Raila foes lick wounds after by-election losses

Opponents of Prime Minister Raila Odinga are now engaged in a blame game after losing two constituencies where by-elections were held in the past week. Raila now feels vindicated in his earlier claims that he can ignore disgruntled legislators and work directly with voters.

Raila was in an ecstatic mood over the weekend after his ODM party won the Bomachoge and Shinyalu by-elections. The victory came despite intensive campaigning by Raila’s opponents, many of whom are in the same ODM party as Raila. In a political scenario that can only happen in Kenya, ODM officials were campaigning for rival parties in a bid to prove who is bigger or more influential in ODM.

It goes without saying that Agriculture Minister William Ruto, who of late does not see eye-to-eye with Raila, was secretly hoping that the official ODM candidates would fail. Several other ODM legislators who have fallen out with Raila openly campaigned for candidates running on other political parties. These include Omingo Magara, Isaac Ruto and Joshua Kutuny.

In Western Province, the Kenyan African Democratic Development Union (KADDU) of Cyrus Jirongo suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the ODM candidate. So resounding was ODM’s victory in Shinyalu that Jirongo admitted that his campaign machinery made fatal mistakes that cost his party victory. Jirongo told Citizen Radio that the KADDU candidate, Daniel Khamasi, was not a favourite among youthful voters. Khamasi is a former area MP.

President Mwai Kibaki’s PNU party was so hopelessly disjointed that its presence was hardly felt during campaigns. Appearances by Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka and party leader George Saitoti could not salvage the situation. PNU’s campaign was riddled by wrangling and a total lack of co-ordination. Party members are beginning to question the leadership credentials of Saitoti, who is planning to vie for Kenya’s presidency in 2012.

Still in Western Province, Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi was also ecstatic after ODM’s victory in Shinyalu. This was because the by-elections had been billed as a battle between Mudavadi and Jirongo. Both men are vying for the political control of Western Province. While Mudavadi was born into luxury in the family of the late Moses Mudavadi, Jirongo is largely a self made man who rose to prominence as the head of a KANU campaign outfit in 1992. Jirongo was spotted by former President Daniel arap Moi and appointed to head the Youth for KANU 92 with William Ruto as his deputy. Youth for KANU 92 had access to unlimited cash whose source remains a mystery.

Over the past decade, Jirongo has tried to become political pointman for the Luhya tribe that dominates Western Province. The role of community spokesman was previously played by the late Moses Mudavadi (Musalia’s father) then the late Masinde Muliro and late Michael Kijana Wamalwa. Jirongo is highly contemptuous of Mudavadi who is regarded as a reluctant politician waiting to be given power on a silver platter. Jirongo feels that he has worked hard to get where he is and sees Mudavadi as a spoilt brat unworthy of leadership. This explains why Jirongo is so eager to prove that he can influence voting patterns in Western at the expense of Mudavadi. However, Jirongo’s backing in Shinyalu for former legislator Daniel Khamasi was, by his own admission, a mistake.

That is not to say that the ODM candidate and Mudavadi were exceptionally popular with voters. Shinyalu voted overwhelmingly for ODM and Raila in 2007 and the by-election victory could simply have been a continuation of the trend. Any other person running on the ODM platform had a good chance of winning the seat.

In Bomachoge, voters may have wanted to vote ODM as a means of rectifying what they see as a mistake they made in 2007. The larger Kisii region was perhaps the only part of Kenya where almost all major political parties fared well. The Kisii were split between supporting Kibaki and Raila. After the elections, the Kisii people were violently attacked by their Luo and Kalenjin neighbours for not supporting Raila. This time, the Kisii were eager to show solidarity with their ethnic neighbours by electing an ODM, pro-Raila candidate.

With the by-elections now a closed chapter, the rival camps in ODM are assessing the lessons from that experience and gearing up for the next battle. Raila is unlikely to change his mode of operation and will want to continue working directly with voters. He sees the by-election victory as proof that he and ODM remain popular at the grassroots. The likes of William Ruto, Cyrus Jirongo, Omingo Magara and Joshua Kutuny will also be analyzing their actions. They should learn to present a more united front in future and to choose a viable candidate capable of connecting with voters.

In coming days, Parliament will begin debate on the enactment of a Special Tribunal to prosecute persons responsible for post election violence in 2008. This is likely to be the next phase of the war between Raila and his opponents. It promises to be a brutal showdown where those working against Raila will be eager to make up for their losses in the Bomachoge and Shinyalu by elections. Jirongo has said that he will work to ensure that the Special Tribunal bill flops. “The perpetrators of post election violence must be taken to The Hague,” says Jirongo.

As political contests continue, issues affecting the day-to-day lives of Kenyans have been shunted to the periphery.

Raila, Ruto clash not surprising at all

Deep ideological differences between Prime Minister Raila Odinga and Agriculture Minister William Ruto are responsible for the split in the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM).

