Mau Forest politics: a detailed explanation

It is estimated that there are 25,000 people who either legally or illegally have settled in both Mau East and Mau West forests. The Government plans to resettle them elsewhere and fence off the water tower, one of the five in the country.

Destruction of the Mau Forest. Picture source: (see below)

The Kipsigis community, the main occupants of the water-catchment area, oppose the eviction, saying they settled in the forest legally. Elders say their community is being punished by the coalition Government following their stand in the 2007 General Election. The elders have warned the Government over the evictions, saying the move was causing panic among residents, some of whom were threatening to disrupt peace.

On the other hand, Maasai community leaders say there should not be any compromise over the evictions. Maasai leaders say that the illegal extension of ranches bordering the forest in 1998 by the Narok County Council was the genesis of the threat to the water-catchment area. They say the area was allocated to powerful individuals in Government who are now opposed to the evictions.

There are fears that the Maasai and Kipisigis ethnic groups, both of whom have stakes in the Mau Forest Complex, might clash violently.

The more than 25,000 settlers, who are mainly farmers, have totally degraded and destroyed the environment to pave way for their settlement and farming. These combined activities have caused several rivers to dry up permanently.

Origins of the current situation

The encroachment and destruction of Kenya’s forests is closely related to many controversial land issues. In Kenya, as in many African countries that experienced colonisation, the issue of access to land is complex and emotive.

During colonialism, white settlers were allocated the most productive and fertile 20 per cent of Kenya’s land mass. When Kenya was declared a British Protectorate in 1895, forest cover was estimated at 30 per cent of total landmass. At independence in 1963 this figure was just 3 per cent. Following independence, there was popular expectation of increased and more equitable access to land for ordinary Kenyans.

However, post- independence governments failed to put in place a land program that met popular expectations. Instead, land was systematically used as a tool of political patronage. Huge tracts of public land were allocated to political elites and to political supporters. Since independence forest cover in Kenya has further shrunk to just 1.7 per cent of the total land mass.

Lack of alternative livelihood opportunities in these areas has left land as the only resource to mine for people’s basic needs. Without a comprehensive approach to sustainable livelihoods, rural communities are degrading the very environment on which they depend.

Specifics of the Mau forest problem

Since 1993, the Kenyan Government has systematically carved out huge parts of Mau Forest for settlement of people from other communities. It is said that local leaders condone the destruction by using land as a political tool, oblivious to the consequences. Even members of the provincial administration were involved in the plunder.

For politicians and senior government officials, the settlement scheme was a political arena in which they promised their people land in return for votes. The majority of people who were settled were supporters of the [former] ruling party, the Kenya African National Union (KANU). They view the land as a political reward for voting their party into power.

On 16th February 2001, the Environment Minister, Mr Francis Nyenze, gave 28 days’ notice of the excision of more than 167,000 ha of forest land from the Mau. This decision caused a serious uproar from a cross-section of Kenyans opposed to the excision.

Recent actions

In 2003, the government set up a commission to investigate land grabbing. The Ndungu Commission, as it is known, reported to the government in June 2004, and the report was made public in December 2004. The report catalogues a staggering level of illegal and irregular allocations of public lands under the administrations of both Presidents Kenyatta and Moi, for largely patronage purposes.

For example, 1,812 ha of forest in Kiptagich, which is part of the Mau Forest complex, was cleared to resettle the Ogiek community, which has traditional rights to the forest, but the Ndungu reports states that the main beneficiaries were not the indigenous Ogiek but prominent individuals and companies.

The Ndungu Commission recommended that the large majority of the land grabbed should be revoked, stating in relation to forests that:

• All excisions of forestland which were made contrary to the provisions of the Forests Act and the Government Lands Act should be cancelled.
• All titles which were acquired consequent upon the illegal excisions and allocations of forestland should be revoked. The forestlands affected should be repossessed and restored to their original purpose.

However, the Commission made provision for addressing situations where forest land had been set aside in order to settle landless people. In such cases, where genuine landless people had been settled, the Commission recommended that while the titles should be revoked (given their inherent illegality), the Government should – subject to compliance with other legislation – issue new titles to the landless settlers.

