanding doesn't to be written. I belive the MOU and I think it is ok to Muslims and has no harm to other Kenyans.

After all which politician says the truth- whether Raila or Kibaki.

This MOU thing is what was holding me from casting my lot with Raila now I have made up my mind like quite a number of other christian friends form Mt. Kenya Region.

how shocking!!
written by Dee , November 29, 2007

It is amazing that none of us, arguing and frothing at the mouth, were present at the signing of this M.O.U yet we dare claim to question its authenticity. Why dont we work with what they have provided as the real MOU? Now the wikileaks website, same website that unveiled the infamous kroll report, analysed this supposed "true" MOU and referred to it as "HIGHLY LAUGHABLE"..to think the arguments involved closing down of pork factories, stopping crusades, and all other nonsense it contained cannot be carried out by any president, even with the current constitution, any implementations will have to be constitutionally implemented, do you think sane kenyans can agree to implement such nonesense, ans is NO..please feel free to check out this site for intelligent & well informed contributions on the issue!!
My question to you is, Isn't the heat caused by the MOU purely about the muslims? It is sad that we treat our muslim brothers and sisters as terrorists and refugees in their own soil!!!

Two fakes in sequence
written by aeichener , November 29, 2007

Dee, that is indeed a rhetoric question if there ever was one.

Indeed, the heat caused by the two fake MoUs is not about muslimin and muslimatun. It is about politicians trying to divide Christian and muslim Kenyans, and about privileging one group to the exclusion of all others.

What Raila did (signing a secret and still unpublished political MoU with only one religious faction battling for power with another one) is very problematic in a secular state.

Verily, the second MoU is a fake document, a hastily concocted attempt at damage limitation. But if it _were_ true, then it would be reason for extremely grave concern:

- Firstly, because upholding and following it would be blatantly unconstitutional. And Raila must know that.

- Secondly, because this second fake MoU would be tantamount to a hypothetical MoU between Kibaki and devil-sniffer David Githii from PCEA, wherein Kibaki would solemnly promise to the mad witch-hunters to accept and treat *them* as the unique representatives of Kenyan christianity, to the exclusion of all other churches (Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox etc. etc.). Imagine that!

And yet exactly this is what Raila purports to have done now.

Alexander

re: how shocking!!
written by manta ray , November 29, 2007

It is amazing that none of us, arguing and frothing at the mouth, were present at the signing of this M.O.U yet we dare claim to question its authenticity. Why dont we work with what they have provided as the real MOU? Now the wikileaks website, same website that unveiled the infamous kroll report, analysed this supposed "true" MOU and referred to it as "HIGHLY LAUGHABLE"..to think the arguments involved closing down of pork factories, stopping crusades, and all other nonsense it contained cannot be carried out by any president, even with the current constitution, any implementations will have to be constitutionally implemented, do you think sane kenyans can agree to implement such nonesense, ans is NO..please feel free to check out this site for intelligent & well informed contributions on the issue!!
My question to you is, Isn't the heat caused by the MOU purely about the muslims? It is sad that we treat our muslim brothers and sisters as terrorists and refugees in their own soil!!!

Is it not a surprise and a tragedy of monumental proportions that some of our countrymen and women can espouse and tolerate such naivete as expressed by the above comments? If you cannot question the moral probity and honesty of the leaders you think you deserve, what business do you have complaining if they let you down, as they inevitably will?

Beyond the Controversy
written by Aideed , November 29, 2007

Let me give you want majority of Muslim take on the matter.

1. MoU or not Kibaki is a hard sell to the Muslim
2. MoU or not the current government is yet to adequately address the illegal extraordinary rendition of Kenyans to Ethiopia and elsewhere.

No amount of anti-Raila propaganda will dissuade them from their collective grievance against Kibaki.

It is a simple logic - vote anybody other than Kibaki. Kalonzo's Moi-ism is equally repugnant to most.