In their eagerness, or perhaps desperation, to win power in the 2007 General Elections, Raila and Ruto disguised their personal differences to unite under the ODM party. Both men knew that they could not get into government by themselves. This was more the case when Kalonzo Musyoka left ODM in mid 2007.

Immediately after Kalonzo’s exit, Raila and Ruto got into a very strong alliance that helped bring the Luo and Kalenjin votes directly to Raila’s presidential candidacy. Come the elections, the Luo and Kalenjin voted for Raila en-masse. When President Mwai Kibaki was declared the winner, the Luo and Kalenjin were at the forefront in protesting the election results. The Prime Minister himself has acknowledged the role of Kalenjin warriors in forcing Kibaki to the negotiating table.

Today, that alliance lies in tatters. Raila and Ruto have inevitably parted ways and are both seeking alternative allies in readiness for the 2012 elections. While Raila is an obvious candidate, Ruto sees himself as presidential material for Kenya’s future. He will either run for the office or support somebody else in exchange for the Vice Presidency or the Premiership. Those mentioned as Ruto’s possible allies in 2012 are current Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka and Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta. Meanwhile, Raila is talking to politicians from Central Kenya in a bid to woo Kikuyu, Embu and Meru votes.

Raila and Ruto come from opposing schools of political thought. Raila is a socialist who learnt politics from his father, former Vice President Jaramogi Oginga Odinga. Due to Communist leanings, Jaramogi fell out with President Jomo Kenyatta in 1966 and became a perpetual opposition to the Kenyatta and Moi administrations until his death in 1994. Jaramogi inculcated socialism in Raila by sending him to study Engineering in the former East Germany which was a Communist state. In the 1980s, Raila was tortured for involvement in the 1982 coup attempt. It was almost as though President Daniel arap Moi was deliberately targeting Raila in order to cause psychological anguish to Jaramogi.

Ruto, on the other hand, was an ardent student of the Moi brand of politics. Picked from obscurity before the 1992 General Elections, Ruto was appointed second in command of a new organization called “Youth for KANU 1992” or YK92 in short. YK92 had only one goal: to use any means necessary to ensure the victory of Moi and the KANU party. YK92 received an unlimited amount of funds to buy support for KANU. The source of the cash was a mystery but it is believed that the government engaged in massive printing of money. The Goldenberg scandal could have provided more slush funds.

Moi and KANU managed to win the 1992 elections but, needless to say, the operations of YK92 had flooded the economy with paper money. The years 1993 – 1994 witnessed the highest inflation in Kenya’s history as prices of basic commodities doubled and trebled. This was when the Shs500 currency note was introduced.

Come the 1997 elections, Moi supported William Ruto’s candidacy in Eldoret North constituency against the late Reuben Chesire. The interesting angle is that Reuben Chesire was related to Moi. However, friendship counts for little in politics and Moi is the master of use-and-dump strategies. With Moi’s backing, Ruto won the elections and was appointed to the cabinet. By 2002, Ruto was a powerful Minister for Internal Security and an ardent defender of Moi.

In a sense, Ruto symbolized the arrogance and corruption of Moi’s last years of office. He displayed a great deal of single-mindedness when defending Moi’s choice of Uhuru Kenyatta as successor in the 2002 elections. Ruto virulently opposed the constitutional review process led by Professor Yash Pal Ghai and which culminated in the Bomas conference. Often, Ruto appeared on national television frothing at the mouth as he dismissed constitutional reforms as an attack on the Moi presidency. To Ruto’s credit, Kibaki ally John Michuki confirmed in 2003 that constitutional reforms were meant to remove Moi and KANU from power.

Ruto has never subscribed to Raila’s populist approach to politics. Ruto is a hardcore conservative more comfortable with Mwai Kibaki than with Raila Odinga. It was naked opportunism that brought Raila and Ruto together. Raila needed the Kalenjin vote and Ruto wanted to get back into government after KANU’s loss in 2002.

Ruto is among politicians who believe that Raila is a reckless activist who cannot be trusted with leading Kenya. Ruto is certainly not a socialist. He is an extremely wealth man who made lots of money through his connections to Moi. Apart from unlimited access to YK92 funds, Ruto was allocated government land which he afterwards sold to state-owned corporations at a huge profit. For instance, Ruto made hundreds of millions of shillings selling land to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF). Ruto’s companies won tenders to supply government departments and state corporations.

In 2007, Moi decided to support President Mwai Kibaki’s candidacy and told Ruto to follow suit. Ruto was convinced that Raila had the best chance of winning and refused to heed Moi’s calling. Now, it looks like Ruto is going back home to Moi and Uhuru Kenyatta as Raila’s political fortunes dwindle by the day.

One final point to consider: Did Ruto really fall out with Moi in 2007 or was it part of Moi’s political strategy of ensuring he had a stake in government regardless of who won the election? The hard fact is that if Raila had won the presidency, Ruto would have taken care of Moi’s interests.