Early efforts to remove people from the forest were stopped, among others, by a High Court injunction granted to seven individuals on the strength of their title deeds. It later appeared that the injunction applied only to the seven applicants. Later, based on increasing consensus among the Cabinet on the need to conserve the Mau, the Government decided to move ahead, evicting 10,290 people in May and June 2005.

In 2007, the decision to evict settlers from the Mau Forest suffered a setback due to the General Elections of December that year. The government of President Mwai Kibaki succumbed to pressure from opposition politicians who were using the Mau Forest evictions as a campaign platform to woo the Kalenjin ethnic group. In a bid to recover lost popularity, the government promised to issue title deeds to the settlers.

After the elections, and with the formation of the Grand Coalition, the government resumed its campaign to evict settlers from the Mau. The Sondu Miriu hydro-electric power station in Nyanza Province was unable to produce at full capacity because the Sondu Miriu River – whose source is the Mau Forest – is drying up. Opposition arose from within the coalition as majority of the Kipsigis settlers had voted for Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) which capitalized on local discontent created by the 2005 evictions.

The conflicting positions of cabinet ministers, especially opposition from Kipsigis legislators backed by their Kalenjin compatriots, paralyzed planned evictions. If anything, degradation of the Mau Forest intensified as settlers and loggers sought to make the most of their remaining stay.

Outlook

Protection of the forest and protection of human rights are not mutually exclusive, and in the case of the Mau Forest evictions, the failure to address human rights has undermined protection of the forest. The overall consensus amongst environmentalists in Kenya is that the forced evictions have largely failed to protect the forest – in many cases people have simply returned to their former homes because they have nowhere else to go.

Without an adequate resettlement plan in place, evictions not only violate international human rights law; they fail to provide a solution to forest protection. The Government’s argument that the title deeds are illegitimate fails to recognise that many poor people acted in good faith when they obtained title. Moreover, where people are suspected of having obtained title deeds through corrupt or illegal practices, the burden of proving this rests with the government.

The pressure on land, water, and forested ecosystems is a function of population growth, urbanization processes, increased per capita consumption of forest resources and the failure of previous interventions to adopt approaches aimed at achieving both social and ecological goals. Equitable and sustained poverty alleviation is contingent upon the pursuit of environmental sustainability in the context of implementing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which can be said to have mediated Kenya’s new generational laws.

In truth, the problems being experienced in the Mau Forest complex are a product of the government’s own making. This, therefore, necessitates the humane approach advocated by civil society, scientists and some politicians. There’s no doubt that the settlers must be relocated but considerations regarding the acquisition of title deeds must be kept in mind. While there’s no denying that the settlement was done by previous administrations and a political party which is today at the fringes, government actions supersede individual occupants of high office. A government decision does not become illegal just because the person who made the decision is no longer in office.

As political leaders and elders have noted, the issue of settlers in the Mau Forest must be handled with extreme sensitivity and through a just mechanism. Unless justice and compensation are handled to the satisfaction of the settlers, the government could easily be laying the grounds for armed conflict that could have major repercussions on the stability of the Kenyan state.

All over the world, the mishandling of problems similar to what we see in the Mau has led to rebel movements and possibly the toppling of government. The Mau Mau crisis of the 1950s was in large part attributed to the manner in which the British colonial authorities mishandled Kikuyu land grievances. We must learn from history so as not to repeat similar mistakes.

Sources

1. Amnesty International (2007). Nowhere to go: Forced evictions in Mau Forest, Kenya.
2. Kemei, Kipchumba (2004, February 25). Plunder of Mau Forest a Threat to 3m People. East African Standard.
3. Masibo, Kennedy. (2008, November 25). Destroy Mau Forest and forget L. Nakuru Park. The Daily Nation.
4. Nkako F, Lambrechts C, Gachanja M, & Woodley B (2005). Maasai Mau Forest Status Report 2005. Narok. Ewaso Ngiro South Development Authority.
5. Sang, Joseph K (2001). The Ogiek in Mau Forest.
6. Sayagie, George (2008, November 9). Groups differ on Mau forest evictions. The Daily Nation.

