victory by surrender
written by Stephen Wanyama , February 13, 2008

First, the theory that Raila brought freedoms by getting rid of KANU for us is false. The LDP really did not have a choice leaving KANU, and they joined with Kibaki for their good and not his. In a three way horse race between the LDP, KANU and NAK, Kibaki would still have won!!

In any case, as Kamale has argued in another thread, we need to stop lying to ourselves that 2002 was a year when we gained 'freedom'. Political reforms had started from as far back as 1992, we forget do we not that Reddykyulass were mocking Moi way before 2002, do you remember CrossFire on KissFM, pre-2002. Raila and company did no one but themselves any favours in 2002, and that is still their plan today.

What the ODM and their pals in the EU and the UK are trying now, is an attempt at blackmailing Kenya into accepting them in government. Remember this has always been Raila Odinga's Modus Operandi. He used it against Wamalwa, he used it against Musalia, Kalonzo and Ruto. Threats, blackmail, action. Sadly, because we love the baby, we must like the better of Solomon's two mothers, be willing even to give it up, if that means saving it from the ODM. These people are maniacs, if they can allow us our land, our businesses and our human rights, let them have the government.

...
written by newxgate , February 13, 2008

The information about the ethnic makeup of the Court of Appeal is fascinating. Can anyone shed any light on which of the nine were appointed by Moi and which by Kibaki ?

why now
written by observer , February 13, 2008

The Power sharing agreements are designed to spread the spoils amongst our tribal leaders not necessary their followers. If you look at the legislative records of all the major players on both sides you will notice most get an F grade. Why should they start working now when they never have?

Unhelpfully legalistic
written by Daniel.Waweru , February 13, 2008

Muciimi,

That's a slightly legalistic argument.

Neither side is willing to let the other govern alone. The vital element of consensual government, trust, is entirely lacking between the protagonists and their opposing sets of supporters. Both sides, therefore, lack effective legitimacy. Both sides can't acquire effective legitimacy save by force, which would be terribly expensive. So, even if either side had formal legitimacy, they couldn't make it effective at a reaosnable cost. So it makes sense to share power, guarantee effective legitimacy, and try again another time.

The rest of us can hope that both sides will be compelled, by having to share power, to STFU and complete some of the most pressing reforms.

...
written by Mogoka shtim , February 13, 2008

"This tribal composition of the highest court is telling. There is an equal number of Kikuyus and Luos (two each), a major concession on the part of Kikuyus given that there are twice as many Kikuyus as there are Luos in Kenya"

I find problem with this, where does this sort of logic end? might as well apply it in all sorts of official, concession.. *smirk*

re: Spare us the sanctimony!
written by James Watt , February 13, 2008

To Muciimi and ilk, please spare us the moral indignation and sanctimony! The government itself usurped the RULE OF LAW and the TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTION when it STOLE AN ELECTION! After all the burden of proof was on THE GOVERNMENT to abide by the law, so why should the opposition be held to a higher standard?

All this nonsense about both sides stole the election is just that, nonsense! Has the state set itself a BAR SO LOW that it now legitimizes deceit and injustice by claiming the other side is just as compromised?!!!!!!! The first thing the government should have done is institute a swift recount immediately issues were raised, not scurry off and swear in an illegitimate president.

Bottom line the government IS IN NO POSITION TO LECTURE ANYONE ON THE RULE OF LAW, and if the institution of the Executive can steal an election, the country's Judiciary serves as no model of rigorous jurisprudence!

We still operate under the maxim of law which says you are innocent until proven guilty. It's news to me that the government has admitted stealing the election. This argument that the other side stole too is an argument advanced by some PNU supporters, I highly doubt it is the govt. position. As far as I know the govt. maintains that Kibaki won fair and square. Any PNU supporter as indeed any ODM supporter is free to have his or her own opinion on the matter, that does not translate to it being the govt. position. I believe Mr. Musyoka has said that there were flaws in the election, which is hardly news, as there are generally flaws every election. If there were none, no one would be challenging the winners in the courts of law (I'm almost certain, that had the gap between Mwai Kibaki and Uhuru Kenyatta been as close as Kibakis winning margin was in this election, then he'd also have found grounds to say that the election was flawed, in an attempt to squeeze any extra votes. Basically the same thing Al Gore did in the year 2000. Understandably. He was so close). IMO, flaws in an election do not necessarily constitute rigging, as the flaws could result from any number of factors. Clerical errors, officials overwhelmed and exhausted by the task at hand etc. etc. For the government to rig, however, a lot of money would have had to have changed hands, etc. etc. I give the government the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven which is how the rule of law works anyway. The problem with Kenyans is that they have an affinity for mob justice. It's not that hard to lose your life in the streets of Nairobi, because someone shouts Thief! Thief!.

re:
written by Mbatia , February 13, 2008

"This tribal composition of the highest court is telling. There is an equal number of Kikuyus and Luos (two each), a major concession on the part of Kikuyus given that there are twice as many Kikuyus as there are Luos in Kenya"

I find problem with this, where does this sort of logic end? might as well apply it in all sorts of official, concession.. *smirk*

Neither Kibaki nor Kibaki started making claims of GEMA domination. Now that these claims have been made, and are the stated source of violence, I suggest we forge ahead with its logic to its full conclusion. If we are going to do any sharing, it must be based on the ethnic composition of Kenya. That means Kikuyus get their 23 percent, Merus get their 6 percent, Kambas their 11 percent, Kisiis their 6 percent, Kalenjins their 11 percent, Luos their 12 percent, Luhyas their 14 percent, etc. Don't blame me. Blame the logic of your own critique. You should have considered the full consequences before advancing such arguments. GEMA have been making sacrifices to accomodate communities that don't appear to appreciate their contribution. The Court of Appeal should therefore be 23 percent Kikuyu and 6 percent Meru, and 11 percent Kamba, etc. Foolish yes - but that is what you asked for.

re: victory by surrender
written by Mbatia , February 13, 2008

First, the theory that Raila brought freedoms by getting rid of KANU for us is false. The LDP really did not have a choice leaving KANU, and they joined with Kibaki for their good and not his. In a three way horse race between the LDP, KANU and NAK, Kibaki would still have won!!

I agree. Freedom came earlier. Society Magazine became the first publication in Kenya to draw a caricature of President Moi in the early 1990s.

The point I was making is that the Americans, by insisting that the constitution be followed in 1997, forced Raila to reconsider his policy of confrontation and violence. That is how he ended up co-operating with Moi. Not a pretty sight, but from the perspective of evolving a culture of compromise, it was quite noteworthy. But co-operating once does not a consocialist democrat make as we have seen with the recent violence.

The difference between now and 1997 is that in 1997, there was an admonition for aggrieved parties to follow the constitution. Now, we have the quick fix of power sharing, which will probably lead to acrimony in government as happened in the past, besides eliminating the concept of a strong loyal opposition that can check on a government in which both parties are participants.

re: Spare us the sanctimony!
written by Mbatia , February 13, 2008

To Muciimi and ilk, please spare us the moral indignation and sanctimony! The government itself usurped the RULE OF LAW and the TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTION when it STOLE AN ELECTION! After all the burden of proof was on THE GOVERNMENT to abide by the law, so why should the opposition be held to a higher standard?

