MALALA IS DRIVEN BY PURE HATRED FOR JACOB ZUMA

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
JOHANNESBURG, SA
Reader letter
Mar 31, 2009

HATRED has a way of making fun of good people before it destroys them. Justice Malala, a respected, award-winning columnist for the Financial Mail and The Times is its latest victim — all because of his profound hatred for both the ANC and its president, Jacob Zuma. — Lefu Lechesa, by e-mail

Malala’s desire to write bad things about Zuma or the ANC appears to be inexhaustible. To him, Zuma is an object that has to be ridiculed at all costs, even if it means risking his once good reputation as a political commentator .

Today he is a pitiable flip- flop due to this insatiable hatred. And, as I believe we all know, flip-flops are inconsistent and unreliable people who can barely be trusted for anything. If he were living in the EU, America, Israel, Japan, or Australia, his career would have come to an abrupt end by now.

It probably has slipped his and many a journalist’s memories that in one of his Monday Morning Matters (The Times January 7, 2008), he writes bitterly, “The time to ditch Mbeki is now.”

He goes on, “To wait until the president is forced to hold an election in 18 months is to invite unprecedented corruption. ”

He concludes, “The ANC should use [its parliamentary] majority to give Mbeki the boot immediately”. He is also disdainful of Mbeki for “lying through his teeth about Selebi”. Mbeki is a liar, according to Malala. A nd he might well be right.

Yet, four months later, Malala has the audacity to change his mind about Mbeki, and tells South Africa and the world, “The removal of Mbeki is no solution. The problem is that the policies of the ANC have failed” (The Times, May 19, 2008). What? In January the removal of Mbeki is a solution; in May removal of Mbeki is no solution? Is Malala nuts?

An explanation for this discreditable conduct can only be that Malala is driven by his hatred for Zuma and the ANC. He creates a dilemma for himself where none exists —between Zuma and Mbeki — so he can destroy the former.

Since Mbeki’s removal, Malala has confused callousness, fool-hardiness, and arrogance for good leadership. Mbeki’s insensitiveness is to him suddenly a trait for principle , value and ethical leadership.

He does this simp ly in order to contrast his new-found hero, Mbeki, with the “bad” Zuma.

He employs every trick in the book, and spends a great deal of time trying to find fault with Zuma so he can defile him.

He would rather be morally depraved than fail in his mission to depict Zuma as a really bad guy; an incarnation of the devil not fit to be South Africa’s president.

He will even intentionally invoke racism (call it tribalism) only if he can achieve his goal.

In another of his weekly writings “Watch these people carefully” ( January 5), he selects nine people about whom he writes: Zuma, Mbeki, Lekota, Zille, Manuel, Mboweni, Motsepe, Sexwale and Obama.

Of these, only Zuma has a home: he is “The man from Nkandla” in KwaZulu-Natal.

The reason? To reflect Zuma not only as a protagonist, but also as a Zulu protagonist who should be feared, and then doomed.

Mbeki, for his part, is showered with third degree praises — “the African continent’s most formidable intellectual” and “a man who has immense talent … and can make a massive contribution still in the regeneration and growth of Africa”.

This tribalistic sentiment was widely touted by the media, including — most regrettably— the public broadcaster, during the period leading up to Polokwane.

This is Malala’s sole purpose of writing these and all his other columns .

Will he be kind enough to let his readers know what kind of values he espouses by being so incredibly ridiculous? Is he still rational? Why act as one gone berserk?

Is this still Justice Malala or his animated effigy? The p oor chap really needs help. South Africa can ill-afford to be deprived of the balanced and rare critical expertise Malala once demonstrated , due to the destructive emotions of hatred.

Until 2008 he was a reason for many readers of The Times to look forward to their next issue.

NOTHING FRESH ABOUT "NEW" ANC

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
JOHANNESBURG, SA
By Justice Malala
Mar 30, 2009


We stand on the side of the alleged murderer, not the oppressed
Dalai Lama debacle adds to the already rotten smell

THE idea that there are two ANCs — the Thabo Mbeki ANC, which was defeated at Polokwane in December 2007, and the Jacob Zuma ANC — has now become laughable tosh.

There might be new players at the top of the party and its government, but the consistently anti- progressive, anti-human rights culture established through the Mbeki regime belongs as much to this new ANC as it did to the old one.

The so-called smell of fresh air that many have spoken about with regards to the leadership of Zuma and Kgalema Motlanthe is nothing of the sort.

It is the same rotten smell that emanated from the Mbeki regime. This is why nothing about the disgraceful behaviour of the SA government this past week with regards to the Dalai Lama is surprising.

The new crowd doesn’t have to learn anything new. It is Finance Minister Trevor Manuel and Foreign Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma who are showing them the ropes. Dlamini-Zuma was Mbeki’s point woman in the Zimbabwe fiasco.

Last week Dlamini-Zuma told the world: “We feel that it is important not to get the 2010 (Soccer World Cup) hijacked by other issues, whether it’s Tibet or whatever issue there may be in the world … If there is a sporting event it must remain a sporting event.”

BJ Vorster and PW Botha could not have put it better.

Manuel was an enthusiastic endorser of Mugabe too, as he showed shamelessly on these pages some time back. This week he too came to the defence of China’s shocking human rights record and against the Dalai Lama.

Quoth he: “The reason why the Dalai Lama wants to be here ... is to make a big global political statement about the secession of Tibet from China and he wants to make it on the free soil of South Africa.

“I’m sure he’s welcome to come at any other time, but we shouldn’t allow him to raise global issues that will impact on the standing of South Africa.”

Manuel conveniently forgets that the Dalai Lama cannot make these statements, or even hold a meeting, in China. He would be arrested, probably tortured and certainly thrown in jail.

Manuel also forgets that the ANC, the organisation he claims exists in every sinew of his body, used to use the platforms of the free world from London to New York to make its case for freedom.

The ANC’s leaders were arrested, tortured and banned for doing so. But one cannot expect people like Manuel to remember all this. They have proven time and time again, when Africans were arrested, tortured and murdered by the likes of Mugabe, that they do not give a toss.

Their weakness in the face of China has made us the number one defender of dictators and human rights abusers in the world. Look at our United Nations record.

Remember how we chose to block a UN Security Council resolution demanding an end to human rights abuses in Myanmar? Archbishop Desmond Tutu was so dismayed that he said it was “a betrayal of our own noble past”.

Remember how we not only aided and abetted Mugabe’s regime, but actually lobbied Russia and China late last year to support us as we blocked UN sanctions against Mugabe and his cronies?

As if that is not enough, we have recently dispatched Mbeki to plead the case of Sudanese dictator Omar Hassan al-Bashir at the UN. The International Criminal Court wants al-Bashir to be arrested for the genocide in Darfur.

We stand on the side of the alleged murderer, not the poor and oppressed.

It is all about cash. China is Sudan’s largest economic partner. It has a 40 percent share in the country’s oil and also sells Sudan small arms. So the arms that kill in Darfur are the same arms used to suppress voices in China.

And so too, the millions of dollars supporting the arrest and torture of Movement for Democratic Change activists in Zimbabwe are funded by the Chinese.

Now the South African government has been bought. In getting China to support it in blocking sanctions against Zimbabwe last year, it agreed to ask “how high” whenever the Chinese told it to jump — and do its dirty work.

So what happens now? The truest thing said about the whole debacle came from presidential spokesman Thabo Masebe, who said that the brouhaha will “go away”.

He is right. It will. And that is our fault. We do not hold our politicians accountable; we do not show them that we are incensed at some of their actions. And so they act outrageously in the full knowledge that the scandal will “go away” and they will be re-elected to power to repeat their shameful deeds.



NOTHING

ON A WIN AND A PRAYER

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
JOHANNESBURG, SA
By Barry Ronge
Mar 29, 2009

"Perhaps divine intervention is just the thing to cast light on our bizarre election campaign."

This is the weirdest election through which I have ever lived. Just when you think you have seen everything, like Jacob Zuma and Pastor Ray McCauley behind the same pulpit — a true meeting of minds, I would say — you see Bantu Holomisa requesting a similar spot on the Rhema playlist. And why not?

The amount of publicity Zuma’s visit generated completely outweighed the congregation’s ire and blurred the dubiousness of its assumed intentions. If Zuma can co-opt the heavenly hosts in search of his road to presidential glory, why should Holomisa not share in the celestial campaigning?

What about Mvume Dandala of COPE, a man of the cloth who is reaching out in ecumenical harmony to his brothers-in-faith? And Helen Zille? Would the elastic band of religious tolerance stretch enough to accommodate her?

It’s a fascinating situation and I suspect the folks at Rhema are beginning to wonder if they have opened the proverbial can of worms. How many politicians will they allow to trudge up to its glossy techno-pulpit in the glare of TV cameras, with reporters crowding into the church ?

There is such a thing as too much publicity, especially if the church should refuse a visit from anyone who requests an infomercial from the establishment. Rhema could run the risk of seeming to takes sides, and of using their influence and money to get someone elected.

To my mind, when you reduce the gap between Church and State, there’s no telling what kind of fallen angel might slip through that crack.

There has already been much murmuring about the reasons for Zuma’s appearance at Rhema. They hold similar views on money, in the sense that money is a blessing and if you happen to be blessed by wealth, it does not divide you from God. Indeed, they believe it brings you closer so that you can more deeply appreciate the Lord’s bounty. Didn’t work that way for Carl Niehaus, did it?

They’re not entirely out of line, though. One cannot imagine what we might have lost from the struggle had the venerable Desmond Tutu not adopted, and indeed, lived the role of “the troublesome priest”. One thinks of Trevor Huddleston and the many other ministers of all races and faiths, who did bold, admirable and often dangerous work.

But somehow Zuma at Rhema doesn’t fit so neatly.

The Rhema fuss reminded me of another way in which this election is different. The history of this country has always involved an “us and them” division. It started with the Dutch settlers and the indigenous populations who saw their land annexed and their freedom curtailed by the colonial invaders.