Why Mau Forest is so important

The larger Mau Forest Complex, is one of the five main “water towers” of Kenya, the others being Mt. Elgon, Mt. Kenya, the Aberdare Range and the Cherangani Hills.

Zebra grazing at the world-famous Maasai Mara Game Reserve. Without the water that flows from the Mau Forest, the Maasai Mara will practically die.

Because of massive destruction in the Mau Forest, Lake Nakuru may be extinct in another eight years unless the current destruction is contained. The after effects of the destruction have led to the lake receding. Other lakes affected are Baringo, Bogoria, Natron and Turkana.

Kenya Wildlife Service director Julius Kipng’etich says the impact on the encroachment of human settlement has affected the rivers which had been draining into the lake, with some drying up or becoming seasonal. River Njoro’s water volume has gone down by more than 75 per cent, while the Mara River is only one-twelfth of its original volume.

He pointed out that without the rivers, the algae plant will no longer find its way into Lake Nakuru and the famous Flamingo birds will no longer survive because they feed on the plant. The director said the impact would affect the Lake Nakuru National Park which is a leading tourist attraction.

Indigenous Peoples Land Commission says that ongoing destruction of the Mau catchment area is threatening the survival of over three million people. According to the group, tourism activities in the Maasai Mara Game Reserve and the Mara-Serengeti ecosystem will suffer as the livelihood of the Maasai and Ogiek communities, who depend on these resources, falls into jeopardy.

Narok District is known for wheat production. This crop, as well as others, benefits from the essential environmental services provided by the Mau Forest, in terms of water from the streams and rivers flowing from the forest and favourable microclimatic conditions around the forest. The Mau provides non-timber forest products, including medicinal plants, wild honey and wild fruits, many of which are consumed locally. Local communities also use the forest as dry season pasture.

If conserved, the Mau Forest could be a major asset for tourism development. It could become a twin conservation area with the Maasai Mara National Reserve, which is a major source of revenue for Narok and Transmara districts. Such potential was highlighted in the 1988 study “Maasai Mau National Reserve: Proposed Development Plan,” commissioned by the Narok County Council, which states that the Maasai Mau “will serve as a great contrast when visitors leave the Maasai Mara [National Reserve] or Nakuru [National] Park, which are lowlands parks, to enter into a highland Reserve with a variety of birds and abundance of animals.”

Game and bird watching and walking safaris were identified among the initial activities. Accommodation could include self-service bandas and a small lodge to be located at the waterfall near Imbenek Dapashi Hills.

******************************************************

Picture of Zebra by tik_tok.

*******************************************************

Why Uhuru and Ruto will face The Hague

They both started out in the same political party. They were both mentored by the same man: Daniel arap Moi, Kenya’s second president. They are regarded as the youthful vanguard of Kenya’s politics and who will chart a new course when the old autocrats leave the scene.

The two parted ways in the months leading to the 2007 General Election, with one supporting his baptismal godfather. The other supported the arch-enemy of his political godfather.

Now, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and William Samoei Ruto find themselves on the same boat once again. They will soon find themselves facing war crime prosecution at the International Criminal Court in the Dutch city called The Hague.

Uhuru and Ruto will share the dubious distinction of being the first Kenyans subjected to an international judicial process. At The Hague, they will be joining the likes of Charles Taylor, Radovan Karadzic, Slobodan Milosevic and Jean Pierre Bemba.

Interesting how fate turns out. Uhuru and Ruto are victims of a geriatric political system that seeks to use and dump the youth and thereby frustrate the rise of fresh leaders.

There is no doubt that Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto are capable leaders in their own right. Though coming from opposing backgrounds – Uhuru the son of a former president, Ruto comes from a rural family – they seemingly found common ground in Moi’s KANU party.

With Moi’s guidance and bulldozer tactics, the two rose up the ranks of KANU to become presidential contenders within a very short time. In 2002, Moi settled on Uhuru as his successor, much to the chagrin of the KANU old guard. Ruto bought into Moi’s plan and backed Uhuru to the hilt. Had Uhuru beaten Kibaki in the 2002 elections, Ruto would obviously have become a major player in his administration.

