50 YEARS LATER, JUBILEE REGIME IS HELL BENT ON TAKING KENYA BACK TO 1963

By Jerry Okungu

Nairobi, Kenya

July 29, 2013

The   year is 1963. Kenya becomes independent from British rule under the Lancaster Constitution. A year later, sections of the Lancaster constitution are amended to allow for the dissolution of the opposition party. This move enables KANU then ruling party to swallow the then only opposition party KADU

Following the dissolution of KADU, Kenyatta makes another tactical to dissolve the many centres of power that then Lancaster Constitution had created to safeguard the interests of the regions and minority tribes. This move sees the death of the Senate and Regional Assemblies. And with KADU having died earlier, the supremacy of the Executive begins to be felt all over the country. Now it is possible for the Leader of Government Business and the Attorney General to move and bill in parliament with a certain level of confidence that such a bill will sail through.

With the coming into the cabinet of former KADU leaders, Ronald Ngala and Daniel arap Moi, cracks begin to emerge in KANU. Factions are formed along leading lights in KANU. There are pro Odinga and pro Kenyatta factions. Kenyatta however gets the backing of Tom Mboya the KANU Secretary General for a good reason. Mboya wants to succeed Kenyatta when the time comes, never mind that Jaramogi Oginga Odinga is the sitting Vice President and heir apparent to Jomo Kenyatta. Indeed it is clear to all and sundry that Mboya and Odinga are political rivals-never mind that they both come from Nyanza.

As these intrigues, fuelled by international spy agencies, pick momentum, the stage is set for early brutal assassinations

The first giant to fall is Pio Gama Pinto who gets shot dead in Parklands Nairobi. Pinto was known to be Jaramogi Odinga’s chief ideologue and was feared by most operatives in KANU including Jomo Kenya.

The death of Pinto, though a Goan devastates not only Jaramogi Odinga but also fellow comrade in the struggle, Joseph Murumbi who is the Foreign Minister at the time.

The same year that Pinto dies, the relations between Jaramogi and Jomo become more strained. To observers in government and outside government; it is just a matter of time before battle for supremacy is fought in the public arena.

Then the bubble goes bust on March 13 1966 at the Limuru Conference Centre. And as Karega Munene captures the moment in his Wajibu Series,

“The ethnic maneuvers by the troika of Kenyan politics and their lieutenants culminated in the 13 March 1966 KANU national delegates meeting at the Limuru Conference Centre, ostensibly to hold party elections. As it soon emerged, the meeting's agenda was to get rid of the then KANU Vice-President who was also the country's Vice-President, the late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga. The key architect of the organizational format, who was used in cutting Oginga Odinga to size at the meeting, was Tom Mboya. By using Mboya in this way, Kenyatta probably intended to blunt charges of tribalism that could easily have been levelled against him (as a Gikuyu leader) at the time. To a casual observer, the political intrigue and battle was simply a Luo affair.”

This move by Kenyatta and Mboya against Jaramogi has predictable consequences. They know that Jaramogi will surely be furious and likely to resign in a huff. And that is what happens. Jaramogi resigns the same day as KANU Vice President and Vice President of the country and a few days later forms the first post independence opposition party- KPU- Kenya Peoples Union. Remember, this happens before any amendment in the Standing Orders of Parliament or the Constitution requiring MPs that opt to join a new party to return to the electorate to seek a fresh mandate.

For this reason, Jaramogi’s KPU causes a common in parliament and panic in the Kenyatta cabinet. Left unchecked, Jaramogi’s new party has the potential to bring down Jomo’s government. For this reason, Mboya is detailed to move a motion in parliament to compel any MP who crosses the floor to the opposition to resign his seat and seek a fresh mandate from the electorate.

Subsequently the Speaker of the National Assembly declares seats of those MPs that had crossed the floor vacant and a by election is set. This is what culminates in the now famous “Little General Election of 1966”.

The aftermath of the 1966 “Little General Elections” is a disaster for Jaramogi Oginga Odinga. It spells the death knell for his political career without him knowing it.

The behavior of KANU, particularly that of Tom Mboya ensures that KPU lost massively in Local Government Councils and Parliament. Just a few days before the elections, Tom Mboya tours the whole country castigating KPU and Odinga’s pesa nane politics. He goes ahead and ropes in the Provincial Administration to vet and disqualify as many of KPU candidates as possible such that most KANU candidates at the Council and Parliament are elected unopposed.

At the end of the day, some of Jaramogi’s most prominent figures in KPU like Bildad Kaggia and Achieng Oneko lose in their constituencies. Odinga end up with about six KPU MPs, a number that finally becomes ineffective in parliament.

With Jaramogi neutralized, Kenyatta systematically begins to get rid of Luo appointees in government particularly if their appointments were courtesy of Jaramogi Oginga Odinga. This political witch hunting goes on until January 29 1969 when Argwings Kodhek, the Foreign Minister dies in a mysterious road accident in Nairobi. Six months later, his fellow cabinet minister, Tom Mboya is also assassinated along Government Road in Nairobi on July 5 1969.