Then it became the Brits against the Dutch Boers, warring factions that agreed on only one thing, and that was the exclusion of all people of other races. Through wars, treaties, more wars and great social disruption, we finally created the apartheid era, the ultimate, brutal “us and them”.

Then came Madiba and that glorious, almost successful, attempt to create a country of equality and tolerance, but we can see those divisions creeping back, hardening attitudes, splitting communities and creating antagonists.

But it is no longer a black/white division because the white population has diminished to a size where it can hardly even be considered a significant swing vote. The “us and them” has become much more a “haves and have-nots” situation, and nothing skews the high ideals of democratic politics more than the question of money — who has it, who doesn’t and why the gap between them is so wide.

When you see riots in Lenasia where Indian residents are railing against Paul Mashatile, the public face of the ANC in Joburg, new fault lines are clearly displayed.

The ANC led by Mandela was never a consolidated political or socio-economic unity. It was a collaboration of organisations that joined forces to win a victory that brought about decisive change.

But not everybody had the same agenda, and when the ANC, under Mbeki, mounted its bully pulpit and claimed victory and power for itself and its members alone, the defections began and the differences — political, social and moral — have shifted from slight distances to yawning chasms.

You can see that in the appalling election posters and advertising. Have you seen a single political poster that has made you stop and think? Have you heard a slogan or rallying cry to match Obama’s “Yes We Can” chant? I have not.

All I hear is squabbling within the parties and vicious rumours outside the parties. Election policy now also includes slamming the lid on lingering scandals. We’ve got a bankrupt national airline; a bankrupt national broadcaster; drug busts at OR Tambo and Heathrow; and a seemingly endless revelation of executive corruption at the highest level.

No wonder Mr Zuma turned to God, or at least to the Rhema Church, but God alone knows what any party in this election race thus far has to offer the nation’s anxious voters.

I DONT GET THIS MONKEY BUSINESS

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
JOHANNESBURG, SA
By Fred Khumalo
Mar 29, 2009

WE LIKE HIS STYLE: It’s not as if we don’t like the Dalai Lama. He has visited this country twice before, and we like his colourful threads. Picture: AP

What is everybody so excited about? This is realpolitik, people, not some chicken chop suey... Trade relations must prevail

Whatever they use to crunch balls out there in Shanghai, South Africa is not ready for it. So for now, we just have to play ball

Everyone is throwing their chopsticks out of the cot, bickering about the Dalai Lama being denied a visa by South Africa to attend a peace conference which would look at ways of using soccer to fight racism and xenophobia ahead of the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

Moral platitudes about this country’s warm relations with China, and therefore its implied lack of commitment to human rights, are flying faster than Bruce Lee’s kung fu chops.

I don’t get it. What is everybody so excited about?

I have my reasons why I think the Dalai Lama wouldn’t have been welcome here.

In South Africa, in our neverending celebration of “rainbowism”, both Chinese and African blacks are afforded the same status. They are beneficiaries of affirmative action and black economic empowerment. In a word, they are black.

The relationship runs even deeper between the Chinese and the Zulus — they both can’t pronounce their R’s.

They are also famous for what many other nations do not really regard as a virtue — fighting skills. So, the Chinese are comfortably black in South Africa.

Now you get a cheeky Chinese fellow, who refuses to be part of China, and you think he is going to be welcome here?

He is basically a coconut — a black person who is denying his blackness. In any case, the man doesn’t even eat pap and vleis, so what does he want here? Our Chinese friends from Cyrildene and other Chinatowns around the country not only eat skoppo (sheep’s head), but they also play fah-fee. That’s why that game of chance, which has been played in townships for more than six decades, has a Zulu name — umshayina.

The Dalai Lama wouldn’t know umshayina even if it were to give him a kung fu kick in the face.

The other least-reported, but glaringly obvious, reason for the refusal of the Dalai Lama’s visa is that at the shindig he was to attend in South Africa, there would have been an over-supply of Nobel peace prize winners — Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela and F W de Klerk.

Ag, we have enough of our own Nobel winners. Why allow a bald oke from the back of beyond to come and steal the limelight from our own homegrown Nobellers?

And then there’s the little matter of the Brits telling us that whenever we want to travel to their miserable, cold little island, we will need a visa.

That pissed us off. We have every right, then, to get somebody pissed off in return. It reassures us that, like a cock who can strut on his dunghill, we haven’t lost everything.

We can dis this cheeky Chinese guy who is refusing to be Chinese. I don’t get it. He is Chinese. Or will soon be.

Ask the Taiwanese. They are beginning to dance to the tune of mainland China.

This is realpolitik, people, not some chicken chop suey. And if you think I’m joking, let me strip this matter of all manner of sophisticated nuances. That is the job of the professors and commentators — to “problematise” a situation, as columnist Xolela Mangcu describes it.

Yet I am a simple man, with a simple take on life — so I will give it to you straight: you are my neighbour, and I give you a loan for your taxi fare — and the next thing I see you having a beer with Mkhize, my arch enemy who is bewitching me, who is sending bolts of lightning to my house!

Hhayi-khona, I won’t take that lying down. I will leave you to continue your friendship with Mkhize, and tell you never to come back to me when you need a loan for your taxi fare.

For a long time, the US, at its most arrogant, would say that if you consorted with its enemies, you were therefore an enemy of the US. Unfortunately, that’s how power manifests itself. Realism, my friends, realism.

Look, it’s not as if we don’t like the Dalai Lama. He has, in fact, visited this country twice before. It’s not as if he’s persona non grata.

Personally, I like the Dalai Lama. The metrosexual dude that I am appreciates his colour co-ordination. But South Africa’s trade relations and diplomatic ties are certainly more important than the Dalai Lama’s colourful threads.

Let me go further: Sino-French relations soured after French President Nicolas Sarkozy met the Dalai Lama in Poland last year, despite strong protests from China.

In response, China called off the Sino-EU summit scheduled for that month in Lyon, France.

It also cancelled high-level Chinese officials’ visits to the country. Premier Wen Jiabao skipped France during his European tour earlier this year.

So, at the end of the day, France is faced with the embarrassing prospect of sending, cap in hand, several high-ranking officials to China next month in an attempt to repair relations between the two countries.

Lento isobala njengempahla yembuzi — this is so obvious even Stevie Wonder, Babsy Mlangeni and Ray Charles (bless his soul) can see it.

The South African government looked at this situation from a practical rather than an emotional perspective. It weighed up the interests of the country, against its understandably important commitment to an international human rights culture.

It’s a catch-22 situation. Historically, we are indebted to the international community for their support of our struggle, and the universally expressed abhorrence of a lack of human rights in apartheid South Africa. But at the same time, we should be wary of endangering our ties with China.

My sense is that to avoid the embarrassment, the South African government should have taken a more proactive stance and approached the Dalai Lama with a view to him not availing himself for the peace summit in the first place. The PR disaster is of our government’s making.

No, I am no defeatist, nor am I an apologist for our government. I am a realist.

You say South Africa doesn’t have balls? I think we do. We’re just not ready to lose them — not to a Samurai sword, anyway. Wait a minute, Samurai is Japanese.

Whatever they use to crunch balls out there in Shanghai, South Africa is not ready for it. So, for now, we just have to play ball. The Chinese are the new US, quite frankly.

We’ve always played ball with the Americans, so what’s new? Look, I am a pragmatist. My only regret with Chinese ascendancy is that at my age, I will have to learn yet another new language, Mandarin — just when I was getting confident about English wordplay.

THE MATATU-MUNGIKI-LIKE HAVOC IN SOUTH AFRICA

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
JOHANNESBURG, SA
By Mondli Makhanya
Mar 29, 2009

The government’s limp-wristed ways have bred an industry that operates almost as a parallel state

On Monday I happened to eavesdrop on an animated conversation between workmen on a Johannesburg street. The topic was the following day’s taxi strike in Johannesburg and the threats by the taxi lords to shut down the city.

The men were visibly and audibly angry and frustrated.

“Uyabona, kufanele silande u Mugabe azophatha is’khashana laph’e South Africa. Uzobabhaxabula ababhaxabule abafake endleleni labantu bama taxi. Ngemvakwalokho angabuyel’ Zimbabwe bese o Zuma nabo Lekota balwele ukuba wuPresident, (You see, what needs to happen is that Mugabe must come down here and rule South Africa for a while. Then he can wallop these taximen and set them straight. Thereafter, he can return to Zimbabwe, and Zuma and Lekota can fight it out for the presidency), I overheard one of them say.

I did not linger to hear the rest of the conversation, but I was struck by the force with which the statement was made.

Like most people who have encountered South Africa’s taxi drivers, I identified with their anger. I remembered an incident a few years ago when thousands of taxi drivers were en route to Pretoria to present an anti-taxi recapitalisation memorandum to minister of transport Jeff Radebe.

Somewhere along the Johannesburg-Pretoria highway, they decided to stop for a collective leak. All of them! They lined the road and performed this private act in concert. It was a nauseating sight .

They did it because they could. Nothing was going to happen to them.

This week in Johannesburg it was the same.

The anger of those men in overalls on the streets of Johannesburg was proven right on Tuesday — a day the people of this lovely city will want to forget very quickly.

Thousands of taxi drivers blockaded highways, rampaged through the city centre and visited violence on innocent bystanders.

For them, it was not enough that they had succeeded in bringing the city to a near standstill. They had to add violence. So they smashed car and shop windows and pulled commuters out of buses and beat them up.

Then they made chilling threats of how they would disrupt forth coming sports events, including next year’s Soccer World Cup, if they did not get their way. They vowed to declare war on the state if their objections to the proposed new transport system were not accepted.

“We are mobilising. If they don’t address this, we will bring the entire country to a halt for a week or two,” Joe Mophuting, a spokesman for the United Taxi Association Forum, told The Times.