Back in 1992, faced with an opposition onslaught in Kenya’s first multiparty elections since the 1960s, Moi made Ruto the deputy leader of Youth for KANU 92. YK 92 was a campaign outfit that had access to unlimited funds and had only one goal: Moi’s victory at any cost. YK 92 corrupted the Kenyan political system in ways that had never before been seen. The opposition was too broke to compete and Moi won the election.

The face of YK 92 was its leader, Cyrus Jirongo, assisted by Ruto. After the polls, public outrage and diplomatic pressure forced Moi to disband YK 92. Of course, Jirongo and Ruto took the flak while Moi pretended to be unaware of what had taken place.

A similar scenario replayed itself in the controversial 2007 polls, only this time, the stakes and the body count was much higher.

What are the charges against Ruto and Uhuru?

William Ruto joined Raila Odinga’s faction of the ODM Party, where he mobilized his Kalenjin ethnic compatriots to vote for Raila. In this, he came into sharp conflict with his political mentor, Daniel arap Moi, who wanted the Kalenjin to vote for President Kibaki.

Thanks to Moi’s machinations in the years 1992 – 2002, the Kalenjin had developed a heightened sense of ethnic nationalism, especially against the Kikuyu ethnic group. With the Kikuyu supporting President Kibaki, it was just a matter of time before an ethnic conflagration erupted. Ruto, apparently, did not sense this and played into the hands of Kalenjin ethnic purists from the old Moi administration.

In December 2007, violence began in the Rift Valley between the Kalenjin and pro-Kibaki ethnic groups, notably the Kikuyu. Though Moi was now supporting Kibaki, the old purist networks he had established among the Kalenjin re-emerged on the side of Ruto and played a leading role in the clashes. A leading light of Kalenjin nationalism is one Jackson Kibor.

In January 2008, Kibor openly told BBC Radio of his involvement in the ethnic cleansing of Kalenjin land. The recording is widely available on the internet and forms part of the key evidence against Ruto.

During his 2007 presidential bid, Raila visited the Rift Valley on numerous occasions and promised to enact ethnic federalism, or Majimbo, if elected. This is the same rallying call that the Moi networks had used when ethnic clashes first erupted in 1992. Raila could not have been that naïve.

After post elections violence in 2008, Raila went back to the Rift Valley and told the Kalenjin that he did not support the return of ethnic groups evicted during the violence. Raila’s ally, James Orengo, specifically said that migrant communities evicted during post election violence should seek land elsewhere, and not among the Kalenjin.

Was Raila aware that he was playing with fire by courting Kalenjin ethnic purists? Of course he was! But he now pleads ignorance, leaving Ruto to become the scapegoat. Ruto has been left holding the short end of the stick. He will face war crime and genocide charges for the deaths of hundreds of Kikuyu, especially in his hometown of Eldoret.

Ruto is currently grappling with a corruption scandal in his Agriculture ministry. He is accused of allocating his close allies government maize, which they sold for a huge profit while millions of Kenyans starve. Among the names that keep coming up is that of … hold your breathe … Jackson Kibor.

The case against Uhuru Kenyatta is not so clear-cut. Uhuru is accused of financing and planning Kikuyu revenge attacks against the Kalenjin, Luhya and Luo tribes.

In late January 2008, after a month of ethnic victimization, the Kikuyu armed themselves and launched retaliatory attacks in Naivasha and Nakuru. It is said that Uhuru held a meeting at State House with leading Kikuyu personalities to plot the attacks. It is, however, not clear whether President Kibaki (himself a Kikuyu) attended the meeting or if he was aware of the plans.

Unlike Ruto’s case, there are very few witnesses to testify on Uhuru’s involvement in ethnic clashes. If established that Uhuru is guilty, he can plead self defence and provocation. By the end of January, state authority had collapsed in Kenya and the Kikuyu were being attacked from all directions. It was under those circumstances that Kikuyu leaders decided to take matters into their own hands.

The revenge attacks in Naivasha and Nakuru drew the attention of the international community of impending civil war in Kenya. Within days, intervention by regional and world leaders brought to an end most of the violence. The coalition agreement between Kibaki and Raila was signed a month later.