Ever wondered where almost every so called church leader who speaks against either Majimbo or the notorious MoU happen to be from somewhere in the vicinity of Mount Kenya?

...
written by Dee , November 29, 2007

First n foremost I would like to inform the source of the pasted MOU on this site...those typograhical errors so proudly brought out by timothy wainana or whatever are clearly not was in the dailies..get your facts right!

As for the Alexanders & mantra rays of this world who have no bearing whotsoever, let me enlighten you..

The politicians only take advantage of the already negative, tribalistic and antagonistic kenyan mindset and work it to their advantage. Therefore desist from blaming the politician for the faults and weaknesses of the kenyan people. And no the leaders i will vote for will not let me down, as the current bunch have!

Secondly,none of the above whatsoevers cared to pay attention to what i said.
HON RAILA ODINGA ON HIS OWN OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OR PRESIDENT CANNOT PASS THE SAID MOU'S WITHOUT THE KENYANS APPROVAL. It will have to be constitutionally passed and we Kenyans are intelligent enough to tell propaganda from the truth. An MOU is a binding, legal contract there is no way upholding an MOU that does not contravene the rule of law can be unconstitutional and the said MOU is legal and constitutional.
And now, if it passed you by i dare ask it again
Isn't the issues muslims or not? the mere fact that the several ills are being overlooked so as to deal with the MOU issues is intself very telling...this i say because it is not only muslims who are marginalised yet this particular group has received attention on their marginalisation than any other group.

Where were the clergy when the less able members of this country pitched tent for days at Nation Centre? and we not mention kuresoi. I really wonder whether the clergy were at all bothered that kenyans were deported out of their country when the same constitutional rights they now vouch for were openly being broken? The opposition has been vocal on these ills. To lie to yourself that it is not about the muslims, is an insult to your own intelligence!!!

We can all choose to feign ignorance, take sides etc the fact of the matter remains. A similar MOU, not same MOU was signed in 2002 with the very same muslims, why the hullabaloo now...??

We must remain secular
written by Nyabs , November 29, 2007

I do hope, for Raila's sake, that this MOU is fake because it is even more damaging than the other fake that has been doing the rounds in the Internet.

Let us just sample two articles of this MOU.

1. That on becoming president, Raila will continue to embrace NAMLEF as his partner of choice, providing support and sustain relations with it and the Muslim community.

2. Accord NAMLEF both an advisory and partner role in his government in all Muslim affairs.

As some of you have clearly pointed out, this document does not pass legal muster. What does it mean by making NAMLEF partner of choice? In what? Running the government? Article II seeks to define partner role and advisory role in the running of Muslim affairs, but is a subordinate article to article I which obliges Raila to embrace NAMLEF as his partner of choice and committing Raila to provide support and sustain support first to NAMLEF and then to the Muslim community.

So, just from the above, NAMLEF is seeking support and preferred status for itself first and then the Muslim community. Talk of a self-seeking MOU!

Now to the constitutional matters. How will Raila provide support to NAMLEF? From his pocket? Because constitutionally, he cannot fund NAMLEF as it is not a constitutionally created office or organization of the Republic of Kenya. He will first need to push this through parliament and the question will be: why should the Kenyan tax payer pay for support to a religious body that they may not belong to and may have no desire to belong to.

NAMLEF wants to be partner of choice in advising our new president come January 2008. The question is: advise him on what? Only Muslim affairs? I doubt. But let us assume that they will only advise him on Muslim affairs. What will prevent them, being partner of choice, to extend the advice to the running of government as seen through the lenses of the Islamic faith?

This raises another issue: by their very name and nature, this is already an exclusionist group, the same way that a group of Christians or Hindus or Buddhist would be exclusionist. Religion by its very nature tends towards dividing people into those in the faith and those who are not of the faith. Why then would the President of the Republic of Kenya, elected and mandated by the Kenyan people to represent their interests and ensure their well being, allow himself to be captive to an exclusionist group that does not represent the views and aspirations of all Kenyans, including Muslims who may not believe in the NAMLEF ideology.