By sunset, the strike was the only topic on the lips of the people of this beautiful city. What was striking was the universal sense of disgust and helplessness. Disgust, because the taximen had behaved abominably. Helplessness, because it seemed clear that the authorities were overwhelmed and not in control.

Which brings me back to the men in the street, hankering after Mugabe rule. They were not wishing for the pain and suffering that Mugabe has brought upon his people. This was a desperate desire for a firm hand to deal with an industry that is operating outside the laws of the land.

The government’s limp-wristed ways have bred an industry that operates almost as a parallel state. A rogue parallel state at that.

Whereas there is a lot to be said for the way the industry defied apartheid and flourished despite the Nats’ best efforts at stifling it, it has grown into an uncontrollable monster.

It starts with little things like the terrible disrespect for passengers, who cower in fear. The manner in which they disobey bylaws and treat fellow motorists is legendary.

Then there is the way the industry settles its disputes — via the gun rather than mediation, the courts and other normal routes.

Then you have the methods it uses to challenge policies and government programmes. Like this week’s chaos.

Save for a few flashes of determination, the government behaves as though it fears this parallel state.

The question is: how much longer can we afford to let the industry act with impunity?

At some point the government will have to draw a line in the sand and drag the taxi industry screaming and kicking into normal South Africa.

The industry needs to know that there are laws, regulations and programmes that other South Africans disagree with but abide by.

The hospitality industry lobbied and campaigned against the smoking laws. They lost that fight, and today there is almost universal compliance because they know that if they were to violate the law, there would be consequences.

However, the taxi industry does not fear any consequences.

If one were to offer unsolicited advice to the incoming government, it is that one of its priorities should be to rein in the taxi industry.

You can do this only with a hard hand. A good start would be for our security agencies to stop fighting each other and actually do what they are meant to do.

PHONE TAPS A POLITICAL BOMBSHELL

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
By Raenette Taljaard
Mar 31, 2009

"Issue goes to the heart of oversight and accountability."

IF IT were not for the rightful clamour and condemnation of the government’s snubbing of the Dalai Lama, more South Africans would have paid attention to the scandalous allegations that a state agency might have wire-tapped conversations between former president Thabo Mbeki and then Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy, as well as various conversations involving former NPA boss Bulelani Ngcuka, Mzi Khumalo and Saki Macozoma.

This new saga has disturbing echoes in Project Avani, the intelligence scandal that rocked the country in 2005 which also dealt with internal ruling party dramas that spilt over and harmed our intelligence bodies and their functioning in a constitutional democracy.

This episode saw the then minister of intelligence appoint a Ministerial Review Commission on Intelligence to scrutinise what happened and make key recommendations for reform — recommendations that still languish despite yet another scandal erupting, allegedly having its origins in the pre-and post-Polokwane succession sagas of the ruling party.

In recent days startling revelations about the possible existence of “tapes” and intercepted conversations between key South Africans, including a former head of state, that now form part of the representations made by ANC President Jacob Zuma to the NPA constitute a bombshell in our body politic.

Representations that contain taped information — which implies tapping —- must not be treated confidentially and invoke the type of concerns that led the Project Avani scandal to a full review of the intelligence structures in South Africa.

Such startling representations must be subjected to transparent processes given the fact that any interception whatsoever would have required the authority of a judicial officer and the involvement of a law enforcement agency.

These two facts alone immediately place the representations that were made — in full accord with the relevant constitutional provisions in this regard — within a framework of clear oversight and accountability strictures in terms of South Africa’s intelligence gathering statutes.

As former NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka correctly pointed out: “It is a matter of grave concern that in a democratic state, which has an entrenched Bill of Rights — that among others, safeguards the rights of the citizens to privacy — you could have surveillance by a state agency and the product of that surveillance be made available to the lawyers of an accused person in a criminal trial.”

Given the suspicion that now exists that certain tapes do exist, it will be crucial for the NPA, once it has made its decision whether to drop the charges against Zuma or not, to provide not only clear reasons for the decision but to categorically clear the record as to whether or not any tapes exist; whether or not any intelligence laws have been breached and to, if possible, release as much of this information as possible, given the risk to public perceptions of whether or not all intelligence and state agencies acted appropriately .

Even though there is no legal obligation on either the NPA or Zuma’s legal team to make the representations that have been made public, it would be important to give consideration to doing so as the questions that have now been raised publicly about the existence of “tapes” and wire-tapped conversations between key players in office and various state agencies and private individuals goes to the heart of democratic oversight and accountability.

SOUTH AFRICA'S INTELLIGENCE PHONE TAPS A POLITICAL BOMBSHELL

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
JOHANNESBURG, SA
By Raenette Taljaard
Mar 31, 2009

"Issue goes to the heart of oversight and accountability."

IF IT were not for the rightful clamour and condemnation of the government’s snubbing of the Dalai Lama, more South Africans would have paid attention to the scandalous allegations that a state agency might have wire-tapped conversations between former president Thabo Mbeki and then Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy, as well as various conversations involving former NPA boss Bulelani Ngcuka, Mzi Khumalo and Saki Macozoma.

This new saga has disturbing echoes in Project Avani, the intelligence scandal that rocked the country in 2005 which also dealt with internal ruling party dramas that spilt over and harmed our intelligence bodies and their functioning in a constitutional democracy.

This episode saw the then minister of intelligence appoint a Ministerial Review Commission on Intelligence to scrutinise what happened and make key recommendations for reform — recommendations that still languish despite yet another scandal erupting, allegedly having its origins in the pre-and post-Polokwane succession sagas of the ruling party.

In recent days startling revelations about the possible existence of “tapes” and intercepted conversations between key South Africans, including a former head of state, that now form part of the representations made by ANC President Jacob Zuma to the NPA constitute a bombshell in our body politic.

Representations that contain taped information — which implies tapping —- must not be treated confidentially and invoke the type of concerns that led the Project Avani scandal to a full review of the intelligence structures in South Africa.

Such startling representations must be subjected to transparent processes given the fact that any interception whatsoever would have required the authority of a judicial officer and the involvement of a law enforcement agency.

These two facts alone immediately place the representations that were made — in full accord with the relevant constitutional provisions in this regard — within a framework of clear oversight and accountability strictures in terms of South Africa’s intelligence gathering statutes.

As former NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka correctly pointed out: “It is a matter of grave concern that in a democratic state, which has an entrenched Bill of Rights — that among others, safeguards the rights of the citizens to privacy — you could have surveillance by a state agency and the product of that surveillance be made available to the lawyers of an accused person in a criminal trial.”

Given the suspicion that now exists that certain tapes do exist, it will be crucial for the NPA, once it has made its decision whether to drop the charges against Zuma or not, to provide not only clear reasons for the decision but to categorically clear the record as to whether or not any tapes exist; whether or not any intelligence laws have been breached and to, if possible, release as much of this information as possible, given the risk to public perceptions of whether or not all intelligence and state agencies acted appropriately .

Even though there is no legal obligation on either the NPA or Zuma’s legal team to make the representations that have been made public, it would be important to give consideration to doing so as the questions that have now been raised publicly about the existence of “tapes” and wire-tapped conversations between key players in office and various state agencies and private individuals goes to the heart of democratic oversight and accountability.

PUBLIC'S INTERESTS MUST BE PUT BEFORE ZUMA'S AND MBEKI'S

THE TIMES NEWSPAPER
JOHANNESBURG, SA
The Editor,
Mar 31, 2009

"This appears to be a split between the worlds of criminal justice and of politics."

EDITORIAL:
JACOB Zuma’s trial remained in the balance last night. The National Prosecuting Authority was still mulling over whether to drop the charges at the time of going to press.

If the many leaks from the Zuma camp are to be believed, then it seems that the charges will be dropped and Zuma will be free to continue a most spectacular comeback.

Less certain are the grounds on which this decision is likely to be based.

Whispers from the NPA meeting suggest that the Zuma prosecution team, led by advocate Billy Downer, is in favour of continuing with the case, whereas the NPA’s top administrators want the trial aborted.

This appears to be a divide between the world of criminal justice and that of politics.

The prosecutors think they have a case they can win.

The administrators think that the political argument that there has been some kind of “interference” — led by former president Thabo Mbeki, by most accounts — should trump the question of whether the law has been broken by Zuma.

While the interests of Zuma, Mbeki et al, and of the NPA are being weighed, there is one larger interest missing. What outcome would best serve the people of South Africa, the voters who will return a government on April 22?

By circumventing the courts, the question of Zuma’s guilt or innocence will remain untested.

The incontrovertible fact, established in the trial of Schabir Shaik, is that Zuma received vast amounts of money from his financial adviser that he shouldn’t have.

And the stench of corruption continues to dog the arms deal.

The obvious solution that ought to have been implemented a long time ago is a proper judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal where allegations could be aired and responded to in the public domain.

EALA LEGISLATORS NEED TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT REGIONAL ISSUES

By Jerry Okungu
Nairobi, Kenya
March 29, 2009

I know this article may rub our honorable MPs in Arusha the wrong way. Like most public servants, they are right to be a little averse to public criticism; a natural thing for any person in position of influence to feel.

Sometimes last year, I wrote an article critical of our regional legislators’ parochial behavior when tackling regional issues. Much as I told them off for focusing on their national interests at the expense of pressing regional matters, my plea was for them to take the larger interests of the Community citizens as they debated and haggled over the services of the Community.

Since then, I have met many of our EALA legislators in various forums in Bagamoyo, Dar es Salaam and Nairobi at which quite a number of them brought up the issue of my earlier article along with other issues of concern.

My understanding of the role of the regional assembly is a simple one; to pass laws that will logically guide the Community into eventual realization of its treaty protocols and integration. Any Assembly activities that will not steer the Community in this path will be a waste of the Community’s scarce public resources.