The aftermath of Mboya’s assassination is followed by a fracas in Kisumu involving Jomo Kenyatta where eleven civilians are shot dead, Odinga and all KPU MPs detained and KPU banned. This further worsens the plight of Luos that remained in the Kenyatta regime and more purging takes place.

Is the Uhuru regime likely to read from the same script in dealing with Raila Odinga four decades later?

jerryokungu@gmail.com

POLARIZATION OF POLITICS IN KENYA ALONG ETHNIC LINES

By Karega-Mûnene

A significant number of Kenyans still remain puzzled about the fact that the self-appointed "professor of politics", Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, who was the second President of the Republic of Kenya, lost his "professorial acumen" towards the end of last year. Some suggest that it was not possible for him to beat the big brains in the opposition, especially after the brains united to form the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC). Others argue that Moi was never a professor of politics in the first place. Rather, some of us regarded him as one because a number of our leading politicians and academics appeared to have believed in that lie. It was because of this belief that some people assumed they could only rise on the political ladder if one joined Moi and, by extension, the then ruling party, Kenya African National Union (KANU). This line of thinking aptly explains the dissolution of the National Development Party (NDP) at the KANU national delegates meeting at the Kasarani Sports Complex in March 2002.

Moi's Nyayo politics

I take the position that Moi was not the "professor of politics" he wanted us to believe, but a very keen student of the first President of Kenya, the late Jomo Kenyatta. Unfortunately, Moi was selective on what to copy from Kenyatta, namely, (1) self-preservation in politics, (2) insatiable greed for land and wealth, and (3) nepotism and tribalism. In this regard, we cannot accuse Moi of dishonesty when he promised us he would follow Kenyatta's footsteps (nyayo) when, on Kenyatta's death in August 1978, he assumed the presidency. Indeed Moi, the student, excelled in all three points of the lesson but failed miserably whenever he tried to be original. Examples of such failures abound: witness the Nyayo Milk project, Nyayo Wards, Nyayo Pioneer Car, Nyayo Tea Zones, Nyayo Buses, and more recently, the Uhuru Project.
When the Uhuru project failed, some of us could not believe that the "professor of politics" had failed. That is because Moi had succeeded in making a significant number of Kenyans suppose he was invincible. In actual fact, however, it was because we failed to appreciate that Moi only succeeded where he had something to copy from his predecessor, Kenyatta. As such, we failed to realize that Moi could not copy Kenyatta on presidential succession since Kenyatta did not in the real sense manage his own succession. Rather, Moi became President by virtue of Kenyatta's death.

While the extent of Kenyatta's and Moi's wealth remains unknown to the general public, there is no doubt that the two and their respective families are excessively rich. Since both Kenyatta and Moi are not famous for their acumen in business, one can only assume that their wealth accrued to them on account of their high office. This may explain why political power was so dear to them in their life. While Kenyatta's authority enabled him to hold on to office and to implement his wishes with considerable ease, Moi compensated for his lack of such authority by seeking legal backing and sometimes a semblance of such backing. For example, Kenyatta's authority enabled him to rule Kenya as a one-party state without amending the national constitution. In contrast, Moi found it necessary to amend the constitution to make Kenya a one-party state by law through the insertion of the infamous section 2A. In time, the one-party state became a one-man state as parliament, the cabinet, the judiciary, the civil service, the parastatal sector and public universities acquiesced to Moi's wishes.

Equally illustrative is the implementation of the infamous 1988 queue voting (mlolongo), which was specifically designed to rid Parliament of those who were regarded as disloyal to Moi. For this to happen, KANU amended its procedure for nominating candidates in that year's general election. This was enunciated in the booklet The Kenya African National Union nomination rules. Moi also unashamedly used state resources to buy loyalty in curious ways. He dished out loads of local currency notes to ordinary Kenyans he found on the roadside, regardless of whether they were minding their own business or waiting to catch a glimpse of him.

Since appointment to senior positions in the civil service and in the parastatal sector guaranteed high social status and wealth right from the days of independence, Moi, like Kenyatta, was not averse to appointing people from his village or ethnic group to those positions. Given the fact that there were only a handful of Tugen who could be appointed to those positions, Moi reached out to well educated people from the Nandi, the Kipsigis, the Keiyo, the Sabaot, the Pokot and the Marakwet, all of whom are considered to belong to one ethnic group, the Kalenjin. Eventually, Moi cast the net wider to include the Maasai, the Turkana and the Samburu, hence the coining of the acronym KAMATUSA. As a result of this redefinition of ethnic identity, a group of people in the former South Nyanza District, for example, disowned their hitherto widely recognised Luo identity and demanded recognition of their Suba ethnicity through the creation of the Suba District.