If this is the true MOU ( I hope it is not, but it is indicative that Raila has not come out to disown it as a fake), then Raila has no option but to sign a similar one with all other religious groups( Buddhists, Hindus, Christians etc), animists, atheists, practioners of traditional religion etc. Rest assured that this will be a very messy affair because even among Christians, the beliefs are not the same and the Catholic may demand a different MOU from the Pentecostals etc etc.

In conclusion, signing an MOU with a religious group is a manifestation of total lack of wisdom ( and I am using my words very diplomatically here) in a nation with different belief systems.

I reiterate what I said in an earlier post. Kenya must remain a secular state. Our very survival depends on this.

...
written by emmo opoti , November 29, 2007

New Day said

What do some of you mean when you begin your sentences with 'Kenyans should' do/not do this and that? Who gives some people the prerogative to caution threaten in the name of advice, which no one has asked for? If you are writing in response to the author's comments, kindly stick to your opinions and desist from running to hide under the 'Kenyans' blanket. Your message is better understood when it stands by its own facts based on your own research, instead of thinking that by alluding to the 'Kenyans' mantra your analysis wins majority support. Personally I can make my own judgements from what I see, hear and read and do not need anyone reminding me that since am a Kenyan I should be like this and that.

Take a chill pill, this really is most standard fare. Would you take offence if I said Kenyans want change, or Kenyans want peace? How come you do not take offence at the notion that a group of religion dealers can take it upon themselves to speak in the name of a religious community that includes Ismailis, Arabs, sugar farmers in Kabras, Tea outgrowers in Kapsabet, Nubians in Kibera and so on. Can Raila do no wrong?

Dee said

Why dont we work with what they have provided as the real MOU?

That would mean we were fools would it not?

Aideed,
It really does not matter who speaks against this MoU or what their motivations are. It is not for nothing that SupKem are opposed to this nonsense. We can be sure of one thing, the real victims of Raila and NAMLEFs most irresponsible and selfish act are Kenyan Muslims.

Dee,
Those typos are indeed in every last edition of this document online. Newspaper editors obviously reworked theirs, but this was the first released document.
Very interesting that you should bring up those great acts of hypocrisy. One would then ask why your dear candidate has not yet signed a pact with the disabled, or why he has not signed a pact with the Ogiek. Quite clearly to all but the most obdurate, this document, even this fake one, is a cynical attempt to use Kenyan Muslims to ascend to the Presidency.
Can anyone tell any other reason why the pact had to be secret? Would Kenyans have any less reason to worry if the secret deal was made with Italians or Turks?

Nyabs,
A most perspicacious comment. I believe like you do that either document truly incriminates the ODM candidate, not only for his shocking lack of judgement but also for the callous way he constantly seeks to make political capital out of pitting one Kenyan group against another. Notice the insidious attempt by NAMLEF to supplant SupKem which was traditionally the representative body of Muslims.

raila is the One
written by kiptoo , November 30, 2007

we know PNU in and out we know how They think and rationalize anything and everything about RAILA . they refuse to see simply because he supposedly comes from the wrong side of the house.(Read tribe)

A man can be forgiven for many things but such kind of talk by PNU Propaganda in a country like Kenya is not just wickedness, but a repulsive kind of selfishness that should disgust both you and me. This is the evil of displaced energy at work!