The starting point is how to effectively use the current budget allocation of U$ 32 million that the partner states pump into the Community every year. This amount may not be much to finance all the operations of the Community but it must be seen as the starting point. If it is not used in more tangible ways rather than endless merry-go-round workshops year in year out; partner states may never see the need to up this budget.

One of the core responsibilities of the Regional Assembly is to scrutinize, pass and control the EAC budget such that the Secretariat does not engage in worthless expenditures that do not add value or make sense to tax payers across the region.
The reason I say this is because reports flying around tell of disturbing stories about the behavior of some of our regional legislators.

It is reported that quite a number of them have started playing truant with their duties. They fly into capitals for deliberations but don’t stay beyond a few hours after collecting their allowances. They either go shopping or fly out to other destinations to attend to their personal matters. The situation is so serious at times that various committees sometimes cannot form a quorum!

Other than this fraudulent behavior, I read a distressing story in a Ugandan newspaper about two Ugandan female MPs that decided to exchange obscenities in a public restaurant in Arusha over an issue that was obviously below their dignity.
Just as a reminder of their responsibility to the people of East Africa; honorable Tiperu and Byamukama must remember that wherever they are, they must be aware that they are East Africa’s best examples to be emulated by our younger generation. They must resist the base temptation to fight over their subordinates in public restaurants in Arusha.

That aside, it is our hope that our regional legislators will enact laws that will strengthen the operations of the Community. They need to put pressure on national parliaments to appoint Ministers specific to the Community and those ministers must not double up as cabinet members in their countries. We have to revert to the 1977 system when regional ministers were above national politics. These Ministers and their Permanent secretaries together with their staff should be residents in Arusha for better results.

They must pass a law to empower rotating Summit Chairs to have some executive powers during their tenure the same way the EU Presidents do their job. During such tenure, the Chair must spend a considerable amount of time working from Arusha, holding cabinet meetings with his five cabinet ministers and consulting regularly with all arms of the regional government in Arusha such as the EALA, the East African Court of Justice and the Secretariat.

More importantly, our EALA members must be persons that look at the big picture, visionary and wholly committed to the EAC. Right now we have some members who are in the Assembly without having gone to school. Instead of attending sessions in Parliament; they are busy attending Adult Education classes using tax payers' money.
Right now, we have some Kenyan EALA members who instead of concentrating on their jobs at Arusha are busy with village politics back home in the hope that they will be elected to the more lucrative Kenyan Parliament in 2012! This divided loyalty will never move our region forward.

Either you are in Arusha serving the entire regional interest or you are out. You cannot have your cake and eat it! That is the way it is.

jerryokungu@gmail.com

WHO SHOULD BE KENYA’S NEXT ELECTORAL COMMISSION CHAIRMAN?

By Jerry Okungu
Nairobi, Kenya
March 29, 2009

I am writing this article because I have the urge to do so. I am compelled to share my feelings with Kenyans because our politics has put us on a cliff hanger. Today Kenyans are without an electoral body because of our politics. Had it not been for it; Parliament would have approved one before it went into recess.

Now that young Miller was thrown out by Parliament for a variety of reasons ranging from favoritism to wife battering, Kenya may now ask the appointing authority to be more diligent in its next appointment to avoid the embarrassing situations such as the one we witnessed in the last debate.

It may be prudent for the Parliamentary Committee dealing with this matter to rise above pettiness, party politics and ethnic considerations to give Kenyans a truly respected individual with merit to clean up the mess that the Kivuitu team left at the electoral offices.

After talking to so many Kenyans over the matter, there is consensus that fame, popularity or activism on matters of democracy and human rights should not be part of the criteria for appointing the next chairman. Kenyans are yearning for a solid, properly schooled and disciplined individual to take the reigns at the Electoral Commission offices.

The Parliamentary Select Committee should never for one moment think that a lawyer; any lawyer should be given the job. This job requires more than just being a lawyer in practice or a sitting judge. It needs someone with common sense to know when to say no an appointing authority when integrity is under test.

The next Chairman will be reconstituting the Secretariat from scratch. It will therefore need a well trained lawyer with experience in institutional building. The individual should be corporate governance oriented in order to build and inspire the staff he will recruit to work with him. More importantly, this chairman will strive to reconstruct the confidence of the public in the electoral institution.

To do this, the Committee should go for a candidate with vast experience in dealing with leadership issues on a national and global scale. Such a candidate should have the kind of discipline that is akin to military upbringing such that faithfulness to the rules of engagement will be his guiding testament.

The Committee should look for a candidate with less political baggage to carry. It is that political baggage that derailed Kivuitu and his team. Because they were appointed by a sitting president, they felt obliged to return his favor.

As it is now; the next chairman should be that person that call look Raila, Kalonzo and Kibaki in the eye and tell them to leave him alone to do his work. He should be the one who reads his terms of reference as written in the constitution and sticks to them on pain of death.

We need a chairman who will detribalize the electoral commission and depoliticize decision making at the institution. One way of doing this should be to put in place legal mechanism that will force political party nominations to be supervised and controlled by the Electoral Commission to avoid early riggings at nomination stage. Because once politicians start rigging primaries, there is no stopping them at the national level.

We need a chairman who has had practical experience in building all sorts of institutions whether public or private in order for the new institution to benefit from such experience. We need a chairman who is a diplomatic with vast experience in conflict resolutions; a man or woman who will genuinely facilitate the process of conduct civic.

WE need a chairman well educated enough to receive and interpret intelligence reports accurately to avoid the mess that Kivuitu put us in despite detailed NIS reports that pointed to him the dangers ahead should elections not be conducted in a transparent manner.

We need a chairman that will command the respect of Kenyans across the board; from Parliament to the Executive, from the intelligence institutions to political parties and ordinary Kenyans.

Finally, in the process of identifying this man, let our Parliamentarians not subject us again to the kind of theatrics they gave us the last time they debated this issue. This time round, we need political maturity and well guided debates in the august house. We don’t need hecklers and ethnic leaders derailed an important national debate with endless and sometimes irrelevant points of order.

For this reason, Kenyans must demand that House Speaker Hon Marende be in Parliament in person to control the debate and bring sanity to the house.

On this note; may the best man or woman win the seat!

jerryokungu@gmail.com

APRM SOUTH AFRICAN SECRETARIAT IN TURMOIL

By Jerry Okungu
Nairobi, Kenya
March 29, 2009

The staff and international stakeholders are raising alarm at increasingly fraudulent practices currently dogging the APRM Secretariat in South Africa.
Nigerian Prof Adebayo Adedeji’s tenure as the Panel Chair was bad enough before it was unprocedurally extended by the current APRM Summit chairman, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia whose country is a candidate for review in the coming months.

At the Secretariat, there has been no substantive Chief Executive since Dr. Bernard Kouassi of Ivory Coast left unceremoniously more than a year ago.
The CEO’s absence has enabled Adedeji, the current Panel Chairman to usurp the operations of the APRM Secretariat in South Africa to the extent that he is able to run the affairs of the institution from his village in Nigeria.

It is alleged that the biggest casualty are the staff who he has decided to terminate their services with effect from March 31, 2009. They must reapply for new positions designed by Adedeji and his fellow Nigerian, one Mr. Afeikhena Jerome; this is despite the fact that the new structure is yet to be approved by the AU Council of Ministers and the Summit of Heads of State and Government in June 2009.

When Kouassi left, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi appointed a fellow Ethiopian to act as CEO, however, on the ground, the professor has pushed him aside and instead installed Jerome to be his ears and eyes on the ground whenever he is away from the Secretariat

According to reports coming from the Secretariat; Adedeji’s design is to pack the institution with fellow Nigerians considering that he was vehemently opposed to the appointment of a very qualified Ghanaian to the Panel of Eminent Persons; never mind that his term expired more that a year ago.

Now he has planted one belligerent Nigerian called Afeikhena Jerome to run the place instead of Meles’s appointee as part of the takeover scheme of the institution by Adedeji and by extension his fellow Nigerians.

To accomplish their scheme, Adedeji and Jerome have developed a new structure for the institution with more bureaucratic layers than ever before that they intend to give Meles Zenawi for tabling at the next APRM Summit. In this design, Adedeji is suggesting a new office called the AU Office for APRM at the AU Secretariat in Addis Ababa.

At a glance this office will serve no better purpose except to increase bureaucracy and cut off the Panel of Eminent Persons from interacting directly with the APRM Forum as is presently the case.

Reliable and authoritative sources at the Secretariat indicate that because of Jerome’s loyalty to the chairman, he was rewarded with drafting his own TOR and proposed for the office of the Deputy Director General or at least a Director’s position.

The bigger casualty will be the Chief Executive who will this time be five ladders down the line from the AU Heads of State and Government.

Curiously, Adedeji is suggesting that the post of current Executive Director be renamed Director General and upgraded to the level of AU Commissioner.

The ambiguity here is simple; either Adedeji is silently campaigning to be appointed the first holder of the AU Office for APRM however, should he fail to get it; he can always be considered for the Post of Director General with AU Commissioner perks for at least two years before some hawkeyed Head of State like President Abdulahi Wade detects the ploy and forces him out.

To date, of the original Panel Members, Bethwel Kiplagat of Kenya is about to retire. He will be replaced by the Rwandan head of Gacaca courts.
Dr. Dorothy Njeuma of Cameroon ‘s term is also about to expire while the controversial Angelique Savani was forced out much earlier even before Dr. Kouassi left the Secretariat

Incidentally, the Ghanaian whom Adedeji refers to derogatively as a mere reverend is perhaps many times more qualified and more morally fit to be on the panel than Adedeji and several other former Panel members.

For starters, Dr. Kwadwo Agyampong is the current chairman of the National APRM Governing Council of Ghana, one of the earliest and most successful APRM programmes in the continent. He is currently the President of the Methodist University of Ghana, a Professor of Physics and a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Cape Coast in Ghana.