All this nonsense about both sides stole the election is just that, nonsense! Has the state set itself a BAR SO LOW that it now legitimizes deceit and injustice by claiming the other side is just as compromised?!!!!!!! The first thing the government should have done is institute a swift recount immediately issues were raised, not scurry off and swear in an illegitimate president.

Bottom line the government IS IN NO POSITION TO LECTURE ANYONE ON THE RULE OF LAW, and if the institution of the Executive can steal an election, the country's Judiciary serves as no model of rigorous jurisprudence!

To Muciimi and ilk, please spare us the moral indignation and sanctimony! The government itself usurped the RULE OF LAW and the TENETS OF THE CONSTITUTION when it STOLE AN ELECTION! After all the burden of proof was on THE GOVERNMENT to abide by the law, so why should the opposition be held to a higher standard?

All this nonsense about both sides stole the election is just that, nonsense! Has the state set itself a BAR SO LOW that it now legitimizes deceit and injustice by claiming the other side is just as compromised?!!!!!!! The first thing the government should have done is institute a swift recount immediately issues were raised, not scurry off and swear in an illegitimate president.

Bottom line the government IS IN NO POSITION TO LECTURE ANYONE ON THE RULE OF LAW, and if the institution of the Executive can steal an election, the country's Judiciary serves as no model of rigorous jurisprudence!

You are in serious need of a timeline - a sequence of events as they happened.

As I recall, Kibaki was declared the winner. ODM rejected the results. So who is the aggrieved party here? Who is supposed to complain? How do you complain? With violence?

Two wrongs do not make a right. If PNU stole the election, go to court and prove it. Unless, of course, you have no evidence to back up your claim.

...
written by Sijui , February 13, 2008

"For the government to rig, however, a lot of money would have had to have changed hands, etc. etc. I give the government the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven which is how the rule of law works anyway. The problem with Kenyans is that they have an affinity for mob justice. It's not that hard to lose your life in the streets of Nairobi, because someone shouts Thief! Thief!."

Alas the last refuge of intellectual dishonesty, that inconvenient truth that because the Kenyan Judiciary has not acknowledged malfeasance on the part of the election result, all allegations to the contrary are nothing more than hearsay and conjecture!!!!!!!!

Too bad there is irrefutable evidence that given an impartial Judiciary, as the final arbiter, their judgement would confirm the obvious. The fact that every independent assessor of the election return tallying process, including those physically present have corroborated widespread irregularities on both sides with tangible evidence to boot plus the own admission of the Electoral Chairman and Attorney General that the election results are not fully legitimate is enough evidence to indict the government.

But of course we have to hide behind the circular argument that because this evidence has not been proven before the court of law which is an honest, impartial and reliable arbitrer of justice in Kenya, we have to discount it as supporting proof a stolen election!

...
written by Nyabs , February 13, 2008

Muciimi, a very well written article, and thanks ( because that is how low we have sunk) for the ethnic profiles of the Court of Appeal Judges. With a composition like this, and assuming Raila had the evidence of rigging, there is no way he could have lost.

I have always argued that dismissing the courts out of hand as Raila did was highly irresponsible. Raila should have used this opportunity to showcase the partiality of the law courts. He did not, but instead chose the very convenient mass action, where difficult questions are not asked and allegations are not met with demands for proof.

I have issues with power sharing. One, if everyone gets into government, who will be the opposition, holding the government accountable and keeping it on its toes? Secondly, if Kivuitu had announced ODM as winners, even with the vote stuffing in parts of Nyanza, would ODM have gotten into discussions with PNU on power sharing? I doubt.

I don't want to belabour the point, because others have put it more eloquently that I could ever have. But was precedent are we setting? That when I suspect that I have lost an election, I dismiss the courts, call out the crowds, make parts of the country ungovernable, get into mediation and demand for powersharing?

This is a very dangerous precedent to set.

Addressing this matter of Cour
written by kboit , February 13, 2008

I would also like to commend Muciimi for inciting this assessment of the impartiality/partiality of the Judicial system with respect to the contested general elections. It is certainly a step up from the limited ranting of "Go to court" vs "Courts are impartial" by ODM and PNU without examining the basis of these claims.

The heart of the matter should be addressing the issue of the transparency of the courts. How exactly can we ensure the legitimacy of the courts and independence of tenure from the executive? The real question is not the tribal background of the seated judges but the confidence that they would arbitrate with the highest integrity and without bias.

Spare us the sanctimony!
written by Sijui , February 13, 2008

To Muciimi and ilk, please spare us the moral indignation and sanctimony! The government itself usurped the rule of law and the tenets of the constitution when it stole an election! After all the burden of proof was on the government to abide by the law, so why should the opposition be held to a higher standard?

All this nonsense about both sides stole the election is just that, nonsense! Has the state set itself a bar so low that it now legitimises deceit and injustice by claiming the other side is just as compromised?!!!!!!! The first thing the government should have done is institute a swift recount immediately issues were raised, not scurry off and swear in an illegitimate president.

Bottom line the government is in no position to lecture anyone on the rule of law, and if the institution of the Executive can steal an election, the country's Judiciary serves as no model of rigorous jurisprudence!

Sijui, is this not Muciimi's exact point, that bandying accusations about is not at all helpful. That we would be better off proving things, rather than just throwing accusations about. Eds.

re:
written by newxgate , February 13, 2008

The information about the ethnic makeup of the Court of Appeal is fascinating. Can anyone shed any light on which of the nine were appointed by Moi and which by Kibaki ?

Ok, let me answer my own question. This information, or at least the dates of appointment for these judges, can be found in the Kenya Judiciary website.
Assuming anyone appointed after 2002 was a Kibaki appointment, that makes 5 out of nine appointments. Two Kikuyu, one Luo, one Kamba and one white Kenyan. I suppose if you take the view that anyone Kibaki appoints is a 'crony', you could just about argue that the court is 'packed' since there is a bare majority of his appointments. However that requires a pretty cynical view of judicial independence, especially given the obvious ethnic diversity of the court. I find it hard to believe that all five Kibaki appointments are in his pocket, so to speak, at least without more solid evidence.

Hon. Mr. Chief Justice J.E. Gicheru Date of Current Appointment: March 4, 2003
Hon. Mr. Justice E. O Kubasu Date of Current Appointment: December 23, 1999
Hon. Mr. Justice E.M. Githinji Date of Current Appointment: May 22, 2003
Hon. Mr. Justice P.K. Tunoi Date Date of Current Appointment: April 29, 1993
Hon. Mr. Justice J.W. Onyango Otieno Date of Current Appointment: October 28, 2003
Hon. Mr. Justice R.S.C. Omolo Date of Date of Current Appointment: April 29, 1993
Hon. Mr. Justice S.E.O. Bosire Date of Current Appointment: November 10, 1997
Hon. Mr. Justice Philip Waki Date of Current Appointment: May 22, 2003
Hon. Mr. Justice William Deverell Date of Current Appointment: April 22, 2004

Re: newxgate
written by a guest , February 13, 2008

The link below, which highlights the ethnic diversity in government positions is also very interesting. These are some of the reasons why ODM resorts to useless propaganda lies like "there is tribalism in important ministries". Who decides which ministries are important and which are not? Are agriculture, roads, housing, health, education, energy, etc not important? Picking on 2 or 3 ministries as examples of tribalism is and ignoring all other ministries is plain cheap propaganda.
Link here

Reforms to resolve Kenya crisi
written by mkosakabila , February 13, 2008

Some general advice on how to resolve the crisis, prevent hold outs at the negotiating table, the types and character of violence, and so on can be found here Link here
Plus also some impressions on how the human rights types are now....endangered. Fascinating.