Kenyans are not strangers to this juvenile line of thinking being advanced by such men. And it

...
written by ukweli , November 30, 2007

that is total crap , kenya has seen so many M.O.U signed in the past decade where were this kikuyus and fake church propergandist then where were they when kenyatta wasmessing up everyone in the nation you hypocrites and loudmouthed idiots .
you have refused totally to see the brighter side of life it is not the memorandum that is important it is my klife as a muslim a christian and a pagan that is more important.

ask yourself what has the big boom in economy help me or you with.

stop malingering around bull crap and look at the bigger picture
kibakis goverment has brought double the share of corruption thing are not better school have poor education facilities

i hate the fact that everyone who has something stupid to say has to be a wanaina and wanjohi lets forget all this kikuyu propergated trash and think big

the bigger picture

Of mountains and molehills!
written by Kerich , November 30, 2007

Indeed at this time in the campaign season, it is very hard to separate propaganda from truth. However, it is interesting that people now claim the recently released MOU to be fake. Whether it is the one that was signed before is hard to ascertain as non of us was there but since an MOU is in the public domain, my soul rests in peace as I agreed fully with PNUers that a secret MOU with a religious group is a recipe for disaster post-elections. Now that a form of MOU is out and everyone knows it's contents, the NAMLEF cannot then insist on some strange different version to be implemented later. Indeed, it seems you PNUates have adopted the cry-wolf politics that you so ardently claim are the preserve of ODM.
I really wish I was Raila's adviser because some of these things he does only give his detractors material for propaganda and hysteria as witnessed here on this blog even by educated people. Dirty dirty tricks are being employed by the GoK in the campaigns such as use of APs to distribute hate fliers and use of GOK vehicles of Ministers to ferry crude weapons. I wish for the sake of balance in this blog such other events would be discussed rather than Raila(the Devil) did this and that ad nauseum. It seems to you (people as to us too)your candidate can do no wrong and ours no right. So while you wanna put yourselves on a moral and intellectual pedestal, you are all just as taken in by Kibaki the demagogue as we are taken in by Raila the demagogue.
Introduce a detailed and intelligent argument on the pro's and cons of the free secondary education that PNU swears to become operational starting Jan 08(read a real recipe for disaster and populist rhetoric at its best(the fact that ODM pledges the same notwithstandning)) and maybe I will find some respect for you as debaters with the country's deepest interests at hearts and not people blinded by hatred and fear.

...
written by Kamale , November 30, 2007

Those that support Raila have come with all barrells blazing about the dishonesty. If for a moment we put aside the propaganda war, there is an important question none of them ar answering.

Under normal circumstance, would they agree to such an MOU with a section of a religious grouping? Supposing a council of elders was to sign an MOU with Kibaki to guide him as he reigns over us, would Kenyan react with similar venom?

As I have said before, I think it was wrong for Raila to attempt to sign such an MOU however inoccous it appears to Kenyans. If another grouping decided to trade their votes for an MOU you favour, how would Raila stop them after setting a precedent?

Let us put propaganda as to truth of the MOU aside and look at the consequences of such an MOU.

...
written by The Bigger Picture , November 30, 2007

For someone who seems so keen on people looking at the bigger picture, your comment is incredibly narrow-minded don't you think?

...
written by Amir Ibrahim , November 30, 2007

Kerich,
If that is the real MoU, then it was a criminal waste of ink. You really think that people can take all the effort to sit down and decide that? Sign on that? In contracts is always the question of consideration. So the NAMLEF are choosing to go against their elders, to put the entire Islamic community at risk of a backlash to have Raila give to them what is already theirs by right?
Is this the sort of thing you would be quiet about, even after it was clear that many who previously supported you are now deserting you in large numbers?

...
written by Dee , November 30, 2007

Are we aware that all presidential candidates signed an agreement with UNICEF to protect the childrens rights and secure a future for them? I'm not aware of any uproar!! The MOU was not secret, Raila made it known immediately he signed but you know who's group quickly thought "EUREKA, PROPAGANDA".. now this is response to i dont remember his name who asked why not sign an MOU with the ogieks etc..It is not wrong to sign an agreement to protect a marginalised group, if it bothers you so much go look for mwai, kalonzo, etc and sign a pact with them..this is just propaganda fullstop!!
And who is this who claims the papers edited the real MOU as the original had such errors..PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!