The tragedy of all these intrigues is that as of now, Adedeji has unilaterally sacked the entire staff at the secretariat in a recent circular that nullified their appointments and asked them to reapply for the 30 newly created positions that include the Post of Director General and his Deputy.

The question is; how can an Internal Auditor and the Director of Finance & Admin be directly under the office of the Chief Executive without experiencing accountability difficulties? This arrangement is a recipe for gross mismanagement of the Secretariat’s resources.

If today Adedeji is travelling First Class from Abuja to Johannesburg via London with a week’s stop over at APRM expense, prepares and approves his own travel expenses as reports from the APRM Secretariat indicate even before he takes full control; what will it be after he takes over?

The truth is, Adedeji’s tenure even now has sent wrong signals to Development Partners and soon no donor will be funding the APRM secretariat.

Again once the Member States get to grasp what is going on; chances are that annual contributions will be hard to come by; thanks to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi for giving one Professor Adebayo Adedeji a rope with which to hang the APRM.

jerryokungu@gmail.com
www.africanewsonline.blogspot.com

APRM CONTINENTAL SECRETARIAT TROUBLES: A SPECIAL REPORT

By Jerry Okungu
Nairobi, Kenya
March 29, 2009

Exactly a month ago, I wrote an article on the APRM warning of the dangers that some members of the Panel of Eminent Persons and even Heads of State had exposed it to. At that time, I warned that Africa had reason to worry that the once much talked about APRM was fast losing its glamour. Its architects were busy mutilating it.
At that time I stated that first, President Obasanjo had soiled its reputation after being its founder chairman for years then went ahead to rig the Nigerian elections.

That Thabo Mbeki had also attempted to present a fake national report to the AU summit after his government wrote the report against the protocols of the APRM. Mbeki has since been removed from office for abuse of power- a cardinal sin in Africa why the APRM was formed in the first place.

One of the first three countries to undergo the process was Kenya. Now it has emerged that neither Kenya nor the rest of the continent has ever learnt anything from the process. Kenya’s 2007 elections were rigged as usual. The violence that followed; a sure proof of bad governance caught the world by surprise but not unexpected. Today, high stakes public corruption cases are the order of the day in Kenya.

Ghana; that heralded example of the APRM process has also fallen by the wayside. The much acclaimed John Kufuor tried to do a “419” on Ghanaians just a day before he left office. He got a Parliamentary Sub Committee to approve his exit package far beyond Ghanaian means and five times more than an American retiring president can take. In the end, angry Ghanaians called him a thieving president!

At that time, I argued that this taxing and expensive mechanism was aimed at encouraging the adoption of policies, standards and practices for promoting political stability, high economic growth, sustainable development and accelerated sub-regional and continental integration.

It was supposed to achieve these goals through the sharing of experiences and consolidation of the best practices and achievements, including identification of the weaknesses and assessments of needs in the area of capacity building.
It was meant to pluck Africa from the dungeon of corruption, undemocratic rule and mismanagement of national resources. It was supposed to improve the lives of the people of this continent.

The principles adopted by the founders stipulated that, any review carried out in the framework of the Mechanism was to be carried out on the basis of technical skills, be credible and devoid of any political manipulation.

Concerning the staff in charge of the review, the document specified that APRM activities be conducted and managed by a group of 7 eminent African persons. Members of the group would be Africans with proven experience in the APRM focus areas, be of high moral integrity with proof of their commitment to the ideals of Pan-Africanism.

Now, as we grappled with rumors that the Ethiopian Government’s report, whose Prime Minister is the current APRM Chairman, was doctored before being presented to the APRM Summit, another bombshell was dropped from the West African Coast regarding the inappropriate activities involving a Head of State and a member of the APRM Panel!
Two newspapers; Le Quotidien of Senegal and Le Matinal of Benin detailed the gory exploits of one Marie Angelique Savane who, until December 2008 was a Panel Member of the Eminent Persons leading the team that assessed Benin’s process.

The two papers, from two neighboring countries wrote about this incident in November and December 2008 and challenged their readers to judge for themselves whether Mrs. Savané, in her practices, complied with the APRM rules of engagement.
When contacted to confirm or deny the allegations leveled against her, she avoided the press like a plague.

However, the Beninese newspaper, Le Matinal went ahead and revealed some unangelic acts of Marie Angélique Savané, wife of Landing Savané, Minister of State in Abdoulaye Wade’s government. Mrs. Savané, a panel member in charge of the Benin APRM Country Review, was accused of bleeding Benin’s public funds, specifically the budget of the Marina Presidential Palace, where she was registered as an Advisor to the President of the Benin Republic, Yayi Boni.

Le Matinal issue of November 28, 2008, wrote that Mrs. Savané, in charge of the review of the Republic of Benin, was effectively paid from the national budget. The report added that she was rewarded “For the good and loyal services rendered to top government authorities”.

Appointed to assess the management of public resources in Benin and paid for this mission by APRM Secretariat in South Africa, Mrs. Savané, according to Le Matinal, also received from the State of Benin, housing allowances, subscription to a pension scheme and several other allowances.

Journalist Jean-Christophe Houngbo of Benin, in reference to the Budget of the Presidency to the National Assembly of Benin, revealed that Mrs. Marie Angélique Savané, although a Panel Member of APRM, managed to get quickly appointed as a Special Adviser to President Yayi Boni with a salary index of 1,100 acquired as of 1st January 2008. For her new status, Mrs. Angélique Marie Savané was paid a gross monthly salary of US $8000.00 effective 1st January 2008. Her monthly subscription to a pension scheme amounted to US$ 1102.00 per month with a monthly housing allowance of US$ 800 for a residence she did not have in Benin

These were not the only favors enjoyed by the Panel Member of the African Peer Review Mechanism. In fact, another chapter entitled “Various Allowances” was opened for her and estimated at US$ 4000.00 per month, according to Le Matinal of 28 November 2008.

The Beninese journalist further reported that, Mrs. Angélique Marie Savané, who was already highly paid for her work in the Republic of Benin by APRM, also received from the Presidency of Cotonou a constraint allowance of US $ 1800.00 per month. Another budget for “accommodation” was opened for her by the cantors of Change to the tune of US $ 500.00 per day.

These facts, revealed by the Beninese press, were taken from a document presented to the Palais des Gouverneurs in Porto-Novo in November 2008, entitled, “National Budget -2008 Management-Nominative Status of the number present as of 1st January 2008”.

This document of which Le Quotidien managed to obtain a copy, mentioned that she had been receiving a fixed monthly allowance of US $ 800.00 since 1st January 2008, water allowance of US $ 900 and telephone allowance of US$ 500.00.

According to journalist Jean Christophe Houngbo of Benin, the irregularities committed by the APRM Panel member had for weeks preoccupied members of the National Assembly of Benin yet Mrs. Savane was not an employee of the State of Benin.

This case was likely to cause a lot of stir in Benin, according to the Benin daily newspaper Le Matinal. Media reports already indicated that Beninese MPs across the political divide wanted to have more information about this case. It seemed that plans were underway to arrest the Minister of Finance, Soulé Mana Lawani, and his colleague of the Public Action Assessment Ministry, Pascal Irénée Koupaki, for these shameful irregularities during these times of serious economic crisis.

Now the question to ask is this: How credible are these APRM assessments across the continent when some of the eminent panel members themselves are not so eminent, let alone Heads of State who would like to manipulate their country reports?
The staff and international stakeholders are raising alarm at increasing poor governance practices currently dogging the APRM Secretariat in South Africa.

However, before the dust settled on Savane's Benin case, an even more explosive scandal has broken out in the Secretariat in South Africa. This time round, it involves the very Chairman of the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons, Professor Adebayo Adedeji of Nigeria.

Reports from the Secretariat staff indicate that there is rampant plunder of the Secretariat funds by the Chairman who has decided to be the Chief Executive of the Secretariat taking advantage of the vacuum left by Dr. Bernard Kouassi several months ago.

The staff believes that there must have been a secret pact between Adedeji and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia who is the current APRM Forum Chairman.
In exchange, Adedeji took over the review of Ethiopia from Bethwel Kiplagat of Kenya without offering any explanation to Panel members or the Secretariat staff. They speculate he promised Zenawi a favorable report due in June 2009.

Nigerian Prof Adedeji’s tenure as the Panel Chair was bad enough before it was unprocedurally extended by the current APRM Summit chairman, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.

The CEO’s absence has enabled Adedeji to interfere with the operations of the APRM Secretariat to the extent that he is able to run the affairs of the APRM Secretariat from his village in Nigeria.

It is alleged that the biggest casualty are the staff who he has decided to terminate their contracts by March 31, 2009 except for his fellow Nigerian national; one Afeikhena Jerome who has become his spymaster on the ground.

The professor has usurped the powers of the Ethiopian that Meles appointed to act as the CEO while the AU was looking for suitable replacement for Kouassi.

According to reports coming from the Secretariat; Adedeji’s design is to pack the institution with fellow Nigerians considering that he was vehemently opposed to the appointment of a very qualified Ghanaian to the Panel of Eminent Persons; never mind that his term expired more that a year ago.

He has also effectively frustrated the appointment of Dr. Graca Machel as his deputy despite the Panel electing her to that position
Now he has planted one belligerent Nigerian called Jerome to run the place instead of Zenawi’s appointee as part of the takeover scheme of the institution by Adedeji and his cronies.

To accomplish their scheme, Adedeji and Jerome have developed a new structure for the institution with more bureaucratic layers than ever before that they intend to give Meles for tabling at the next APRM Summit. In this design, Adedeji is suggesting a new office called the AU Office for APRM at the AU Secretariat in Addis Ababa.

At a glance this office will serve no better purpose except to increase bureaucracy and cut off the Panel of Eminent Persons from interacting directly with the APRM Forum as is presently the case.

The bigger casualty will be the Chief Executive who will this time be five ladders down the line from the AU Heads of State and Government.
Curiously, Adedeji is suggesting that the post of current Executive Director be renamed Director General and upgraded to the level of AU Commissioner.