Today, with Moi firmly on Kibaki’s side, Ruto doesn’t seem to be doing badly either. Early this year, Ruto survived a no-confidence motion in Parliament thanks to support from pro-Kibaki legislators.

Kenyans reject Truth Commission, local trials

The Grand Coalition has come under scathing attack from angry Kenyans, who have been dismayed by the decision to have a Truth Commission instead of criminal prosecution for the perpetrators of political and ethnic clashes.

President Mwai Kibaki addressing journalists last Thursday when announcing the controversial decision by the cabinet.

President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga want to shield their key allies from both the International Criminal Court or a Special Tribunal constituted in Kenya. Individuals implicated in organizing, funding or complicity in violence were seen grinning behind Kibaki as he announced that he was getting them off the hook.

Opinion polls show that a vast majority of Kenyans want the ruling classes to be stripped of their positions and face criminal charges at the International Criminal Court. There is widespread belief that the international justice process will be more credible than justice in Kenyan courts.

The sad reality is that, 18 months after post election violence, nobody has been jailed with most cases ending in acquittals. This has not inspired confidence among the estimated 500,000 survivors of the clashes. Most of them still survive in squalid camps with little government assistance.

Kenyans want a radical change in their governance structure. For many years, attempts at economic, social and political reforms have either been frustrated or hijacked by the ruling elite. Politicians have vast powers to appoint cronies to state positions and to allocate resources as they wish. Economic liberalization has only benefited the well-connected and Kenyan industry is dominated by companies allied to or owned by politicians. Corruption is the order of the day as nothing works without a word from “above.”

Today, recruitment into government jobs is a waste of time as politicians manipulate the process to benefit supporters from their ethnic groups. The recent recruitment of personnel for the August national census has been marred by favoritism and bribery. Rather than benefit the millions of unemployed youth, temporary census jobs have been allocated to teachers and civil servants already on the government payroll. In several districts, youths have vowed to disrupt the census unless the recruitment of enumerators is repeated.

Over the years, little has been done to fight corruption, ethnic violence and other crimes committed by the rich and powerful. This has fostered a culture of impunity because guilty parties do not suffer any consequences. Politicians in Kenya have become demi-gods who can get away with theft, murder, incitement and adultery. Moral rectitude among Kenya’s leaders has plummeted as they engage in torrid love affairs with married women from poor families. Girls seeking assistance for school fees or jobs are forced to perform sex acts, sometimes within parliamentary offices.

The culture of evil among Kenyan leaders has sparked bitterness among ordinary people. For many years, there was little that could be done about it as the masses suffered their indignities in silence. The prospects of sending powerful personalities to the International Criminal Court offers a chance at national renewal. As stated elsewhere in this website, the international justice process offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to purge the Kenyan political system of vermin pretending to be leaders.

Though the cabinet announced that it will support criminal prosecutions through the Judiciary, few expect this to happen. If anything, most of the talk was on “forgiveness and reconciliation.” Cabinet ministers repeated similar themes throughout the weekend at various public rallies as though they had been ordered to sell the idea to Kenyans.

As a measure of how far the government was willing to go in shielding ministers from international prosecution, President Kibaki candidly revealed that they considered withdrawing Kenya from the statutes that created the International Criminal Court.

“One of the options considered was withdrawal from the Rome Statute under Article 127 and repeal of the International Crimes Act, 2008,” said the President.

There has also been speculation that, because Kenya signed the International Crimes Act after the post election violence had subsided, there was a legal argument that the new law can only be applied after its been enacted. According to the Constitution of Kenya, a law cannot be applied on crimes committed prior to its inception.

It is clear that politicians are using every legal loophole to escape justice. Among those mentioned in various human rights reports are Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Agriculture Minister William Ruto, Heritage Minister William ole Ntimama and Tourism Minister Najib Balala.

Political activist Mary Wambui, widely believed to be Kibaki’s second wife, has been implicated in organizing and funding ethnic militia.

Other prominent politicians who will face criminal charges in future include: Professor Peter Anyang Nyongo, Dr Sally Kosgey, Henry Kosgey, Elizabeth Ongoro, Franklin Bett, Kabando wa Kabando, Njenga Karume, John Pesa, Jayne Kihara, Ramadhan Kajembe and their respective supporters.

A host of councilors, security officers and political activists have been named by the Waki Commission of Inquiry and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.

In the past few months, as pressure mounted on the government to act against the masterminds of political violence, the suspects have vowed to implicate both the President and Prime Minister. The argument has been that Kibaki and Raila benefitted from the violence and, therefore, cannot avoid responsibility. While Raila used mass violence to protest what he sees as electoral fraud that denied him the presidency, Kibaki was silent as violence raged on his behalf.

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.

Raila in tough battle over Mau forest

As with everything else in Kenya, the conservation and destruction of the Mau forest is proving an intractable matter for one simple reason: too many vested political interests will ensure that nothing will change despite ongoing destruction of the forest and which can only be described as a looting spree.