...
written by Mogoka shtim , February 13, 2008

Any reason my post was taken down?

Asking an author to shut up is not exactly an argument. Eds.

...
written by a guest , February 13, 2008

MM: different from a previous excellent article, this time you have not even remotely understood the central point, namely what the suggestion of "power sharing" is at all about.

Hint: transitory.

Alexander

...
written by a guest , February 14, 2008

Guys bury your heads in the sand as much as you can. It will not stop the inevitable.
Re: your comment freedom came 1990 or earlier. Please name those who sacrificed before 1990s(first liberation). Was it Kibaki, Kimunya or Saitoti, Uhuru Kenyatta? Stop kidding me. If you have selective memory, blame yourself.I don't recall anyone mentioning that the judges are GEMA. This is your own argument and it is not relevant. The question raised was that the judiciary was packed with Kibaki cronies. In case you didn't know, that does not equate to same tribe.
It is your right to argue that power sharing is not a solution. But please give us a new perspective not the same recycled story on legalities. Constitution can be revised and Annan has asked that proposals be made law through enactment. What will be your argument if these are enacted? You have not suggested any alternative to the proposed power sharing. Is it because for you a solution is the same just status quo. That the mediation is an exercise in futility.
I suppose PNU supporters believe that if they keep repeating for long enough that Kibaki won, maybe we will start believing them. This strategy has failed so far and international community is getting impatient. The other strategy Kibaki team has in mind is to keep negotiating till 2014. This strategy isn't working either as the noose is closing on such tactics.

The politics of lies and deception is coming home to roost. Honestly if Kibaki and PNU believe strongly that they won fair and square and they believe they have nothing to gain by joining the mediation, then they should pull out of the mediation and state their stand. Let international community deal with them as threatened. After all, heaven is not in foreign lands(but again, heaven is definitely not in Kenya)

re: Reforms to resolve Kenya c
written by aeichener , February 14, 2008

Some general advice on how to resolve the crisis, prevent hold outs at the negotiating table, the types and character of violence, and so on can be found here Link here
Plus also some impressions on how the human rights types are now....endangered. Fascinating.

Eyes wide shut. Fascinating indeed. Madness takes its toll of wear and tear even from the best (and I did indeed count Lynne among the best).

Alexander

re:
written by a guest , February 14, 2008

I don't recall anyone mentioning that the judges are GEMA. This is your own argument and it is not relevant. The question raised was that the judiciary was packed with Kibaki cronies.

What evidence do you have that the five judges appointed in 2003-4 are Kibaki cronies ? Are they his close personal friends ? Business associates ? Or is it just because Kibaki appoints them that they become cronies of his ? And does appointing five out of nine judges in the CA really amount to 'packing' given that it only needs one of the five to break ranks ?

...
written by Peter , February 14, 2008

While progress is made towards a solution that is an alternative to the violence and hatred we have witnessed recently, Muciimi continues to foster hate with a "my side is right and the opposing side is wrong" type of argument. The nation is, as was the election, fairly evenly divided. Compromise means giving a little, and everyone gaining a whole lot more.

Embrace Power Sharing For Keny
written by clifford , February 14, 2008

Muciimi article presents a strong and convincing argument with regard to giving the courts a chance to arbitrate the 2007 presidential election dispute. I'm compelled to recognize his legal knack and a remarkable ability to deliver his perspective.

Having said that, allow me to part ways at this point, to point out the incumbent packs a powerful punch in swaying perceived independent institutions to lean in its favor; more especially, in close contests where it's easy to blur the facts and the evidence into abstraction.

The incumbent compromised the independence of ECK. Kivuitu and four commissioners have gone on record to that effect. My point: It's hard to have faith and confidence in another institution (courts) whose appointments come from the same source, (an overbearing presidency).

Not even parliament as an institution is free from the undue whims of the presidency under the current constitution. I'm not suggesting there is anything illegal with PNU's aggressive lobbying during the speakers election, but considering the aggressive lobbying demonstrated by PNU to the extent that they came very close to clinching the speaker's position, even as ODM has twice as many MPs as PNU, is telling on the sweeping influence of the incumbency.

Part of the reason why Kenya failed to sail smoothly through a "hotly contested election", is because of an inadequate constitution that fails to defend the Kenyan people from the excess powers of the presidency. Given the fact that courts have to work within the constraints of the available constitution, they are ill equipped to solve a problem whose solution has to be, in part, altering the constitution to be at per with the country's needs and expectations.

The current constitution and by extension the court, is like a dam that couldn't hold back a surge of water pressure. The wall caved and buckled, the water followed to flood and cause havoc in the country.

The Kenyan Judiciary has itself to blame for not inspiring confidence among, not just kenyans, but also the international community in handling the most high profile case in Kenya's history. The courts have nothing substantial to their credit with respect to high profile murders and corruption that have largely gone unresolved in Kenya, and this is for lack of conviction and integrity.

The grand coalition government as proposed by Kofi Annan, is aimed at reconciling the Kenyan people and restructuring governance institutions before fresh polls can be held in two years time. Yes, leaders from across the political and ethnic divide have to be forced to work together for the sake of Kenya. In so doing, the citizens will be inspired to do the same. At this point nothing is more important that preventing the country from self destruction, even if it means not having an opposition for two years. After which, the country can carry fresh polls and have a legitimate government, a strong opposition, and governance intitutions that inspire confidence.

wacha uwongo wee
written by Amir Ibrahim , February 14, 2008

The incumbent compromised the independence of ECK. Kivuitu and four commissioners have gone on record to that effect. My point: It's hard to have faith and confidence in another institution (courts) whose appointments come from the same source, (an overbearing presidency).

Kweli, wacha uwongo It is clear that Kivuitu and the commissioners made no such claim. Kivuitu declared surprise at the speed with which the swearing in took place, and he declared like his fellow commissioners that he did not know who won. This is simply an acknowledgement of extensive irregularities and does in no way mean that he knows who won the election, or that he was prevailed upon by an over-bearing president. Like I have asked before, what would people have had Kibaki and Kivuitu do on that fateful day. I mean they both knew that Raila had rigged in Western Kenya and Nyanza (this is what set off the delayed catch-up rigging in Central Kenya), they both knew that Raila had already been declared winner by Musalia, they both knew that Raila's supporters were already rioting, they knew that a precedent for blocking the presidential inauguration had been set in 1997.

By Dennis Onyango
President Mwai Kibaki, then the Democratic Party Presidential candidate, Raila Odinga and Charity Ngilu plotted to scuttle former President Mois swearing-in ceremony after the 1997 General Election, the new biography on Raila reveals.

Are we really surprised that Kivuitu chose to take the easy way out, would it not have been far worse for Kenya had Raila been sworn in that night, and Kibaki the next morning?

Not even parliament as an institution is free from the undue whims of the presidency under the current constitution. I'm not suggesting there is anything illegal with PNU's aggressive lobbying during the speakers election, but considering the aggressive lobbying demonstrated by PNU to the extent that they came very close to clinching the speaker's position, even as ODM has twice as many MPs as PNU, is telling on the sweeping influence of the incumbency.