The ambiguity here is simple; either Adedeji is silently campaigning to be appointed the first holder of the AU Office for APRM however, should he fail to get it; he can always be considered for the Post of Director General with AU Commissioner perks for at least two years before some hawkeyed Head of State like President Abdulahi Wade detects the ploy and forces him into retirement.

To date, of the original Panel Members, Bethwel Kiplagat of Kenya is leaving or has already left. He will be replaced by Mrs Domitila Mukantaganwa of Rwanda. She is a former head of Gacaca Courts.

Dr. Dorothy Njeuma of Cameroon ‘s term has also expired while the controversial Angelique Savani was forced out much earlier even before Dr. Kouassi left the Secretariat.

Incidentally, the Ghanaian whom Adedeji referred to derogatively as a mere reverend is perhaps many times more qualified and more morally fit to be on the panel than Adedeji and several other former Panel members.

For starters, Dr. Kwadwo Agyampong is the current chairman of the National APRM Governing Council of Ghana, one of the earliest and most successful APRM programmes in the continent. He is currently the President of the Methodist University of Ghana, a Professor of Physics and a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Cape Coast in Ghana.

The tragedy of all these intrigues is that as of now, Adedeji has unilaterally sacked the entire staff at the secretariat in a recent circular that nullified their appointments and asked them to reapply for the new positions that that are yet to be ratified by the AU organs.

The question is; how can an Internal Auditor and the Director of Finance & Admin be working directly under the office of the Chief Executive without experiencing accountability difficulties?

This arrangement is a recipe for gross mismanagement of the Secretariat’s resources.
If today Adedeji is travelling First Class from Abuja to Johannesburg via London with a week’s, spends two weeks in London at the expense of the APRM, prepares and approves his own travel expenses as is common knowledge now before he takes full control; what will it be after he takes over?

As it is, Adedeji is busy hopping from one APRM country after another promising Heads of State to name their nationals to the Panel. The truth is; he wants to
recruit people who don’t know his background and will never say no to his plans.

Right now every trip he makes gets paid for by both the Secretariat and host countries. On his return he has refused to surrender the imprest as is the regulation. This behavior has put him at loggerheads with the UNDP, the managers of APRM trust funds. He wants UNDP out of APRM funds management.

With his bill of R 6000 per night in bed and breakfast alone excluding his other expenses; it will not be long before the bubble bursts.

The truth is, Adedeji’s tenure even now has sent wrong signals to Development Partners and soon no donor will be funding the APRM secretariat.

Again once the Member States get to grasp what is going on; chances are that annual contributions will be hard to come by; thanks to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi for giving one Professor Adedeji a rope with which to hang the APRM.

jerryokungu@gmail.com
www.africanewsonline.blogspot.com

MOVE TO ABOLISH PARALLEL DEGREE PROGRAMMES IN KENYAN UNIVERSITIES

THE STANDARD
The Standard Team
Nairobi, Kenya
Mrch 30, 2009

Parallel degree programmes that have opened higher education opportunities for thousands of Kenyans at public universities might be abolished.

The Government has accepted a recommendation of the Public Universities Inspection Board that was set up about five years ago to study public university education.

It was chaired by Prof Kabiru Kinyanjui and the board’s findings were presented to President Kibaki on April 25 2007.

It proposed that universities merge the parallel course with the regular one through which 16,000 students join the seven public universities annually under the Joint Admissions Board.

In some universities, the number of regular and parallel students is even.

But the proposal has been rejected by vice-chancellors, who have termed it unworkable.

In a letter to the Commission for Higher Education (CHE) and Higher Education Loans Board (Helb) chief executives and vice-chancellors of public universities, Education PS Karega Mutahi said key recommendations of the report had been identified for implementation.

Some of the proposals include de-linking admission from bed spaces at university hostels and modalities for integrating all students.

This, it is argued, will remove the distinction between regular and parallel students.

"In an effort to urgently improve access to public universities, the ministry has isolated key recommendations of the report for immediate implementation," said Prof Mutahi in a May 14 2007 letter.

Mutahi requested universities to implement the recommendations with immediate effect.

"In the meantime, the Ministry of Education is putting in place modalities to address long-term recommendations and those that have huge financial implications for the Government," said Mutahi.

Another proposal recommends that Kenya and Mombasa polytechnics offer degree programmes of the University of Nairobi and Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. However, they must continue offering diploma and certificate courses.

This recommendation has been implemented following the appointment of university councils for the two polytechnics last year.

The board also recommended that CHE be restructured to make it an effective quality assurance agency for university education.

It also recommends that Helb be strengthened so that it can give loans to all needy students — private, public or parallel.

But on the parallel courses’ proposal, Vice-Chancellors Committee Chairman George Magoha said the Government should provide more money if the integration of the parallel and regular degree programmes were to succeed.

"Some things can be discussed on paper, but cannot be implemented practically," Prof Magoha, who is also the VC of the University of Nairobi, told The Standard.

He disclosed that Vice-Chancellors had proposed a formula through which the Government would fund students depending on the cost of the courses they were in.

But the move would have been very expensive and this is why the Module II programmes (parallel degree courses) were introduced in 2000.

In the programme, students pay the full cost of the course unlike their regular counterparts who are subsidised by the Government.

Parallel students studying for a degree in medicine pay Sh450,000 a year. And this is the cost of tuition alone. They fend for themselves and pay for their accommodation.

Science parallel students pay Sh150,000 and those in humanities Sh120,000. But their regular programme counterparts pay Sh28,500 a year. They apply for loans and bursaries from Helb of a minimum Sh35,000 and maximum Sh60,000.

The Government pays universities Sh200,000 for every regular student annually irrespective of the course. Universities have long lamented the low funding.

Magoha, for example, said the Government gives Sh260 million a month to the University of Nairobi although it uses Sh350 million to pay staff salaries.

"If we rely on Government funding to run universities, we will not run the institutions effectively," he said.

Speaking to The Standard yesterday, Higher Education Assistant minister Kilemi Mwiria said the merger of the two programmes was aimed at standardising education so that none of the two groups feels they get inferior instruction.

He concedes that the practicality of the merger was in doubt, and pointed out that the Government would not compel Vice-Chancellors to implement the proposal.

On fees, Dr Mwiria ruled out the possibility of parallel degree students paying less. "Universities have to raise funds," he said, "and this is one of the ways."

CHE Chief Executive Everett Standa says public universities are likely to ask for more money from the Government to supplement revenues from private students if the recommendation is implemented.

He said when universities solely relied on Government funding, they were heavily in debt, facilities were poor and infrastructure dilapidated.

"With the introduction of parallel degree programmes, universities look better," concedes Prof Standa.

He goes on: "The general feeling is that regular and Module II students be integrated so that the word ‘parallel’ disappears and there is one students’ body who have attained a minimum university admission mark of C+."

Standa, however, says the recommendation will meet resistance, especially from lecturers who earn more from teaching parallel degree students.

"The issue is still open to discussion and universities can discuss how best to handle the issue," said Standa.

Helb has set aside Sh500 million to finance students in the parallel degree programme this academic year.

Helb Chief Executive Benjamin Cheboi is on record saying more than 10,000 self-sponsored students have expressed interest in loans.

The money will only be given to needy students because it is not enough to meet the demand.

Priority will be given to students who may have lost their jobs in the course of study or source of financing.

TIGER WOODS RETURNS TO WINNING AT BAY HILL

By DOUG FERGUSON,
AP Golf Writer
March 30, 2009
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP)

Tiger Woods had not felt such an adrenaline rush in nine months, especially when he stood over a 12-foot birdie putt Sunday at Bay Hill with only enough sunlight remaining for one last shot.

It made Woods forget that it had been nine months since he played under so much pressure. And then he made golf remember the magic it had been missing.

With cameras flashing in the approaching darkness, Woods delivered another rock-star moment by making a birdie on the final hole to win the Arnold Palmer Invitational by one shot and match the largest comeback in his PGA Tour career.

“It feels good to be back in contention, to feel the rush,” Woods said. “It’s been awhile, but God, it felt good.”

It sure looked that way.

Just like last year, when Woods made a 25-foot birdie on the final hole at Bay Hill to win by one, he crouched and backpedaled as the putt rolled toward the cup. But instead of slamming his cap to the ground, he gave a roundhouse fist pump and ran into the arms of caddie Steve Williams, who lifted him off the ground in celebration.

Welcome back, Tiger.

“Last year … there wasn’t any big comeback or anything. I was out there just competing as usual,” Woods said. “This time, it was a little bit different. I hadn’t been in the mix since the U.S. Open, so it was neat to feel the heat on the back nine again.”

Starting the final round five shots behind, Woods closed with a 3-under 67 for a one-shot victory over hard-luck Sean O’Hair. It was the third time he won at Bay Hill with a birdie putt on the 18th hole, and this uphill putt was the easiest of all.

But it was just as sweet, especially walking off the green to see a beaming tournament host.

“What was it I told you last year?” Palmer said as he grabbed Woods by the shoulder.

Palmer has seen enough of Woods to know what to expect. Woods won at Bay Hill for the sixth time, the fourth PGA Tour event he has won at least that often.

Woods had not been atop the leaderboard since he won the U.S. Open in a 19-hole playoff last June. He had reconstructive surgery on his left knee a week later, and missed the next eight months.

With two indifferent results, there were questions whether he would be ready for the Masters in two weeks.

Not anymore.

Woods donned the blue blazer that goes to the Bay Hill winner. That could go a long way toward winning another jacket at Augusta National, different color.

“Certainly, this win definitely validates all the things I’ve been trying to do,” Woods said.

O’Hair made only one birdie and closed with a 73, but he steadied himself along the back nine until a crucial mistake on the 16th hole, when he went at the flag with Woods in the rough. His 7-iron came up short and into the water, leading to a bogey.