A tea plantation (foreground) bordering part of the Mau forest. Excisions of the Mau forest are driven by demand for farmland.

Many people wish for the Mau settlers to just pack up and leave to let the forest regenerate itself. With intensified settlements in the past 20 years, the weather patterns in Western Kenya have changed for the worse. Rivers have dried and timber has become a scarce commodity as vast swathes of indigenous forest were cleared for settlements. It is believed that restoring the Mau forest could improve water supplies and help attract rainfall.

Unfortunately, its not easy asking tens of thousands of people to leave a place they have called home for more than a decade. It is a political tinder-box with the capacity to not only ruin careers but also to spark instability in a part of Kenya notorious for ethnic clashes. It gets worse when politicians are the cause of the problem.

Excisions of the Mau forest began during the British colonial era. Tens of thousands of acres of land were cleared to make way for tea plantations and white settler farms. After independence, most white settler farms were allocated to Africans (for a fee) while the tea plantations remained in the hands of multinational corporations.

Between Independence in 1963 and 1990, there were several excisions done to create room for an growing population. However, the excisions responsible for the current controversy were done in the 1990s by former President Daniel arap Moi.

Faced with opposition to his rule after grudgingly accepting to register opposition parties in 1991, Moi needed support. As a practitioner of patron-client politics, this meant dishing out gifts in exchange for votes. That is how the Mau forest complex began getting sub-divided as a means of rewarding Moi’s cronies.

Initially, the beneficiaries of the plots were top government officials, senior security officers and members of Moi’s Kenya African National Union (KANU) party. Provincial Commissioners, District Commissioners, Permanent Secretaries, KANU branch chairmen, military commanders as well as clergymen benefited from the allocations. Of course, Moi did not forget himself and his land parcel was big enough for him to establish a tea estate.

The initial allottees subdivided their parcels and sold to tens of thousands of other people, mostly from the Kipsigis dialect of Moi’s Kalenjin tribe but also some Kisii. The politicians are believed to have made millions from the scheme as most of them were allocated the land almost for free.

Today, the politicians who made so much money selling forest land are at the forefront resisting the eviction of their settlers. That is to be expected considering their role in the saga. President Mwai Kibaki has, for long, wanted the settlers evicted and ordered an operation in 2005. However, Prime Minister Raila Odinga finds himself in a difficult position as most Kalenjin legislators are from his ODM party.

As a matter of fact, Raila himself used the Mau saga in his campaigns against Kibaki during the 2005 Referendum and the 2007 elections. Kibaki became unpopular in Kalenjin districts largely due to the brutality of the 2005 evictions. Raila capitalized on the Mau saga to win Kalenjin votes by promising that he would not evict them.

Reality was to come crashing on Raila in 2008 when the new Sondu Miriu hydro electric plant in his Nyanza home turf could not operate as the Sondu Miriu River was drying. Reason? The river’s source high in the Mau forest was affected by settlements. Faced with the spectre of a failed project, Raila quickly changed tune and began demanding for the eviction of settlers from the Mau.

Raila is having a difficult time with Kalenjin legislators because of his abrupt change of political stance regarding the Mau settlements. Only two years ago, Raila promised their continued stay in the forest but now, he appears to have sided with President Kibaki. The Kalenjin community sees the stance as the ultimate political betrayal considering the fanatica support they gave to Raila’s presidential candidacy back in 2007.

The Kalenjin were the most militant during post election violence, where they made it very clear that they did not recognize President Kibaki. For Raila to turn against the community is something that has not been taken kindly by the Kalenjin.

Certainly, the Kalenjin will never forgive Raila for the treachery and there will be major political ramifications on Raila’s political future as far as Kalenjin support is concerned.

For the settlers though, it appears their fate is sealed. Public opinion for their eviction is running high, largely due to water shortages caused by dying rivers. Even the international community has said that it would support the restoration of the Mau forest.

As debate rages on what to do with the settlers, illegal loggers have taken advantage of the confusion to engage in massive looting of timber and other forest resources. From reports coming out of the Mau, it would seem that by the time a hard decision is made, there will be very little forest left to conserve.

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

Picture of the Mau forest by sll627

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

Kibaki, Raila find Truth Commission an easy way out

This is official government policy: the perpetrators of political and ethnic clashes will not be prosecuted but Kenyans should instead forgive and forget all past injustices.

Anxious to avoid prosecuting their key allies, President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga used the weekend trip to Nyanza Province to continually stress upon political and ethnic reconciliation in a move widely at odds with majority opinion in Kenya.

According to opinion polls, most Kenyans want the perpetrators of violence to face justice in the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, Netherlands. However, both the President and Prime Minister do not want to expose their key supporters to the vagaries of trials for crimes against humanity.