Like Ruto, Uhuru is both a beneficiary and victim of Moi’s political tricks. In 2002, Moi was due for retirement and was determined to prevent KANU leaders including Raila and George Saitoti from assuming the presidency. Moi had spent 5 years wooing Raila into the party with the promise of handing power to him but, in reality, had no intention of doing so.

As it turned out, Moi’s Vice President in the 1980s happened to be opposition leader in 2002. Moi felt he could be comfortable as a retired president with Mwai Kibaki at the helm. What better way of doing this than by destroying KANU’s chances of winning? And what better way of ensuring KANU’s loss than by introducing an unknown, untested candidate with no prospects of winning? This is how Project Uhuru came to be.

Kenya’s youthful leaders cannot take over the mantle of leadership if they continue playing to the tune of the old guards. It is obvious that the likes of Moi, Kibaki and the Odingas have a monopoly over power that they do not wish to relinquish. They will continue to use and dump young politicians in the same old power games of ethnicity and exclusionary politics.

It is time that the young turks rose up and defined their own rules in the power game. Emerging leaders should learn from the experiences of Uhuru and Ruto and never allow themselves to be seduced by money and high office. Of what use is all the wealth in Kenya when you are an international criminal?

As for Uhuru and Ruto, their fates are sealed. To The Hague they must go.

Horror of fuel explosion that killed 120

Video showing the horrors of the fuel explosion in Kenya’s Rift Valley province that killed 120 villagers and motorists.

Robbing the dead is common in Kenya

Yesterday’s disaster on the Nakuru – Eldoret highway symbolizes the moral and intellectual bankruptcy that has afflicted Kenyan society. If it wasn’t for the explosion, the looting of that accident scene would have passed off as a normal event.

Across Kenya, a culture has emerged of looting from road accident victims. Even where dozens lie dead or dying, the first people at the scene will loot as much as possible before offering assistance.

A few years ago, several foreign tourists driving themselves to the Kenyan coast crashed somewhere along the Nairobi – Mombasa highway. A bus crew that happened to be first on the scene proceeded to loot travellers cheques, foreign currency, clothes, jewelery and other valuables. Needless to say, none of the tourists survived.

A similar scenario replayed itself on the same highway when a Kenyan family perished in a grisly road crash. People from nearby villagers were only interested in stealing clothes, money and mobile phones. Those who arrived at the scene much later took away motor vehicle parts for sale as second hand spares.

But a fuel tanker accident is the biggest bonanza that can befall Kenyans living near highways. The looting of fuel is motivated by high oil prices and heavy demand from public transport operators. Men, women and children will rush to the site of a fallen tanker with all kinds of containers. There have been cases where women took cooking pots from their kitchens for use in carrying away fuel!

The fuel is sold to motorists at a discount, hence the heavy demand for stolen fuel. Currently, oil companies are selling petrol at 75 Kenya Shillings (US$1) a litre. Fuel stolen from an accident scene could easily sell for about Kshs60 a litre. This is low enough for motorists looking for bargains but very profitable for a poor villager who got it for free.

A 20 litre jerrycan of petrol siphoned from a tanker could fetch about Kshs1,200 ($16). This is more than most rural Kenyans earn in a month. Indeed, there are villages so poor that no single household will have more than Kshs20 ($0.26) in cash.

Other popular accidents involve trucks carrying consumer goods such as cereals, cooking oil, clothes, detergents and electronics. These are quickly looted and sold off in neighbouring towns, where shop owners are happy to get the goods at low prices.

Trains have not been spared either. A few months ago, a train carrying cereals from the port of Mombasa to the interior derailed in Nairobi’s Kibera slum. People swarmed and broke open the train wagons in order to loot maize and wheat.

In the eastern suburbs of Makadara, a herd of Maasai cows were hit by a goods train that did not stop. Residents of nearby slums converged on the scene with machetes, axes, knives and saws and descended on the dying cows. People carried away chunks of meat as the Maasai herdsmen watched helplessly. In any case, the Maasai had their own fears of prosecution for grazing on a railway line.

Where are the police when these accidents happen?