Ryo Ishikawa, of Japan, answer…
“I think what happened is when the sun was going down a little bit, I guess that kind of proved to me that the ball wasn’t quite going as far,” O’Hair said.

He might be right, for Woods ran into the same problem a hole later. He posed over a 4-iron that he thought was flush, tongue hanging out of his mouth like Michael Jordan when he knew a shot was going in. This one plugged under the lip of the front bunker, and Woods made bogey to fall into a tie.

That set up the dramatic finish with only minutes of daylight remaining, thanks to a two-hour rain delay in the morning.

It was the second straight year that O’Hair had to watch Woods celebrate. They were in the final group a year ago when Woods made his big birdie putt to beat Bart Bryant. This one stung even more.

“It’s just a little bit disappointing that I couldn’t close it,” O’Hair said.

Woods finished at 5-under 275 and won $1.08 million for his 66th career victory. Only once in his career has Woods failed to win a PGA Tour even in the three months leading to the Masters, but more Bay Hill magic took care of that.

Zach Johnson shot 69 and finished third, although he was treated to quite a show playing in the last group.

“I tried to stay in my own world, and for the most part I did that,” Johnson said. “It’s kind of hard when you’re seeing what you’re seeing. Obviously Tiger, when he needs to step up, he does it. It was impressive to watch.”

Woods was running out of holes until he came up with two clutch putts, the kind he has made throughout his career.

The most pivotal came at the 14th, when he was one shot behind and caught yet another plugged lie under the lip of a bunker. Woods did well to blast out to just over 12 feet, while O’Hair had 15 feet for birdie. Make it, and he could go up by three.

O’Hair narrowly missed, and Woods holed his putt for par. On the next hole, Woods made a 25-foot birdie putt to tie for the lead.

There were three lead changes over the final three holes, and a predictable winner.

It was a struggle from the start for O’Hair.

He didn’t hit a fairway until the sixth hole, and he didn’t have a birdie putt inside 30 feet until the ninth hole. The game was on after a two-shot swing on the third hole, when O’Hair missed the green to the right and made bogey, and Woods made an 8-footer for his second straight birdie to close within two shots.

They were separated by one shot for most of the back nine, with momentum seemingly on Woods’ side, but not the lead. That didn’t come until the 16th hole, and then he needed one more clutch shot to return to a familiar place.

“It’s like Stevie was saying out there,” Woods said of caddie Steve Williams. “This feels like we hadn’t left. You just remember how to do it. It hasn’t been that long for me, but you just have that feel of what to do. And it’s a matter of getting it done.”

AP EXCLUSIVE: UN SUGGESTS POWER-SHARING FOR IRAQ'S KIRKUK REGION.( IS KENYA FINALLY INFLUENCING WORLD POLITICS?)

By LARA JAKES,
Associated Press Writer
Mar 29,2009
KIRKUK, Iraq

Seeking to head off an explosion of ethnic violence, the United Nations will call for a power-sharing system of government for Iraq's deeply divided region of Kirkuk in the oil-rich north.

A draft U.N. plan, outlined to The Associated Press by two Western officials, aims to defuse dangerous tensions. Kurds, a majority in the region, have been trying to wrest control from Arabs, Turkomen and other rival ethnic groups. If open warfare breaks out, it could jeopardize the U.S. goal of stability across Iraq before elections at year's end.

Peaceful elections are critical to reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq, promised by President Barack Obama.

The U.N. has played only a minor role in Iraq since 2003, when its Baghdad headquarters was destroyed by a truck bomb. Now, officials in Kirkuk say the U.N. efforts may be the last chance for a peaceful outcome.

Without a resolution, "I think Kirkuk will be like a TNT barrel and explode and burn everybody," Iraqi parliament lawmaker Mohammed Mahdi Amin al-Bayati, a Turkoman, said in an interview this week.

Deputy Gov. Rakan Saeed al-Jubouri, a Sunni Arab, agreed.

"Violence is very easy to start in Iraq," he said in a separate interview.

Slightly larger than Connecticut and dubbed by Saddam Hussein as Tamin province, Kirkuk is a land dotted with flaming smoke stacks on its oil fields and bustling markets. Its future hinges on whether its 1.3 million people will be run by Baghdad or by Irbil, the capital of the politically autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq.

Kurds make up an estimated 52 percent of Kirkuk's population. Arabs represent 35 percent. Turkomen, ethnic Turks with close ties to Turkey, make up about 12 percent. About 12,000 Christians live in Kirkuk.

Kurds want the province to be wrapped into Kurdistan. Arabs and Turkomen vehemently oppose this.

"You cannot give up the opinion of the majority and give a small group of people what they want just because they ask for it," said Sarteep Mohammad Hussein Kakai, a Kurdish member of the Iraqi parliament.

Deep suspicions among ethnic groups in Kirkuk are partially rooted in its past under Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands of Kurds were killed, and more than 1,100 of their villages razed, under his Arabization program.

Last December, a suicide bomber killed at least 55 people in a packed restaurant near Kirkuk where Kurdish and Arab leaders were trying to reconcile differences.

The long-awaited U.N. report on Kirkuk will outline options for compromise, but "we are not pushing them into any particular direction," said spokeswoman Randa Jamal.

A draft of the U.N. plan, according to two Western officials who have read it, offers five options. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been finalized and they are not authorized to speak publicly about it.

Three of the options in the draft likely will be dismissed immediately as too extreme or unworkable, the officials said. The remaining two are:
_
Making Kirkuk a "special status" province where both Iraq's Shiite-led central government and the Kurdish government in Irbil could have power. Final decisions would be left to provincial officials. The special status would likely last between three and 10 years, giving officials more time to figure out Kirkuk's final status.

None of Iraq's 17 other provinces, including the three that make up Kurdistan, currently has such an agreement.
_
Making Kirkuk politically autonomous but still somewhat reliant on Baghdad for funding. This plan, favored by the Turkomen with political ties to Turkey, also would allow Kirkuk to collect revenue from federally owned North Oil Corp. refineries in the province.

Details of the formulas are still being negotiated. Remaining sticking points include how jobs will be divided among each group, and when, and who can be counted as a legal resident among the 400,000 Kurds who moved to Kirkuk after Saddam's ouster. Arabs and Turkomen call them illegal squatters.

"Ultimately, they need to come together to resolve this issue, because it's not going to get any prettier with time," said Howard Keegan, the State Department's top envoy in Kirkuk.

Smoking Marlboros at his desk at the government building in downtown Kirkuk, Province Council chairman Rizgar Ali said he could accept a special status for Kirkuk — but still tied to Kurdistan. He accused Arabs and Turkomen of stalling on an agreement.

"You can't go on like this," Ali said. "This kind of thing killed Iraq."

Saeed, the top-ranking Arab in Kirkuk, signaled he could support making Kirkuk autonomous. Anything connecting Kirkuk to Kurdistan would be rejected, however.

"We will resist that by all means, because this will erase our identity," Saeed said.

Ultimately, the dispute may be solved only if Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani personally agree to compromise.

The U.S. has encouraged power-sharing in a country where Shiites dominate in the south, Sunnis in the west and Kurds in the far north. Bitter sectarian fighting and ethnic cleansing have deepened mistrust.

In recent weeks Barzani has alleged that al-Maliki is drifting toward authoritarian rule. Al-Maliki says Iraq's central government is too weak, and that granting provinces too much power risks de-facto partition that would invite foreign meddling.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military leader in Iraq, said in a recent AP interview that "ultimately they have to solve this problem in Baghdad." And in a January visit to Kirkuk, Vice President Joe Biden told local leaders they had a year to show significant success in settling the dispute — or potentially face it alone.

"The Americans should understand we cannot guarantee there will not be a civil war when they leave," said Turkoman councilman Hassan Tora

THE BEST WAY TO CONTAIN ETHNIC WARLORDS

DAILY NATION
NAIROBI, KENYA
By MACHARIA GAITHO
March 23 2009

OURS IS A TRULY GREAT and awesome land. The land of snow-capped peaks on the Equator, sun-kissed beaches, the great Rift Valley, endless savannah teeming with wildlife, the great wildebeest migration, the splendour of Lake Victoria, the cave elephants of Mount Elgon, and all the other wonders that would make Kenya the world’s premier tourist destination were it nor for inept marketing.

To the list of uniquely Kenyan features, we can add the country’s position as the quarrel capital of the world.

Yes, when it comes to human achievement, we can add to fleet-footed runners, all-conquering rugby sevens, an entrepreneurial streak that makes gold and diamonds out of thin air, and a capacity for quarreling second to none.

Quarreling is indeed a national pastime, without which there would be no life. Leaders are selected or elected, not on their honesty, experience, qualifications, programmes or ideology, but on how adept they are at quarreling.

And this is not just picking quarrels with those on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but about finding cause for quarrels even within your own party.

A leader who is not forever on the warpath against enemies, real and imagined, swiftly drops out of the radar and is considered a wimp, a softy, a weakling.

So we celebrate the brave and fearless leaders like Raila Odinga, William Ruto and Martha Karua, the rating being based purely on the decibel count they generate.

For those leaders who are not too voluble, Mwai Kibaki, Musalia Mudavadi, Uhuru Kenyatta, for instance, we see lack of spine, lack of leadership, remote and aloof accidental leaders who don’t know how to protect their turf and how to take battle to their foes.

Then there are the wannabe national leaders trying to make themselves heard above the din. We can go back to history and come up with a long list of fellows who rose to great power purely due to their ability to make the noise that most attracts the attention of their political patrons.

We had Kihika Kimani, Shariff Nassir. Kariuki Chotara and Mulu Mutisya in years gone by. A more recent generation has included Otieno Kajwang’, Danson Mungatana, Joshua Kuttuny, Kalembe Ndile and others known more for their vocal cords than anything else.

Even when we at first might dismiss many of the noisemakers as just court jesters, buffoons or just plain irritants, eventually they are the ones likely to outlast everybody else and rise to ethnic, regional and eventually national leadership.