Kindly do not show off your foolishness on public forums. Everyone in Kenya knows why the speaker election was close. Everyone running on a KANU, Mazingira, Safina, Ford-K, Ford-P, New Ford-K, Shirikisho, etc seat was running in support of Kibaki. Every Kenyan except you knows that. Even more importantly, the government side insisted on secret ballot for the speaker's election, meaning it was relying on conscience, i.e. even if you bribe someone you cannot be sure how he voted can you? On the other hand we did see the champion goon William Ruto stalking MPs and confirming their votes. Remember?

The Kenyan Judiciary has itself to blame for not inspiring confidence among, not just Kenyans, but also the international community in handling the most high profile case in Kenya's history. The courts have nothing substantial to their credit with respect to high profile murders and corruption that have largely gone unresolved in Kenya, and this is for lack of conviction and integrity.

What Muciimi is arguing in his article, is that there is no reason for the ODM to fear the courts, given the fact that it can plead for the bench to sit in such a fashion as would preclude or minimise the opportunity for a corrupt ruling. Further, there would then be an opportunity for Kenyans to see exactly what evidence each side introduced in their favour. The guilty party would be shamed in the court of public opinion, and even their supporters, would see the incontrovertible evidence that their side had committed a fraud.

At this point nothing is more important that preventing the country from self destruction, even if it means not having an opposition for two years.

Something we can both agree on, Thank Heaven!

re:
written by manta ray , February 14, 2008

Alas the last refuge of intellectual dishonesty, that inconvenient truth that because the Kenyan Judiciary has not acknowledged malfeasance on the part of the election result, all allegations to the contrary are nothing more than hearsay and conjecture!

Too bad there is irrefutable evidence that given an impartial Judiciary, as the final arbiter, their judgement would confirm the obvious. The fact that every independent assessor of the election return tallying process, including those physically present have corroborated widespread irregularities on both sides with tangible evidence to boot plus the own admission of the Electoral Chairman and Attorney General that the election results are not fully legitimate is enough evidence to indict the government.

But of course we have to hide behind the circular argument that because this evidence has not been proven before the court of law which is an honest, impartial and reliable arbiter of justice in Kenya, we have to discount it as supporting proof a stolen election!

blah, blah nonsense! Why has Raila gone to the same courts to fight the petition against him by Livondo? How unprincipled can one get? Even more disgusting is the view that people should not question this behaviour but accept it in the name of fighting for the "stolen cow". Such is the folly of our times.
In my view, even if Kibaki may have got into office in questionable circumstances, it is better that he did for God knows what kind of dictatorship ODM would have brought Kenya. The worst kind of dictatorship is one supported, nurtured and defended by intellectuals, as evidenced by the likes of Orengo, Namwamba, Nowrojee, Sijui etc.
God truly loves Kenya.

re:
written by manta ray , February 14, 2008

Guys bury your heads in the sand as much as you can. It will not stop the inevitable.
Re: your comment freedom came 1990 or earlier. Please name those who sacrificed before 1990s(first liberation). Was it Kibaki, Kimunya or Saitoti, Uhuru Kenyatta? Stop kidding me. If you have selective memory, blame yourself.I don't recall anyone mentioning that the judges are GEMA. This is your own argument and it is not relevant. The question raised was that the judiciary was packed with Kibaki cronies. In case you didn't know, that does not equate to same tribe.
It is your right to argue that power sharing is not a solution. But please give us a new perspective not the same recycled story on legalities. Constitution can be revised and Annan has asked that proposals be made law through enactment. What will be your argument if these are enacted? You have not suggested any alternative to the proposed power sharing. Is it because for you a solution is the same just status quo. That the mediation is an exercise in futility.
I suppose PNU supporters believe that if they keep repeating for long enough that Kibaki won, maybe we will start believing them. This strategy has failed so far and international community is getting impatient. The other strategy Kibaki team has in mind is to keep negotiating till 2014. This strategy isn't working either as the noose is closing on such tactics.

The politics of lies and deception is coming home to roost. Honestly if Kibaki and PNU believe strongly that they won fair and square and they believe they have nothing to gain by joining the mediation, then they should pull out of the mediation and state their stand. Let international community deal with them as threatened. After all, heaven is not in foreign lands(but again, heaven is definitely not in Kenya)

Where is the evidence that the judges are Kibaki cronies? Because he appointed some of them? Why are ODM MPs including Raila going to fight election petitions in the same courts? If ODM are as principled as they claim, they should not be practising the kind of hypocrisy we are witnessing.
Kibaki should not succumb to pressure to form a GNU unless it is on his own terms. Would you invite a Black Mamba to dwell in your house, even if it is in another bedroom? Would you ever get a good nights sleep?

re: Embrace Power Sharing For
written by Johnny B. Goode , February 14, 2008

Not even parliament as an institution is free from the undue whims of the presidency under the current constitution. I'm not suggesting there is anything illegal with PNU's aggressive lobbying during the speakers election, but considering the aggresive lobbying demonstrated by PNU to the extent that they came very close to clinching the speaker's position, even as ODM has twice as many MPs as PNU, is telling on the sweeping influence of the incumbency.

Homie Please! This argument is getting annoying. First of all PNU went into the elections in an almost equal patnership with KANU. PNU only fielded candidates in 135 constituencies. Tge rest were fielded by KANU. KANU + PNU have 57 Seats. ODM-K came into the fold , not because of the speakers election but by their own free will, bringing in 16 MPs. 57 + 16 = 73 MPs. Theother seats are occupied by SAFINA - 5. They went into the election supporting Kibaki. Most of them would have hardly been voted in if they were not supporting Kibz. Other parties are Nark-K (4), Ford-K (1), Ford-People (3), DP (2). I have not included the rest because I'm not sure they were in PNU, which btw was a coalition of 18 political parties. One can also note that even though KENDA didn't endorse any side, Chebii Kilimo had said she'd work with Kibaki. KENDA (1) That adds 16 seats to the total of 73. That's a total of 89 seats. I'm almost certain that Sisi kwa sisi which has 2 seats from Central was also there. I"m also certain that New Ford K (2) was also in the coalition. Do the math.

Speaking of courts. A fair parallel has been made of the US elections in 2000. The court was arguably packed with Bush cronies. (5 judges were appointed by republican presidents). The state in contention was headed by George W. Bush's brother and the secretary of state who certified the results was a Bush campaign manager. Yet Gore went through the court system and accepted the verdict, which coincidentally went against him. I would have wished the kenyan courts would have given their chance to show what they are made of. This distrust of ones own brothers and rushing to foreigners/assuming extra constitutional means of resolving disputes will not be good for Kenya in the long run. Plus the process would have been under severe scrutiny from Kenyans as well as from the International community. Had the process not been transparent, then ODM would have then been justified to result to other non-violent means to achieve justice. Not only does ODM not want to go to court but they are railing against a petition filed by a private citizen is baffling. Yet they have filed with zeal petitions against PNU MPs. Why are they wasting their money, if they argue that the courts are partial. Will they be any less partial in the parliamentary races?

...
written by a guest , February 14, 2008

Speaking on another issue, it has been suggested that Kenya becomes a parlimentary democracy. If that be the case, then the constituencies need some serious revisions. Here is the current representation per province.

1. North Eastern 1 MP represents 28,697 People
2. Coast I MP represents 56,108 People
3. Nyanza 1 MP represents 63,801 People
4. Western 1 MP represents 65,202 People
5. Eastern 1 MP represents 65,997 People
6. Rift Valley 1 MP represents 68,551 People
7. Central 1 MP represents 75,393 People
8. Nairobi 1 MP represents 159,377 People.