Majority of Kenyan police stations are located in town centres. Rural areas have few police stations, meaning that when an accident happens, it will be hours before police arrive. By then, most of the cargo will be looted with little attention paid to the injured. This further explains the rather high fatality rate from road accidents in Kenya: lots of people die from injuries that could be treated if they were taken to hospital in time.

In yesterday’s disaster, police found people already looting fuel. Infact, it may well turn out that the police were going elsewhere and just happened to come across the accident. To their credit, the fallen officers tried to secure the crash site but circumstances dictated that it was too late to save lives.

Another disaster: 100 dead in fuel tanker explosion

Just three days after 26 people died when a supermarket in Nairobi burst into flames, at least 100 are feared dead in a fuel tanker explosion in Kenya’s Rift Valley.

The deaths occurred on Saturday evening along the Nakuru – Eldoret highway when hundreds of villagers rushed to a fuel tanker accident to siphon fuel. Among the dead are at least 5 police officers who had gone to prevent the kind of disaster that tragically ended their lives.

This latest disaster occurred at the Sachangwan area, about 30km west of the Rift Valley provincial headquarters at Nakuru. The area was also affected by last year’s political and ethnic clashes.

According to reports, a fuel tanker from the Nakuru oil depot got involved in a road accident at about 7pm local time. Villagers and motorists stopped to scoop fuel using any available container they could find. Police arrived to chase away the looters and it is believed this is when an exposion engulfed the site in fire.

It is still not clear what exactly caused the fire but an accident scene with hundreds of people fighting for loot is really a disaster in the making.

Among those caught in the fire were people travelling between Nakuru, Eldoret and Kisumu. Initial reports in Kenyan media indicate that a passenger bus may have fallen victim to the explosion.

Bodies could be seen burning at the site hours after the disaster.

We will bring you more of this story as details emerge.

Gang rape as a political weapon – Waki Report

One of the well known and regrettable tragedies of major conflicts and breakdowns of law and order is sexual violence. This has happened around the world.

Youths armed with crude weapons during political and ethnic clashes in Kenya. Picture by AFP.

Sadly enough, it also was a consequence of the 2007 post election violence in Kenya. Below, the Nairobi Chronicle presents accounts by victims of sexual violence as contained in the Waki Report. Please be warned that the stories you are about to read may contain graphic and disturbing description.

Raped as husband is killed – Waki Report

Kisumu woman raped, husband killed and home burnt

Waki Report: Luo men forcibly circumcised

We have strived to bring stories from different parts of Kenya in order to demonstrate that all Kenyans suffered at the hands of a cruel, corrupt political elite that cares nothing for the welfare of its own people. The question is: for how long shall Kenyans put up with this?

Waki Report: Luo men forcibly circumcised

Dr Kariuki Gichuki, the current Medical Officer  of Health for Nakuru confirmed having received six cases of forced circumcision which he described as ‘traumatic circumcision.’

“… Usually circumcision, either you are in the hospital or in a traditional setting that is clean. The procedure is a boundary kind of surgical procedure but this one was a bit crude and not orderly.”

The doctor further referred to the cases as ones of ‘pilary amputation’ and explained that ‘usually, circumcision is the surgical removal of foreskin but in [a particular case] the 22 year old male had his whole penis actually cut’.

A married Luo woman with two children, originally from Huruma estate in Nairobi but displaced to an IDP camp testified in camera as follows:

“I heard many people outside saying that “even here there are some ODM people we want to circumcise”.They were many and were making a lot of noise. They pushed the door saying that ‘Kihii (Kikuyu for uncircumcised man) you are the ones troubling us! I saw my husband lying down. They opened his zip, lifted his penis and cut it with a panga. I managed to slip away and one alerted them and they said I should go away and that it is my husband they wanted to teach a lesson and circumcise.”

As a result of this attack her husband died due to the injuries sustained during this hideous incident.

In explaining the extent to which some victims suffered in the hands of such gangs, a woman, whose testimony has been referred to previously in camera said:

“I found that my brother’s penis had been cut and placed on his mouth, his testis were chopped off and placed on his hand. I found that blood was still pouring out of his body and he was kicking as he was dying. The following day, another workmate of mine informed me that my brother’s head had been chopped off and that dogs were eating his private parts. My brother was clobbered before he was mutilated. The people who did that to him were using spiked clubs. They had fixed nails on the club and as they hit his face, the nails would pluck flesh from his body”.