THAT IS BECAUSE WE SEE THE CAPACITY to wage verbal battle as a reflection of the capacity to wage real war on behalf of party, community, region or other interest when push comes to shove.

I don’t know whether it is in the Kenyan gene, but for some reason, we place a premium on fighters and warriors. That is why, eventually, we create and sustain not statesmen, but ethnics warlords.

Now, ethnic warlords, whether in Somalia or Kenya, Sierra Leone or Liberia, Congo or Rwanda, do not easily take no for an answer.

The concept of losing an election is pretty alien here. And that is why our elections are bound to forever degenerate into ethnic bloodshed because our brand of leaders will always call their people out to war.

I don’t know how much civic education and how many peace workshops it will take to cure that particular defect in our body-politic.

This is not something that can be cured with the national cohesion programmes under the national accord and reconciliation process. We need more than a generation, and with another election due on December 2012, if not sooner, we don’t have the luxury of time.

I have a quick simple and drastic solution. Do drop me a line, however rude, if you have a better proposal.

I hope the good men and women we have appointed to provide us with a new constitution are reading this: Ban any parliamentary candidates from seeking a seat in their “home area”.

For this purpose, define home area as province of birth, province of birth of either parents; home area as listed in the national identity card; province of residence; and any province where one has resided continuously for at least two years in the past, including the place where one attended school.

What would be the effect? It would man that Uhuru Kenyatta might have to seek a parliamentary seat in Ugenya; Raila Odinga in Kirinyaga; William Ruto in Imenti; George Saitoti in Webuye; Musalia Mudavadi in Mvita and Martha Karua in Keiyo.

With a stroke of the pen, we will have wiped out the concept of ethnic leadership in our midst.

COMMENTS:

Submitted by SJ502
Posted March 24, 2009

Lol...well intentioned proposal but it will not work Gaitho...Why? a Kenyan warlord is first an incurable loser (they’re so unlike the hardworking President Obama) and they totally lack a national appeal beyond their home turfs. My proposal: - Kenya adopts the traditional Women Groups 'Mwethya' concept in the constitution...that State House gets 'Merry-Go-Round-President'. That’ll make instant impact as Kikuyu and Kalenjin men and women, for example become eligible as presidential candidates in another 200 years. No more tribal wars, no dynasties and the good news is we'll all be dead anyway!


Submitted by lilkeke
Posted March 24, 2009 08:13 PM

If only the kenyan public was as smart as you!anyway, Kenyans will live to suffer from their ignorance!

EALA MPS TO ALTER EAC TREATY

DAILY NATION
NAIROBI, KENYA
By ALPHONCE SHIUNDU
March 24 2009

The East Africa Legislative Assembly has proposed to amend the East Africa Community treaty to speed up the implementation of its plans.

There was need to wrest control from member states to the Council of Ministers as prescribed in the treaty, Uganda’s MP Daniel Wandera said during Eala’s sessions at Nairobi’s Old Parliament Chambers on Tuesday.

Mr Wandera said the “good plans” may not be achieved if interference from the Executives of the member countries continued to dog the regional body.

“The buck stops with the Council of Ministers and this Assembly... We must be ready to act on the targets we set for ourselves,” the Ugandan Eala representative said.

Eala is a 55-member legislature, with 45 MPs – nine from each of the five member countries – and 10 ex-officio members among them ministers and their deputies, plus two top officials from the secretariat.

If the Assembly manages to push the agenda through, and the individual member states endorse it, this would mean that the integration dream would move faster.

The current debacle between Kenya and Uganda over a tiny island – Migingo – in Lake Victoria is just a case in point on how the regional body lacks “teeth”.

Benefits

Some of the benefits likely to come with integration include identity cards for EAC citizens to help in free movement, and uniformity in education systems.

“We also need to harmonise labour, immigration and trade laws if we have to succeed,” Mr Wandera said.

But speaking on the sidelines of the Eala’s proceedings, Kenya’s EAC minister, Amason Kingi said the integration would remain a mirage if individual countries did not place enough emphasis on it.

PNU MOVES TO BLOCK FRESH TALKS ON POWER PACT

DAILY NATION
NAIROBI, KENYA
March 24,2009

By DAVID MUGONYI

The Party of National Unity (PNU) has filed a key instrument of the Kenya coalition, effectively blocking the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party from seeking fresh negotiations of the National Accord.

Nairobi Metropolitan minister Mutula Kilonzo, acting on behalf of PNU deposited the National Accord with the Registrar of Political Parties on Tuesday to formalise the status of partners in the coalition.

It now means that any dispute on the accord will be resolved by a tribunal formed by the registrar rather than renegotiations chaired by Mr Kofi Annan, which is being pushed by ODM.

The party will now be required to file a complaint with the registrar who will refer the matter to the yet to be formed Political Parties Disputes Tribunal. The tribunal is expected to resolve any dispute in not more than three months from the date it is lodged.

However, in a swift rejoinder, ODM secretary-general Anyang’ Nyong’o said the party was not consulted over the issue. He said courtesy demanded that ODM be involved in deciding and filing the instruments.

He said politics was not decided by filing of documents in offices.
Mr Kilonzo’s move followed a meeting of PNU’s ministers in the 12 member Permanent Committee on the Management of the Grand Coalition, which resolved to stop any plans by ODM to renegotiate the deal.

The management team, which has six members from each side including President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, was formed to deal with the affairs of the coalition and ensure it worked in harmony.

It was formed immediately ODM leaders called for the renegotiation of the National Accord arguing that they had been short-changed in the running of the government.

In his letter to the registrar, Mr Kilonzo said: “I write on behalf of the PNU coalition forwarding herewith, under Section 13 of the Political Parties Act, the instruments of the coalition between PNU and ODM dated February 28, 2008.”

The letter is copied to both President Kibaki and Mr Odinga and Prof Nyong’o.

Section 13 of the Political Parties Act states that where two or more political parties resolve to form a coalition before or after an election, the instruments of the coalition agreement shall be deposited with the registrar for the purpose of arbitration between the coalition parties.
PNU’s move effectively blocks ODM’s demands that Mr Annan, the chief mediator, oversees the renegotiation of the accord.

On Tuesday, Foreign Affairs minister Moses Wetang’ula said: “Our position is clear; you cannot renegotiate a law. There is nothing to warrant going to that direction.”

The instruments of agreement between PNU and ODM give a brief history of the violence that rocked the country after the 2007 General Election as reason for the formation of the coalition.

It also states the provisions of the National Accord Act, composition of the Cabinet, the functions of the Prime Minister and how the coalition can be dissolved.

YES, PARLIAMENT HAS GRABBED EXECUTIVE POWERS

THE STANDARD
NAIROI, KENYA
March 25, 2009

By Kennedy Buhere

A decade ago, I asked Dr Amukowa Anangwe, then MP for Butere, why Parliament had taken control of district roads boards and constituency Aids control committees, when the principle of separation of powers in Government excluded it from such issues.

Anangwe, who was also a Cabinet minister, complained the World Bank and western nations believed the Executive and the Civil Service were incorrigibly corrupt and had engineered legislation and other measures to preclude the bodies from the Executive’s influence. He confided in me — being relatively close as a Kenya News Agency official in Butere — that the emerging trend was likely to emasculate the Executive and greatly distort formulation and implementation of policy.

Reservations expressed by Head of the Public Service and Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura last week called to my mind the fears Anangwe expressed. Critics have since questioned whence Muthaura drew his authority to raise the issues in question, being patently political as they are. For me, that doesn’t matter. Our sense of duty as citizens requires that we respond to the fundamental issues Muthaura raised: The stealthy creep of the Legislature into a domain the Constitution, statutes, conventions and other laws has long vested in the Executive in democratic systems everywhere.

Principle and common sense must impress on us the reality that the Executive must have an influence in the choice of the principal officials running key institutions of Government, save for MPs. It has had and must have a hand in who ascends to the High Court — though, with the advice and consent of Parliament as in the US and other democracies.

Autonomy circumscribed

The Executive must also have hand in appointments into State corporations established by statute. This is because, administration and enforcement of laws constitutionally and legally belongs in its ambit, not with the Legislature or the Judicature.

The Executive is not an agency of Parliament. It is a co-ordinate organ of Government, charged with enforcing or implementing legislative policy. It cannot effectively enforce the Constitution, statutes and other laws when its autonomy is heavily circumscribed by the will of Parliament.

As United States statesman Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist Papers, a series of 85 articles advocating ratification of the US Constitution: "The administration of government, in its largest sense, comprehends all the operations of the body politic, whether legislative, executive or judiciary; but in its most usual, most precise, signification, is limited to executive details, and falls within the province of the Executive.

"The actual conduct of foreign negotiations, preparatory plans of finance, application and disbursement of the public moneys in conformity to the general appropriations of the legislature, the arrangement of the army and navy, the directions of the operations of war, these, and other matters of a like nature, constitute what is most properly understood as the administration of government."

Muthaura was right to expressing serious misgivings about Parliaments penchant to encroach on the Executive’s turf. We should not see his action as aimed at protecting President Kibaki’s sphere of influence in Grand Coalition Government. The position he stated stands — and will stand regardless of who is President.

Any Secretary to the Cabinet will be constrained to restate this principle of constitutional law if politicians or others are afraid of saying so.

Combination of ignorance

I would restate it in perhaps more forceful language than Muthaura did knowing that the trend we have taken is bad for the interests of good, effective government. Political scientists, statesmen, historians and judges and lawyers have never faulted the Executive managing taxation, foreign policy and all matters that are not legislative and adjudicative in character.

A combination of ignorance, naivety and malice have led politicians to impair Government by weakening the Executive. Cutting its excess powers does not mean transferring unwarranted power to a Legislature with as much capacity to be imperial or tyrannical. While it is easier to handle the Executive (held by one person), it is harder to hold to account an entire Parliament. Citizens beware.