Constituencies would probably have to be readjusted every 5 years to respond to population changes.

Response
written by clifford , February 14, 2008

I'm well aware of PNU's friendly parties that went into the election as partners, as I'm aware of those parties that jumped on the PNU's band wagon after monetary bribes and promises to be absorbed into the many cabinet positions, because for one, PNU didn't have enough MPs to fill the available ministerial and assitant-ministerial posts. My point is: there is a pool of SPPG MPs that has 35 members and PNU managed to get twenty-nine of those into its fold, because of the carrots and trappings that come with whoever is in charge of the instruments of the state. It's quite obvious that PNU would not hesitate to use the said instruments in tilting the court's verdict in their favor.

In 1992 and 1997 elections, petitions were filed by Matiba, and Kibaki respectively, yet the proffered examination of evidence was not adequately executed in a manner that would have inspired confidence in the courts to arbitrate the 2007 presidential election dispute.

The logic that Raila should seek redress in court because ODM parliamentary losers have taken their grievances to court, lacks substance and ignores the glaring disparity in not just the weight but significance of the presidential position over that of a parliamentary seat. No justice is appointed by any member of parliament or minister, members of parliament don't carry sweeping clout as to influence the court's verdict using threats of dire consequences against the justices, should they fail to deliver a verdict in their favor. The president does, and the people around him won't hesitate swing the weight of the incumbency, as Kivuitu came to learn to his dismay, in his revelation on how the government pressured him, yet he's supposed to carry his duties without duress.

Kenya has been met with a rare opportunity, albeit at a costly price, to restructure its institutions and solve catastrophic grievances that would otherwise remain a time bomb, if left unresolved.

name please
written by Stephen Wanyama , February 14, 2008

It would be nice if people wrote with their names or a handle rather than just as anonymice. Either way your point is an important one, and one that totally kills off the myth of domination by Kikuyus or whatever it is the ODMers love to preach.

Now, I believe that Rift Valley number is inflated quite a bit by a few outliers with large numbers of wananchi in them, like Nakuru for example, 1.2 m for 6MPs. Elsewhere, Meru Central District has 500,000 people, as do Kisumu and Siaya, Baringo has 250,000, Bomet has 390,000, West Pokot, 300,000, they have 3 MPs each. Koibatek has only 140,000 and enjoys the service of 2MPs. God only knows how oppressed the people of the Rift Valley are.

switch it on
written by Amir Ibrahim , February 14, 2008

Clifford, weka wattage! Tafadahli bwana, only one party was running on a pro-ODM ticket and even that one not very strictly as Raila had made very clear that he did not want non-ODM MPs. This is why even people like Rose Buyu in Kisumu Town West lost the election, in spite of their popularity.

We know, for a fact that all the Mazingira, CCU, CCM, Safina, Ford-K, New Ford-K, Ford-P, Shirikisho, and so on MPs were running on anti-ODM platforms. Do you remember that Jirongo was kicked out of ODM by Henry Kosgei? The truth is even people like Kilimo defected from ODM, and the people knew this as they voted.
I really do not get why you think people would not vote for Kaparo? As you have been asked above, how would anyone know who an MP had voted for in a secret ballot. Which of the two sides asked for a secret ballot? Which side wanted people to vote on conscience and not on intimidation?

The president does, and the people around him won't hesitate swing the weight of the incumbency, as Kivuitu came to learn to his dismay, in his revelation on how the government pressured him, yet he's supposed to carry his duties without duress

Are you with the Kenyan media? I suppose that English is not exactly your strong point.
Firstly, Kivuitu said quite clearly that the pressure that was applied on him was applied in public, in front of the Television cameras, it was not done in secret. So unless you saw Kibaki there, I do not know what you are talking about. Secondly, it was simply a change of positions on the ODM's part after they had seen the tide shift against them. Dishonest people like you will try to forget that the ODM had already announced that Raila was the next president. Now, chappie, in English, that is what we call real pressure on the commission.

re: Response
written by a guest , February 14, 2008

I'm well aware of PNU's friendly parties that went into the election as partners, as I'm aware of those parties that jumped on the PNU's band wagon after monetary bribes and promises to be absorbed into the many cabinet positions, because for one, PNU didn't have enough MPs to fill the available ministerial and assitant-ministerial posts. My point is: there is a pool of SPPG MPs that has 35 members and PNU managed to get twenty-nine of those into its fold, because of the carrots and trappings that come with whoever is in charge of the instruments of the state. It's quite obvious that PNU would not hesitate to use the said instruments in tilting the court's verdict in their favor.

In 1992 and 1997 elections, petitions were filed by Matiba, and Kibaki respectively, yet the proffered examination of evidence was not adequately executed in a manner that would have inspired confidence in the courts to arbitrate the 2007 presidential election dispute.

The logic that Raila should seek redress in court because ODM parliamentary losers have taken their grievances to court, lacks substance and ignores the glaring disparity in not just the weight but significance of the presidential position over that of a parliamentary seat. No justice is appointed by any member of parliament or minister, members of parliament don't carry sweeping clout as to influence the court's verdict using threats of dire consequences against the justices, should they fail to deliver a verdict in their favor. The president does, and the people around him won't hesitate swing the weight of the incumbency, as Kivuitu came to learn to his dismay, in his revelation on how the government pressured him, yet he's supposed to carry his duties without duress.

Kenya has been met with a rare opportunity, albeit at a costly price, to restructure its institutions and solve catastrophic grievances that would otherwise remain a time bomb, if left unresolved.

The SPPG. Muites little brain child of making himself king. Do you honestly think the MPs from central would have ever have been able to step into their constituencies had they gone against Kibaki. And what a pack of thieves they'd have been if having been elected partly because they were on Kibakis side, they then go to set their own agendas having gotten elected.

The president doesn't operate in a vacuum. He needs MPs to set his agenda as well make sure he is not thrown out by a vote of no confidence, for example. So the president has a vested interest in ensuring that the MPs on his side are not stripped of their status by courts of law. If he is so overbearing and powerful then it can be argued that the process would not be much fairer as the president is partisan and he appoints the judges. Also he might use his huge overbearing power to make sure that the opposition MPs including one Raila Amolo Odinga are sent home packing. In a number of those seats like Starehe, the govt. would have a good shot at capturing the seats. Which is why ODM on principle should also insist on mediated settlement for these seats also.

Kiviuti. As I recall in one of those obscure interview that this man gave. The pressure he was talking about was the one we witnessed on TV. And why did he leave ODM out of it. Those folks were screaming at the top of their lungs, virtually making any normal transaction of business impossible.

re: name please
written by Johnny B. Goode , February 14, 2008

It would be nice if people wrote with their names or a handle rather than just as anonymice. Either way your point is an important one, and one that totally kills off the myth of domination by Kikuyus or whatever it is the ODMers love to preach.

Now, I believe that Rift Valley number is inflated quite a bit by a few outliers with large numbers of wananchi in them, like Nakuru for example, 1.2 m for 6MPs. Elsewhere, Meru Central District has 500,000 people, as do Kisumu and Siaya, Baringo has 250,000, Bomet has 390,000, West Pokot, 300,000, they have 3 MPs each. Koibatek has only 140,000 and enjoys the service of 2MPs. God only knows how oppressed the people of the Rift Valley are.