Over the past two weeks, another option has emerged which has turned out exceedingly popular with guilty politicians: a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC).

The government is under international pressure to act against the masterminds of political and ethnic violence. Various investigations by a Kenyan judge, the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch and other organizations have strongly implicated close allies of the President and Prime Minister in organizing and funding clashes that erupted around the December 2007 General Elections. At least 1,300 people were killed as half a million were evicted from their homes in tit-for-tat ethnic warfare.

The options so far have been a locally constituted Special Tribunal or to take the suspects to the International Criminal Court. The Truth Commission is now a third option.

On President Kibaki’s side, Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta has been named as a key organizer of ethnic violence. Others are Kibaki’s long time ally, Njenga Karume, Mukurweini legislator Kabando wa Kabando, former Naivasha legislator Jayne Kihara and a host of high ranking professionals and business people from the President’s Kikuyu ethnic group.

Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party has a large cadre of its leadership implicated in the violence, as the worst of the clashes occurred in ODM dominated districts. Leading the pack is Agriculture Minister William Ruto, Tourism Minister Najib Balala and National Heritage Minister William ole Ntimama. Other ODM cabinet ministers linked to the ethnic killings are Franklin Bett, Dr Sally Kosgey and Professor Peter Anyang Nyongo. Ordinary members of parliament elected in the ODM party have also been mentioned. Indeed, ODM has been implicated in the violence so heavily that the party sees the investigations as a threat to its future.

The proposed Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) would be similar to one formed in South Africa following the end of Apartheid in 1994. The South African Commission – headed by respected cleric Desmond Tutu – granted amnesty to those accused of human rights violations in exchange for public testimony. Members of the security forces, intelligence agencies and black liberation movements gave chilling accounts of their actions over the previous four decades.

In a sense, a Truth Commission is like a Catholic confessional: forgiveness for sins after confessing.

Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Agriculture Minister William Ruto have presidential ambitions in the next General Elections scheduled for 2012. They both see the Truth Commission as a way of cleaning up their public profiles in time for campaigns. Uhuru is linked to the hiring of gangs of Kikuyu youth to engage in retaliatory attacks in the Rift Valley, while Ruto is accused of organizing or at least being complicit in Eldoret where his Kalenjin ethnic group attacked Kikuyu families.

Are Kenyans willing to forgive and forget everything that happened in 2007 and 2008?

Most Kenyans in opinion polls say that they never want a repeat of the near civil war that erupted in 2008. The only guarantee of long-term peace and stability in Kenya is by removing from power those responsible for ethnic and political clashes for the past two decades. Only a credible, internationally recognized judicial process can guarantee a future free from ethnic incitement. And nothing less than the ICC will satisfy Kenyans.

Therefore, President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga joint calls for forgiveness have not been taken kindly by majority of Kenyans. The move is viewed as an opportunistic political gimmick aimed at protecting the two men’s close friends from facing the frying pan of justice. Infact, Kibaki and Raila want to save their own skins because those already named in connection with the violence have vowed not to go down alone.

William Ruto and legislators from his Rift Valley province have vowed to implicate the Prime Minister should they be taken before court. Obviously, Raila would not want to be branded as an ethnic warlord, even though video tapes and newspaper cuttings show him making rather controversial statements during the 2007 campaigns. During a campaign tour of the Mount Kenya area, Raila told the Kikuyu, Meru and Embu ethnic groups that they would “shed tears” should he win the presidency.

The Truth Commission has already run into controversy days after President Kibaki appointed former diplomat, Bethwel Kiplagat as its Chair. Kiplagat worked for many years as a top civil servant in the administration of former President Daniel arap Moi.

Critics say that Kiplagat never uttered a word objection in the 1980s and 90s when detention, torture and assasination was rife. Already, some victims of the 2008 post election violence have vowed not to appear before the Truth Commission citing its composition and its intended purpose of giving politicians an easy way out. Most of the Truth Commissioners have had little visibility in the past, even less on human rights advocacy.

Meanwhile, a group of dissident politicians have exposed a government plot to withdraw Kenya’s membership from the International Criminal Court. Former legislators Paul Muite and Koigi Wamwere says the Kenyan government wants to withdraw from the ICC in order to protect ministers likely to face trial for crimes against humanity.

Muite and Koigi were speaking in Mombasa during a court case where former Laikipia West member of parliament, G. G. Kariuki is charged with incitement. Kariuki told a recent public gathering that Kenyans should unite and overthrow the government.

Charges Kibaki and Raila will face at The Hague

President Mwai Kibaki, Prime Minister Raila Odinga and their loyalists will answer charges of planning, financing and executing the deaths of at least 1,500 people in the period between December 2007 and April 2008.

Kibaki will answer charges relating to the use or misuse of the security services while Raila will be called upon to account for the actions of his supporters who were recorded in the international media chanting, “No Raila, No peace!!”