Your reaction on the Waki Report

The Commission of Inquiry on Post Election Violence (CIPEV) led by Justice Philip Waki released its report last Thursday.

The report puts most of the blame on President Mwai Kibaki and Kenya’s security forces for the deaths of over 1,000 people in violence that rocked the country between January and March this year.

There are those who believe the Waki report ignored the speeches and actions of politicians in the ODM party who were recorded championing ethnic supremacism.

We are asking our readers for their reaction to the Waki report. Please email your comments to nairobichronicle@live.com. Your comments will be included in a forthcoming article that will discuss the Waki report.

To read the report, please click on this link >>

IDPs committed atrocities – Raila

Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga has said internal refugees in camps are afraid to return home because they participated in ethnic clashes.

Prime Minister Raila Odinga at a press conference after disputed election results were announced, January 2008.

“Some of those who had left their homes are refusing to return home because they fear retribution for their involvement in violence,” Raila claims.

Raila defended his call for amnesty for the hundreds of people arrested during post-election violence in Kenya in December 2007 and January this year. “The majority of people who just protested and demonstrated, we have said, should be released.”

Raila made the statements to Radio France International (RFI) at the World Policy Conference last week. The conference was held in the town of Evian in Southern France. Heads of state and government were invited to the summit which Raila was given a chance to address.

Though the interview was held several days ago, there has been little discussion of Raila’s remarks in Kenyan media in light of the delicate state of ethnic relations in the country. The statement that internally displaced people (IDPs) were involved in violence is likely to be received negatively by hundreds of thousands of people yet to return to their homes after three months of looting, killing and destruction early this year.

IDPs see themselves as victims of the violence, forced to abandon property and livelihoods they had toiled many years to build.

Ethnic tensions stoked by politicians erupted in violent clashes after disputed elections in December 2007. The top contenders for the presidency were Mwai Kibaki on the PNU party and Raila Odinga of ODM. As happens with most African countries, Kibaki was supported mostly by his Kikuyu ethnic group while Raila got most votes from his Luo tribe. Raila, had earlier formed an alliance with politicians from the Kalenjin tribe and the Kalenjin voted as a bloc for ODM.

Due to uncertainties over the actual winner of the December 27 poll, Kalenjin in the Rift Valley fought the Kikuyu, destroying property, homes, businesses and motor vehicles. Entire villages were razed to the ground. Hundreds of thousands of Kikuyu, Kisii and Kamba fled ODM strongholds in the Kalenjin and Luo heartlands in the Western part of Kenya.

The Kikuyu retaliated in the last week of January 2008, leading to the eviction of tens of thousands of Luo, Kalenjin and Luhya from areas in Central Kenya dominated by the Kikuyu, Kamba, Embu and Meru tribes.

Raila and ODM continually deny organizing the violence. In last week’s interview with RFI, Raila rejected the idea that all those covered by the amnesty had been involved in violence, saying that much of the violence had been provoked by excessive police force.

By March 2008, at least 1,000 people were dead. Half a million were homeless and living in football fields, churches and schools across Kenya. A massive international aid operation was launched to feed the displaced.

Former United Nations Secretary General Koffi Annan led mediation efforts between Kibaki and Raila, resulting in a coalition government. Kibaki kept the Presidency while a new post of Prime Minister was created for Raila. However, ethnic tension remains high.

While Kibaki and his PNU party insist that everybody has a right to live and work anywhere in the republic, ODM members say that the Kikuyu should leave the Rift Valley. Riots were witnessed at the Coast after rumors circulated that Kikuyu settlers were planning to relocate there. ODM got a majority vote at the Coast.

Large numbers of IDPs are unable to return home because of continued threats from their former neighbors. Indeed, many who attempted to return have been attacked. The government is giving out Shs10,000 (US$138) to each family but the money is simply not enough to start life afresh.

Some of the refugees are pooling the money and buying land elsewhere. They have given up hope of ever returning to the Rift Valley.