Sorry About that Stephen, I put the the stats up.

re: Response
written by Daniel.Waweru , February 14, 2008

Clifford

In 1992 and 1997 elections, petitions were filed by Matiba, and Kibaki respectively, yet the proffered examination of evidence was not adequately executed in a manner that would have inspired confidence in the courts to arbitrate the 2007 presidential election dispute.

You're mistaken here. Kibaki vs Moi was litigated, and eventually decided in a relatively timely way. (In Moi's favour on the terrifyingly narrow ground of failure to personally serve the petition on respondent).

The logic that Raila should seek redress in court because ODM parliamentary losers have taken their grievances to court, lacks substance and ignores the glaring disparity in not just the weight but significance of the presidential position over that of a parliamentary seat. No justice is appointed by any member of parliament or minister, members of parliament don't carry sweeping clout as to influence the court's verdict using threats of dire consequences against the justices, should they fail to deliver a verdict in their favor. The president does, and the people around him won't hesitate swing the weight of the incumbency, as Kivuitu came to learn to his dismay, in his revelation on how the government pressured him, yet he's supposed to carry his duties without duress.

This might be a valid point except for the fact that a presidential candidate must also win a parliamentary seat. Raila is willing to go to court to defend an electoral petition that could disqualify him from being a viable presidential candidate. It's difficult to see, therefore, why he is unwilling to litigate the presidential election. Nor is he compelled to accept a Kenyan bench: Museveni proposed a bench made up of eminent Commonwealth judges, none kenyan.

Independently of the result, the assessment of the evidence (PNU's and ODM's) by an impartial tribunal would have been extremely valuable.

Disagree With Respect
written by clifford , February 14, 2008

Amir Ibrahim, I can confidently assure you, you're no match for my english prowess. It's a pity that you can't present your perspective without bolstering it with baseless and irrelevant personal attacks.

I still stand by my argument that the president and especially his handlers, as demonstrated by recent events will not sit on their hands and let the judiciary carry out a hearing that, if left uninfluenced might lead to an unfavorable verdict for a sitting president, forcing the said to vacate office.

Kivuitu made several statements that leave many to wonder, how anyone can know who fairly won the election if the chief of ECK himself is not unequivocally certain that the person he announced as the winner, actually won.

And what do you have to say for the returning officers from 48 constituencies who couldn't even answer Kivuitu's calls as he tried to get results from their respective constituencies. There is no question in my mind, that these renegades were under instructions from the overbearing arm of the incumbency to disappear to allow time for cooking votes in favor of the incumbent.

clifford - Disagree With Respe
written by nyawira , February 14, 2008

And what do you have to say for the returning officers from 48 constituencies who couldn't even answer Kivuitu's calls as he tried to get results from their respective constituencies. There is no question in my mind, that these renegades were under instructions from the overbearing arm of the incumbency to disappear to allow time for cooking votes in favor of the incumbent.



Please recheck the news items back then for December 29th. At the time Kivuitu complained of not reaching returning officers the number of constituencies remaining to be announced was 19. half of which were in Ukambani, a quarter in Rift Valley. The number of 48 constituencies arose from the complaints list submitted by ODM on 30th December 2007 after the over night verification exercise with ECK and subsequent consultation. Let us try and maintain discussion with proper facts.

...
written by Armani , February 14, 2008

Believe it or Not but it is working in Kenya.

Source: http://www.finalcall.com/artma...2167.shtml

What Wilie Lynch had to say in 1712

---------------------------------------The following has been credited to William Lynch, a White slave owner, who reportedly made the speech on the banks of the James River in 1712. It was quoted at length by Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March where it stunned m any in the audience because of the cold-blooded way it described how the minds of African-Americans could be enslaved.
According to an essay appearing in "Brother Man- The Odyssey of Black Men in America- An Anthology" Lynch was a British slave owner in the West Indies who came to the United States to tell American slave owners how to keep their slaves under control. The term "lynching" is derived from Lynch's name.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen, I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First, I shall thank you, the gentlemen of the Colony of Virgi nia, for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves. Your invitation reached me on my modest plantation in the West Indies where I have experimented with some of the newest and still the oldest methods of control of sl aves. Ancient Rome would envy us if my program were implemented. As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish. I saw enough to know that your problem is not unique. While Rome used cord s of woods as crosses for standing human bodies along its highways in great numbers you are here using the tree and the rope on occasion.
I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree a couple of miles back. You are not only losing a valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit, you suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed. Gentlemen, you know what your problems are: I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving t hem. In my bag here, I have a fool proof method for controlling your Black slaves. I guarantee everyone of you that if installed correctly it will control the slaves for at least 300 hundred years. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your oversee r can use it.

I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves: and I take these differences and make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little list of differences, and think about them. On top of my list is "Age", but it is there only because it starts with an "A": the second is "Color" or shade, there is intelligence, size, sex, size of plantations, status on plantation, attitude of owners, whether the slave live in the valley, on hill, East, West, North, South, have fine hair, coarse hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences. I shall give you an ou tline of action-but before that I shall assure you that distrust is stronger than trust and envy is stronger than adulation, respect, or admiration.

The Black slave after receiving this indoctrination shall carry on and will become self re-fueling and self generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. Don't forget you must pitch the old Black male vs. the young Black male, and the young Black male against the old Black male. You must use the dark skin slaves vs. the light skin slaves and the light skin slaves vs. the dark skin slaves. You must use the female vs. the male, and the male vs. the female. You must also have your white servants and overseers distrust all Blacks, but it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect and trust only us. Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity. If used intensely for one year, the slaves themselves will remain perpetually distrustful. Thank you, gentlemen.

Manderlay
written by Stephen Wanyama , February 14, 2008

I believe just such a formulation was used in Lars von Trier's film Manderlay. It depicted a group of slaves who persisted in their chains even many years after slavery had ended, the odd thing is that they were kept in chains for their own good and they did not ever want to leave the plantation.

Clifford,
Your kind are determined to wreck this country, to muscle your way by blackmail and violence. Here is a question though, would you be better inclined if as Museveni proposed an international bench heard the petition?

Evidence?
written by James Watt , February 14, 2008

Alas the last refuge of intellectual dishonesty, that inconvenient truth that because the Kenyan Judiciary has not acknowledged malfeasance on the part of the election result, all allegations to the contrary are nothing more than hearsay and conjecture!!!!!!!!

Too bad there is irrefutable evidence that given an impartial Judiciary, as the final arbiter, their judgement would confirm the obvious. The fact that every independent assessor of the election return tallying process, including those physically present have corroborated widespread irregularities on both sides with tangible evidence to boot plus the own admission of the Electoral Chairman and Attorney General that the election results are not fully legitimate is enough evidence to indict the government.

But of course we have to hide behind the circular argument that because this evidence has not been proven before the court of law which is an honest, impartial and reliable arbitrer of justice in Kenya, we have to discount it as supporting proof a stolen election!

The ODM Proof is in the public domain, as printed in one of the daily papers, and there was an ECK response or two to that. To me it's hardly convincing. Lets be real it is anchored by a 33% turnout in Juja and a 40% turnout in Kandara. This to me is just simply unrealistic and anyone who was anywhere near central during the last elections will know that. Besides if you follow KEDOFs logic, one of those groups claiming rigged polls, Juja or indeed Kandara, Molo and Kieni (The last 2 were mentioned by EU observers) do not exhibit any significant difference (bout 5k,if ODM were to be believed, there would have been a 50k difference)between parliamentary, civic and presidential tallies. Indeed the civic tally, arguably the most credible, is the highest at 120k. What kind of rigging scheme would it take to have all the civic candidates, 215 in all to accept cooked up results.