For Kibaki, the abductions, torture and disappearances of thousands of suspected Mungiki members could very well become a serious issue at The Hague. Kibaki lieutenants Uhuru Kenyatta, Njenga Karume, Kabando wa Kabando, Professor George Saitoti and others will answer for their roles in organizing revenge attacks by militia groups such as Mungiki. Prof Saitoti may face trial because he was appointed Minister for Internal Security in January 2008 as the violence began to peak. Saitoti is also on record as supporting the extra-judicial executions of Mungiki members (EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, its confusing, but The Hague will determine once and for all who ordered which killings).

Raila cohorts, William Ruto, Professor Peter Anyang Nyongo, Najib Balala, Jackson Kibor, John Pesa among many others will explain their utterances which were widely broadcast across the world and whose tapes are still in the possession of media houses. Raila will be held to account largely on the basis that the cries of “No Raila, no peace,” were made by his supporters. William Ruto will be forced to explain why severe ethnic violence took place in his backyard and why most of the victims blame him.

Nyong’o is on record justifying violence with arguments that, “one tribe cannot be allowed to dominate the country.” Kibor admitted on BBC radio of his involvement in ethnic cleansing at the Rift Valley while John Pesa is quoted instructing his constituents to take over businesses owned by migrant ethnic groups.

Najib Balala made the infamous “Lesotho” remark and has been implicated in funding violence at the coastal city of Mombasa. According to the Waki Report on Post Election Violence, Mombasa youths were given a daily stipend to engage in widespread looting of homes and businesses owned by immigrant ethnic groups.

Ethnic warlords find Truth Commission an easy way out

Faced with criminal charges for the deaths of 1,500 people, Kenya’s ruling elite now find the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission a convenient means of escaping jail.

Since it became obvious last year that punishment had to be meted out on those who planned, financed and executed post election violence, there has been loud disagreement over what to do with the perpetrators. The dilemma is over whether to have a locally constituted Special Tribunal or whether to just take the suspects to the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

Both President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga are for a local tribunal. In fact, both men want Kenyans to “forgive and forget” the whole mess – their mess.

With a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC), all one has to do is confess all the gory details of their crime and get an amnesty! With such confessions, the culprits of post election violence will sanitize themselves early enough for the 2012 General Elections! How convenient!

It is unfortunate that a respected personality such as Bethwel Kiplagat can propose the TJRC as a means of solving Kenya’s woes. Doesn’t he realize that people responsible for killings and rape will literally walk away scot free? But then, Ambassador Kiplagat has vested interests in the formation of a TJRC for he is slated to become a top commissioner, if not its head. But is it possible that this hitherto respected personality could stoop so low as to demean the concept of justice just for the sake of getting a job? Well, among Kenya’s cruel and corrupt elite, greed and avarice know no limits.

Other people proposed for the TJRC include former Anglican Church of Kenya Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi and Presbyterian Church of East Africa clergyman Timothy Njoya. The rest are: Dr Maria Nzomo, Dr Elizabeth Muli, Tom Ojienda, Timothy Njoya, Dr Joseph Aluoch, Betty Murungi, Margaret Shava, Thomas Letangule, Abubakar Zein Abubakar, Joyce Miguda Majiwa, Tecla Namachanja, Maj Gen (rtd) Ahmamed Sheikh Farah and Dr Daadab Mohammed.

This list of names consists of people who have been hobnobbing with the political class for countless decades. Many in the above list have previously gotten high profile jobs thanks to lobbying by their political allies. Clearly, Kenyans should not count on the impartiality of the TJRC and its formation will promote impunity because those who have committed crimes against humanity will never be punished.

The best way – indeed the ONLY way – of ensuring that the events of 2007 -2008 are not repeated is to prosecute those implicated in funding, planning and participating in violence. Right now, the only mode of justice that Kenyans want is for the International Criminal Court to take over all cases and issue life jail terms to the likes of William Ruto, Uhuru Kenyatta and their cronies, most of whom are easily identifiable.

Kenyans are looking upon International Criminal Prosecutor, Louis Moreno-Ocampo for the much needed purge of an oppresive ruling clique.

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

UPDATE:

Former UN chief Kofi Annan has now sent the envelope containing the list of post poll violence perpetrators to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Read this breaking story and reactions by Kenyans >>

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

Ethnic violence culprits escape justice again

One and a half years after the devastating violence that followed the December 2007 elections, not a single person has been prosecuted and jailed for the deaths of at least 1,500 people during a three month orgy of killing, looting and rape.

Lack of political will among Kenya’s ruling elite has bogged down the prosecution process, meaning that those behind the killing and destruction will not stand trial any time soon. Meanwhile, the desire among western powers for stability in Kenya explains why the International Criminal Court at The Hague gave one more year for Kenya to establish a tribunal to prosecute those who planned, financed and participated in the clashes.