...
written by aeichener , November 30, 2007

Dee, if you have nothing understood at all, then kindly consult with a patient elder who will explain to you, and then come back into an adult discussion. But this was below secondary school level, and unworthy of KI. :-(

falsus in unum, falsus in omni
written by emmo opoti , December 01, 2007

Kerich
It is far from making a mountain out of a molehill. One thing that this scenario captures is the tendency among some politicians to take it all on themselves. If I was a leader in the ODM I would be very offended at having to go about the country having to reassure people about a agreement I was not privy to, and which I think evinces the most callous abuse of power.

This incident also displays that some politicians are not averse to stepping on specific and vulnerable voter segments in their struggle to reach the throne. Kenyan Muslims will be so much the worse for this most irresponsible action.

falsus shmulsus
written by F Otieno , December 01, 2007

So a section of muslims, feeling some kind of oppression sought to air their grievances with the 3 top presidential candidates, how very imprudent of them!
Would one rather they express their disenfranchised angst by blowing themselves up in buses, or perhaps churches, or mosques?

As much as i question the ODM leader's wisdom and intentions for signing this MOU, i see nothing wrong with the MOU itself. In 1960, John F Kennedy then a US senator vying for the presidency, sidned an MOU of sorts with Martin Luther King snr,to change the then oppression of blacks in return for their support. This led to the civil rights act eventually being enacted in the constitution in 1964, which might have even been the cause of his assasination.

Frm Masaa

Secondly, since you are the one purporting, that we argue on facts, dare I say PNU has brought more facts to the table than ODM to this date and in any case, why don't you bring up an argument based on facts and we will argue together with you?

For someone purpoting to argue on facts, i find it thoroughly amusing that you, like this writer, even consider the previous MoU as "real". Who promulgated this document? Where are these knights of valour when kenyans need to be saved from this quandary of the MoUs? This document exists only in the hard drives of some PNU propagandists, period. In a more developed and enlightened kenya, such impish tactics would probably only make for jests in satirical pieces and late night shows.

Amir

If that is the real MoU, then it was a criminal waste of ink. You really think that people can take all the effort to sit down and decide that? Sign on that?

Could it be that the document was left intentionally vague and unedited to make it easier for the ODM leader to refuse implementing it later? Perhaps that is the reason its contents were never made public to begin with?

Kamale
All that baloney about Kibaki's itinerary could have saved the hosts some server bandwith right there, unless of course you obtained it from Emilios aide de camp. Such intricate details of VIPs, you will find, are a little hard to come by using "internet forensics".

He claims to be witness to an MoU that was signed in 2002. Was it signed with NAMLEF and how come no other Muslim entity including NAMLEF that has been studiously silent about the MOU talked about the 2002 one.

I think NAMLEF already made it clear that Kibaki indeed did sign an MoU with them. Besides, i nust have missed the bulletin where u were appointed both PNU and ODM-K spokesman. If they have said nothing about the allegetions, effectively consenting to them, it would be more prudent for you to do the same, lest you embarass yourself later.

the best laid plans
written by Amir Ibrahim , December 01, 2007

F Otieno
A most accurate reaction, except you miss the most important points. The pact was secret and it pledged an entire community's political destiny to the fortunes of a single politician. That is what was wrong with it.
Its being shrouded in secret gave room to all manner of creative bigots and propagandists. Its secrecy ensures that no one will ever believe any harmless document to be the real one, exactly because no one keeps a harmless thing secret, not when they can see it eating away at their support.

One question, if I may. Do you suppose that this MoU won Raila any votes? By all accounts, the votes at the Coast and NEP were already the ODM's even if I cannot understand on what basis. If I was Raila, I should have taken the refusal by SupKem to sign a deal as a sign that I should think twice, before I leapt.

Emmo
I can see that this MoU will cause Raila to lose the election, but I am also aware that many of those affected by this MoU are rank bigots who I should never want to be on the same side with on anything.

65% muslim/Xtians back ODM
written by Mimimzalendo , December 07, 2007

steadman polls today confirmed that 66% of chrsitians and 66% of muslims back raila and ODM.