I gave my own little analysis on this thread.

http://www.kenyaimagine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1128&Itemid=141

...
written by a guest , February 14, 2008

Wanyama, Museveni is the only African president, who has congratulated Kibaki, knowing very well that the election was severely flawed. Museveni's own parliamentary opposition members are taking him to task over allegations of sending Ugandan troops to Kenya. They are also demanding that he withdraw his congratulatory note to Kibaki.

Museveni's proposal doesn't have the backing of the international community, and will just be a waste of time and resources with no implementation leverage.

...
written by Nyabs , February 14, 2008

@ armani,

A strategy effectively used over the years by Kenyan politicians. Central politicians used it to mobilize the central Kenya vote, Pro-ODM politicians used it to secure all the other regions votes.

Most surprising thing is: why don't we see through it?

Dead wrong!
written by Isindu Mwangaza , February 14, 2008

Muciimi Mbati said "An important legal maxim holds that a good settlement is better than a good judgment. But a good settlement is good only if the parties prefer it over a judgment. If one party is unwilling, or if settlement is unworkable, the default practice is always to go to court. Why is this not being insisted upon in the case of Kenya as it clear that parties are not completely sold to the idea of a political power sharing comprise?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let's see. Waring Ireland had a solid judiciary, so did Apartheid South Africa. USA's pre-civil war judiciary was just as solid. You can't ignore the elephant in the room while negotiating niceties that limit an overview of the impeding issues to party interests.

The judiciary has nothing to do with the current turmoil in Kenya. It is, justice, it is freedoms, it is distribution of wealth, it is land, it is fair play and non of this can be resolved by a judiciary that reads from the same script that has brought us to where we are.

The Judiciary does not legislate, it simply intreprates what the constitution implied by a certain law so your argument, as elaborate and convoluted holds to preserve the status quo and that, the citizenry has decided, cannot and will not stand.

Events have gone beyond a simply judiciary argument so either you contend with that reality or condone more of the same and subject future generations of Kenyan's to similar strife given a spark, as did the civil coup.

re: Dead wrong!
written by Mbatia , February 15, 2008

Let's see. Waring Ireland had a solid judiciary, so did Apartheid South Africa. USA's pre-civil war judiciary was just as solid. You can't ignore the elephant in the room while negotiating niceties that limit an overview of the impeding issues to party interests.

The judiciary has nothing to do with the current turmoil in Kenya. It is, justice, it is freedoms, it is distribution of wealth, it is land, it is fair play and non of this can be resolved by a judiciary that reads from the same script that has brought us to where we are.

The Judiciary does not legislate, it simply intreprates what the constitution implied by a certain law so your argument, as elaborate and convoluted holds to preserve the status quo and that, the citizenry has decided, cannot and will not stand.

Events have gone beyond a simply judiciary argument so either you contend with that reality or condone more of the same and subject future generations of Kenyan's to similar strife given a spark, as did the civil coup.

True, South Africa had a working judiciary during Apartheid, as did pre-Civil War America. Unfortunately, you have answered a question that was not asked.

I fail to understand how any reasonable person would want to compare Kenya with the respective situations obtaining in Apartheid and pre-Civil War America. Does Kenya have slaves or segregation? (Granted, ODM's instigated violence has now succeeded in enforcing ethnic segregation, so you just got the Apartheid you wished for). Are ODM supporters by any stretch of imagination slaves? Are they really

...
written by Nyabs , February 15, 2008

Finally, Gichuru has roused himself to defend the judiciary. See link here.

http://www.eastandard.net/news/?id=1143981917

re: No hope in the judiciary
written by a guest , February 15, 2008

Finally, Gichuru has roused himself to defend the judiciary. See link here.

http://www.eastandard.net/news/?id=1143981917

Evelyn Kwamboka, who wrote this brief report, frequently impresses as one of the better Kenyan journalists.

As to Gicheru, he is a small man with a big mouth, of little leadership ability, who invariably has never made true what he says, threatens or promises. While maybe not personally corrupt, he continues to tolerate and even condone corruption in the judiciary, and has done nothing to continue the stalled, yet so much needed "radical surgery". He is a hopelessly weak chief justice if there ever was one.

Alexander

Mbatia Mbatia!
written by Isindu Mwangaza , February 15, 2008

For a Barrister, I find your argument rather hollow. You also redirect the core issue to irrelevant conjecture about apartheid. Your argument portended that our legal framework, as constituted is solid. That might be the case, but it is also corruptible,fallible,vested, partisan and non-existent where it matters.

You don't steal from me then ask me to seek redress with your lawyer through legal means to retrieve what is mine.

re: Mbatia Mbatia!
written by James Watt , February 15, 2008

You don't steal from me then ask me to seek redress with your lawyer through legal means to retrieve what is mine.

What is in dispute is whether any stealing took place at all. Just because u claim I stole from you, doesn't mean that I did. By your logic,we wouldn't need any judicial system at all as any claim, no matter how outlandish, would just have to be put across, and others would just have to sit back and accept it. As it is we are arguing about the proverbial cow, with both sides claiming that the cow is theirs. Extra judicial means of retrieving the cow, only leads to the laws of the jungle with women raped, property looted and burnt, and lost of folk dead and displaced and the illusion of nationhood and the decency of human beings in it torn to shreds.

re: Mbatia Mbatia!
written by manta ray , February 15, 2008

For a Barrister, I find your argument rather hollow. You also redirect the core issue to irrelevant conjecture about apartheid. Your argument portended that our legal framework, as constituted is solid. That might be the case, but it is also corruptible,fallible,vested, partisan and non-existent where it matters.

You don't steal from me then ask me to seek redress with your lawyer through legal means to retrieve what is mine.

I am not a lawyer, but the hypocrisy from ODM and their supporters is not just nauseating, but crudely and obnoxiously arrogant.
Why would Raila find it fit to send Orengo to defend his parliamentary seat in the petition brought by Livondo, in the same court he vilifies, but not do so in the Presidential dispute, yet the court system is the same?!
Secondly, who determines who has stolen what from whom? How can you pompously proclaim from the rooftops that something has been stolen from you when thieving is your stock in trade in the first place? How can a thief call another thief, a thief?

ODM is in the situation it is in because of a misguided sense of self righteousness, dishonest as it is, forgetting the first lesson every successful bandit must take to heart ie There is no honor among thieves.

Invest where your mouth is, in
written by Isindu Mwangaza , February 15, 2008

How do I place this with the utmost loyalty to you, and my Country; in a battle front, you can't be content with the rules of engagement as prescribed when no one else cares to adhere. While PNU claims to be in control of government institutions, the Judiciary is a tool that will be exploited to gain credence despite the obvious bankruptcy in credibility. Almost all litigants are PNU sympathizers with a fews credible exceptions.

All parties agree to the fact that a "Truth & reconciliation commission" must be setup. This would not be necessary had we in fact, a solid & impartial judiciary, so your position is bottomless.

You can find reprieve in labeling ODM's as arrogant, self righteous or whatever else you deem fit nevertheless, reality portends otherwise.