Kenya’s ruling elite were behind the violence whose victims were mostly slum dwellers and impoverished peasants. There is clear evidence of top politicians making hate speeches, administering oaths and paying youths for the mayhem. The two leading presidential candidates in 2007 – President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga – kept silent as fighting raged in their names.

Even today, inter-ethnic relations in Kenya are fraught with tensions, as politicians are not eager to unite the people. Politicians have boycotted peace meetings called to reconcile warring tribes because it is easier to campaign on a platform of ethnic nationalism rather than a campaign of unity. Indeed, majority of Kenyan leaders are mere ethnic warlords with no interest in national unity. They want to isolate their tribes in order to enhance their own power and eventually pass the baton of leadership to their children. In effect, what we are seeing in Kenya is the rise of a feudal class that wants to monopolize political and economic power for generations to come.

For sure there is more-than-enough evidence to begin criminal prosecutions against those involved in the political and ethnic clashes. Thanks to the media, there are acres of tapes showing looting and actual killings taking place. Politicians were recorded preaching ethnic incitement to their followers. Others were taped threatening those ethnic groups that they thought would vote for rival candidates.

The Majimbo (federalism) debate stoked ethnic tension prior to the 2007 elections. Anyone with a political knowledge of Kenya would have known how the concept of Majimbo was used to perpetrate ethnic killings in the 1990s at the Rift Valley and Coast Provinces. To bring up the same debate in an election year was not only naive but extremely reckless. The consequences were easily predictable, especially with millions of unemployed youths eager to take over the properties of people perceived as “outsiders.”

Kenya’s politicians are split among themselves over whether to establish a local tribunal or to let the International Criminal Court do the work. And it all has to do with the 2012 Presidential elections when President Mwai Kibaki will be stepping down.

On the one hand, Kibaki and Raila want a local tribunal because they think that they can manipulate judges and intimidate witnesses, resulting in acquittals and light sentences. On the other hand, a second group of politicians led by William Ruto and Uhuru Kenyatta fear that a local tribunal will turn them into sacrificial lambs. Ruto led fighting in Eldoret on behalf of Raila while Uhuru organized retaliatory attacks by the Kikuyu ethnic group on behalf of Kibaki.

Ruto is loudly complaining that Raila has abandoned the youth who fought for his premiership. Ruto says that both Kibaki and Raila should face trial as everybody else was fighting for either of the two men. Ruto believes that Raila has a soft spot for Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi, and having Ruto in jail would automatically clear the path for Mudavadi to succeed Raila sometime in future.

On his part, Uhuru believes that his political rivals want him jailed. His rivals in the Kibaki camp for the 2012 presidential elections are Internal Security Minister George Saitoti and former Justice Minister Martha Karua. It should be noted that Karua and Uhuru’s rivalry grew because Uhuru thought that Karua as Justice Minister was going to ensure that Uhuru was knocked out of the presidential succession race.

Uhuru and Ruto want the International Criminal Court (ICC) to take over the cases for several reasons:

1. They perceive that the ICC will be much more fairer as it does not have a vested interest in the 2012 elections in Kenya.
2. Court cases at the ICC take years to conclude. By 2012, the cases will not even have began and when they do, it is possible that either Uhuru and Ruto will be president and will therefore use state resources to escape prosecution.
3. It will not be possible to take the thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) to The Hague to testify whereas a local tribunal will easily be accessible to IDPs.
4. If the worst comes to the worst, Ruto and Uhuru can implicate both Kibaki and Raila at the ICC. Should we have a local tribunal, it will be very difficult to bring charges against the President and Prime Minister but the ICC is not intimidated by titles. After all, the ICC currently has a warrant of arrest for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan.

As for the Kenyan people, what do they want?

Kenyans want the entire political class to be taken to The Hague as this will ensure justice for the hundreds of thousands still suffering the effects of post-election violence. There are fears that, unless something is done stop to ethnic warlords, the next General Elections of 2012 will be the end of Kenya as we know it.

Just to show that Kenyans want The Hague Option, the Standard daily reports that the National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK) is questioning how a Parliament housing the perpetrators of the 2008 violence can agree on a law to incriminate itself. Many in the House have been named as purveyors of ethnic strife.

The NCCK’s Secretary General, Peter Karanja, has scoffed at the one year extension given to the Kenyan government by the ICC saying the repreive is a delaying tactic against justice.

Moi makes comeback as Kenyans yearn for sober leadership

Despite contributing to the mess in Kenya, former President Daniel arap Moi has wormed his way into the public confidence by carving a niche as the only sober politician around.

Former President Daniel arap Moi (right) with his ministers in this 1999 photo. William Ntimama can be seen at the centre pointing something out to Moi.

He is not called the Professor of Politics for nothing: Moi has an amazing ability to revive his political fortunes long after everybody has written him off. During the 2007 elections, it appeared that Moi’s Kalenjin ethnic group ignored his advice and followed his former protege William Ruto into Raila Odinga’s ODM party. Political analysts talked of the end of an era in Kalenjin politics, where youthful personalities led by William Ruto had forcibly snatched the mantle of leadership from the old order.

For sure, Kalenjin politics – and that of the Rift Valley at large – has irredeemably changed. Moi is no longer the only voice but, as the younger politicians are beginning to realize, it would be foolish to dismiss him entirely. Moi has been in politics longer than most of the current leaders have been alive. Indeed, most – if not all – Kalenjin political leaders owe everything they have to Moi.

As Kenya’s second president for 24 years, Moi molded and transformed politicians into his own image. The fact that the same personalities now claim to have rebelled against their Grand Master is laughable. They simply do not know any other political ideology other than Moism. The likes of William Ruto, Isaac Ruto, Franklin Bett, Margaret Kamar, Zakayo Cheruiyot, Hellen Sambili, the late Kipkalya Kones plus many others are Moi stooges.

What is Moism? Moism is a political system characterized by a permanent state of intrigues that involve shifting alliances that never result into anything tangible. The behaviour of Moi’s proteges best illustrates the lasting effects of Moism on the political landscape. Political bigwigs and greenhorns alike are constantly forming alliances with each other but nothing ever comes out of those moves.

You will hear of a Ruto – Uhuru alliance, then an Uhuru – Kalonzo movement, followed by Raila – Karua talks. Within a matter of weeks, these alignments cease to exist and you hear of Kibaki – Uhuru alliance, Ruto – Mudavadi ticket and so forth. None of these alliances succeed in the long-term.

Since the violence of 2008, ex-President Moi has traversed his Rift Valley region preaching peace. The Rift Valley was worst affected, with hundreds killed and thousands of homes destroyed. Entire trading centres were razed to the ground in an orgy of looting, killing and rape. Tit for tat ethnic killings sparked worldwide fears of a Rwanda like scenario forcing the international community to intervene.

However, Moi is largely responsible for ethnic clashes in Kenya and especially in the Rift Valley and Coast provinces.

For thirty years after independence, Kenya’s people had lived peacefully with each other. Migration within the country was so common it was taken for granted. The fertile lands of the Rift Valley attracted settlers from all over Kenya. People from different ethnic groups intermarried and did business with each other. All this came to an end with the return of multi-party politics in 1990.

As Moi had predicted while opposing multi-partyism, every ethnic group supported a candidate from its own party. Naturally, Moi had the full support of the Kalenjin ethnic group while the Kikuyu, Luo, Luhya and Kisii had their other preferences. Political differences among ethnic groups in the Rift Valley turned into violent clashes that worsened in the period before and after the 1992 General Elections.

Moi supporters, led by William Ntimama, the late Kipkalya Kones, late Paul Chepkok and late Francis Lotodo demanded that non-Kalenjin ethnic groups in the Rift Valley either vote for Moi or leave. Militias intimidated non-Kalenjins by burning homes, looting and killing. The Luo, Luhya, Kikuyu, Kisii and Kamba were attacked mercilessly.

Because the violence was largely state-driven, there was little that the victims could do. Security forces were accused of shielding the perpetrators instead of stopping the clashes. In one notorious case, trucks of the Kenya Police forcibly removed families from a conflict zone and took them to their “ancestral homes.” The families were dumped at a football stadium in Kiambu. Eyewitnesses reported seeing government helicopters assisting the raiders. There were reports that the militias had received specialized training in North Korea.

Ethnic clashes in the Rift Valley and Coast raged for much of the time between 1992 and 1999. There is no way that Moi could fail to know what was going on. Moi was a micro-manager of government affairs who used to call Provincial and District Commissioners in the middle of the night for security updates. During the Moi era, cabinet ministers used to rubber stamp Moi’s decisions. Therefore, Moi is responsible for the ethnic clashes of the 1990s

Nobody was ever prosecuted for participating in the Moi era ethnic clashes. This impunity largely contributed to the 2008 post election violence. Many of the people implicated in the Waki Inquiry into Post Election Violence had also been mentioned in previous inquiries into tribal clashes, including the Akiwumi Commission.

Moi corrupted Kenya’s political system through patron-client relationships that ensured that his loyalists got state funds, government contracts and top jobs. As an entire generation of leaders matured under Moi, these corruption networks came to be seen as normal in politics.

Kenyans are famous for short memories. It is less than seven years since Moi left office but most people have forgotten the kind of person he was. These days, Moi gets cheers whenever he attends public gatherings. Moi has become a celebrity speaker at university graduations, weddings, funerals and state functions. As a keen manipulator of human emotions, Moi knows the right things to say to leave the crowd roaring in applause.

Kenya’s current politicians, led by President Mwai Kibaki are to blame for Moi’s growing popularity. The coalition of President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga is so inept that it makes the Moi years look like the “good, old days.” Kibaki and Raila can hardly give a coherent speech without tearing into each other.

This is why Moi seems like a much better alternative.