You and I can trade literal jabs however the fact remains PNU cannot be right when the entire world is calls it against their favor. So, play your harp, sing your tunes but ODM is investing in Kenya's future. What is PNU investing in, more of the same?

...
written by Mbatia , February 15, 2008

Who said we are in battle? I now see where the problem is. ODM has declared war, and is already fighting battles. The rest of the country thinks it is involved in a democracy. Oh, but I know what you will say - what democracy and Kibaki stole the election!

Which bring us back to my contention - you cannot say that Kibaki stole the election, even if you repeat it one million times and the whole world echoes your refrain, because he has not been convicted as having stolen it. You need to do more than this, either go to court, or a legally instituted commission of inquiry that would dig into the matter. But that is not what you want. You just want the power. Well, it won't be given to you on a platter.

Fortunately, I think the negotiators have been reading this blog and have proposed a complete review of the election through a commission of inquiry.

Reeks of conciet!
written by Isindu Mwangaza , February 16, 2008

Wow, you must be so concieted to imply that mediators depend on your literal scorn to wade through tough issues or where ODM stands on certain issues. How noble that they pay us attention!

re: Reeks of conciet!
written by manta ray , February 16, 2008

Wow, you must be so concieted to imply that mediators depend on your literal scorn to wade through tough issues or where ODM stands on certain issues. How noble that they pay us attention!

Serious people are indeed now paying attention to Kenyaimagine.com, no doubt, for the very good reason that mainstream Kenyan media does not provide a platform for the kind of informative discussions that take place here.
Apart from the obvious fact that Kenyan media[both Newspaper and TV] has now degenerated into a rumour factory no different from the so called gutter press, the journalists, except for a few world class personalities like Barack Muluka or Gitau Warigi and contributors like Major Oswago, the rest are simply incapable of putting together a factual story intelligently or an analysis of news content that allows their readers to make informed decisions. Just look at the rubbish the likes of Dominic Odipo write. The twit is simply an unquestioning ODM charlatan and cheerleader, who fails to see that much as it is his right to support ODM, his position behoves him to present factual information and analysis as to why, especially at this time in our history, Kenya is in crisis.
Many people who now regularly read Kenyaimagine have had the light shone into their craniums, such that you can see the beam of new found knowledge emanating from their eyeballs everytime they speak.
Those who were previously unquestioning ODM automatons have sobered up and realised that they really do not have the same interests as the ODM leadership, and that in fact that leadership only has interests that are not National in mind, and those who were Kibaki fanatics have realised he is/was never an angel, and that a lot of the problems Kenya faces can be laid at his doorstep because of his infuriating actions/inaction.

The lesson therefore of the past one month is that Kenyans can never abdicate responsibility for their fate to politicians or the media. Never again.

re: Spare us the sanctimony!
written by Salim , February 17, 2008

...The government itself usurped the rule of law and the tenets of the constitution when it stole an election! After all the burden of proof was on the government to abide by the law, so why should the opposition be held to a higher standard?

...The first thing the government should have done is institute a swift recount immediately issues were raised, not scurry off and swear in an illegitimate president....

Interesting argument! If I am a thief, do you expect me to ask the courts to decide if I am a thief or not?

On the recount you missed some facts. The winner does not ask the ECK for a recount. Not even the ECK can order a recount. That is for the courts to decide.

If your memory is intact, you will agree with me that ODM/Raila asked the president to reappoint Kivuitu lest the polls be null and void. Western missions in Kenya joined ODM is calling for Kivuitu's reappointment. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Kenya joined the Raila band and awarded Kivuitu the coveted Jurist of the Year award. The president granted the wish.

All the hype about Kivuitu was due to the fact that he had made several attacks on the president. To the sane Kenyans Kivuitu's attacks were regratable. I am one of those who did not see leadership skills in Kivuitu and wanted him replaced. I could not stand his rants. Unfortunately Kibaki bowed to the pressure and retained Kivuitu. Kivuitu went on to make some remarks on live TV that made a bad situation worse. He handled the chaos like an outsider and wanted Kenyans to see him as a victim. Unfortunately his rants on live TV earned him the right to to be the farther child we called "post-election violence."

Sample some of Kivuitu's rants here:

Kivuitu lashes at State over election observers
-Remember it is the ECK's duty to invite observers the government only issues Visas.

You are Executive

power sharing for who?
written by wjunior , February 19, 2008

I think we should be wary of the so-called power sharing agreement. The most important question to ask is who will benefit from the power sharing? It is not the kenyans. The Western powers have invaded Kenya in droves to craft the kind of government they want and not what we want. Sadly, they are having their way since the kenyan voters voice is not represented in the talks. Only the politicians scrambling for power, backed by the western nations for business deals and continue reaping from kenya.

re: Foundationless Rhetoric
written by James Watt , February 24, 2008

You don't steal from me then ask me to seek redress with your lawyer through legal means to retrieve what is mine.

This idea that ODM is speaking for the majority is quite absurd. The majority obviously didn't vote for them, yet the flamboyant Raila can proclaim that Kibaki cannot hold back 30 million Kenyans. Pray tell where are t this 30 million kenyans coming from? Interpolated from the poles, ODM spaks for about 15 million of the 37 million Kenyans and it would be good for Raila to stick to that figure instead of painting us all with an orange brush.
If Kibaki has been accused of being a thief, then Raila and his brigade are shamelesss liars. Just read the statements that this people make in public. Raila: I won in 6 provinces. Lie.
Raila: Kalonzo Musyoka only campaigned in his own constituency: lie
Raila: Kibaki was inflated 37 000 votes in Embakasi, 50 000 in Juja and 36 000 in Kandara. Lie.
And so much more.

It's of no use speaking of stolen cows, if you can't prove it was stolen.

I laugh at people trashing the worth of the present constitution, yet spend so much time proclaiming that we need a new one. If you trash this one as a worthless document, what will make the new one you want to write, not just as worthless. Make your mind whether constitutions are irrelevant or not, then speak, but by speaking down the value of our present one, you are setting up the one you are about to write to the same fate.

Foundationless Rhetoric
written by Isindu Mwangaza , February 24, 2008

You don't steal from me then ask me to seek redress with your lawyer through legal means to retrieve what is mine.

Extra judicial means of retrieving the cow, only leads to the laws of the jungle with women raped, property looted and burnt, and lost of folk dead and displaced and the illusion of nationhood and the decency of human beings in it torn to shreds.

Let's not throw tantrums here. we all know what atrocities took place and we all know and watched the events unfold on that Sunday evening. To assume all is well is clearly blind rhetoric.

The facts have been explored and exhausted while you remain defiant of the overwhelming majority. Thats your right.

What is also your right and just as it is mine is the guarantee from our leaders that the Kenya we love and WANT cannot be torn apart by ideologues, thieves nor acutely myopic rational of hiding behind a constitution that we all know and invested over Kshs10billion to rewrite. In addition to that, it was hijacked by the very same cabal, twisted around by wako and fed to ECK as the way forward through referendum.

This cabal of high-fiving despots presumes Kazi itaendelea, mpende, msipende. Maybe in yesterdays Kenya, not todays and certainly not tomorrows.

How does your position guarantee my posterity in Kenya? How does the PNU position? Convince me and I'll tow the line.

...
written by GG , February 27, 2008

Countless high level delegations have been to Kenya to