The birth of ethnic politics in Kenya

At this juncture one is tempted to ask how and when did ethnicity become such an important factor in our politics? At/ independence, for example, the current President of the Republic of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki, and the late Thomas Joseph Mboya went to Parliament on cosmopolitan Nairobi tickets and Achieng Oneko on a cosmopolitan Nakuru ticket. Interestingly, rather than nurture the cosmopolitan politics of the time, the troika of Kenyan politics at the time: Kenyatta, Mboya and Oginga Odinga, as well as their disciples, quickly retreated to ethnic refuges in their attempt to consolidate their political influence. Consequently, tribal organisations like the Gikuyu, Embu and Meru Association (GEMA), the Luo Union, the Akamba Union gained notoriety as political platforms during the remainder of Kenyatta's reign. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that these developments compelled some of the significant national political leaders to retreat to safe ethnic constituencies: Mwai Kibaki, for example, moved to Nyeri and Achieng Oneko to Nyanza.
The ethnic manoeuvres by the troika of Kenyan politics and their lieutenants culminated in the 13 March 1966 KANU national delegates meeting at the Limuru Conference Centre, ostensibly to hold party elections. As it soon emerged, the meeting's agenda was to get rid of the then KANU Vice-President who was also the country's Vice-President, the late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga. The key architect of the organisational format, who was used in cutting Oginga Odinga to size at the meeting, was Tom Mboya. By using Mboya in this way, Kenyatta probably intended to blunt charges of tribalism that could easily have been levelled against him (as a Gikuyu leader) at the time. To a casual observer, the political intrigue and battle was simply a Luo affair.

As was to happen at another KANU national delegates meeting in 2002, the delegates at the Limuru Conference meeting amended the KANU constitution, abolishing the position of the single Vice-President. In its place, they created eight positions of party Vice-President, representing the country's eight provinces. The Party line-up at the end of the conference was as follows:

NAME	OFFICE	PROVINCE	ETHNIC GROUP
Jomo Kenyatta	President	National Office	Gikuyu
Joseph T. Mboya	Secretary General	National Office	Luo
Ronald Ngala	Vice President	Coast	Giriama
Mohamed Jubat	Vice President	North Eastern	Somali
Jeremiah Nyagah	Vice President	Eastern	Embu/Mbere
Mwai Kibaki	Vice President	Nairobi	Gikuyu
James Gichuru	Vice President	Central	Gikuyu
Daniel T. arap Moi	Vice President	Rift Valley	Tugen/Kalenjin
Eric Khasakhala	Vice Presiden	Nyanza	Gusii
Lawrence Sagini	Vice President	Nyanza	Gusii

Besides representing the provinces, the party Vice-Presidents represented specific ethnic groups. Interestingly, the Gikuyu community got the lion's share of the party positions: Kenyatta, Mwai Kibaki and James Gichuru. The fact that Kenyatta viewed the Gikuyu academic elite and the ex-Mau Mau and their offspring as a threat to his reign probably necessitated this arrangement. This postulation is supported by the fact that, by the time of Kenyatta's death, the majority of political detainees in the country came from the Gikuyu community.

Thus, in one stroke, Kenyatta's 1966 manoeuvres polarised this country's politics along ethnic lines. The operating logic here appears to have been as follows: if a member of the Gikuyu ethnic group opposed Mwai Kibaki, James Gichuru, or Jeremiah Nyagah, let alone Kenyatta, he/she could be considered an enemy of the Gikuyu (and by extension the Embu and Meru communities) because he/she was blocking one of their own from succeeding Kenyatta. Similarly, if a member of the Luo ethnic group opposed Thomas Mboya he/she became an enemy of the Luo because he/she was interfering with the accession of Mboya, a Luo, to the presidency.

Intensification of ethnic politics

Further polarisation of our politics occurred in 1969 with the assassination of Tom Mboya and the proscription of the Kenya Peoples Union and detention of its leadership. These events introduced the politics of ethnic intrigue and hatred into Kenya. The assassination of J. M. Kariuki in March 1975 provided a much-desired temporary relief (since the Kenyatta leadership-and by extension the GEMA communities-had "eaten" one of their own. Sad to say for this country, however, and as recent complaints by some politicians and intellectuals indicate, we are still grappling with the politics of ethnic intrigue and hatred.

The changes in the leadership of KANU resulting from the Limuru Conference delegates meeting had the desired impact for, in April 1966 Oginga Odinga resigned from the Vice-Presidency of KANU and the Republic. Thereupon Kenyatta appointed the late Joseph Murumbi Vice President. But Murumbi soon resigned to be replaced by Daniel arap Moi, who remained Vice-President until Kenyatta's death in August 1978. Curiously, none of the eight KANU Vice-Presidents was appointed Vice-President of the Republic on Odinga's resignation. While time was on Kenyatta's side in 1966 thus enabling him to name the "outsider" Murumbi Vice-President, in 2002 Moi was faced with a crucial general election, which may explain his procrastination in appointing a Vice-President when George Saitoti was sacked.

When he chaired the KANU national delegates meeting at the Kasarani Sports Complex on the18th of March 2002, Moi simply turned back a few pages in our history book. As was the case in the 1966 KANU delegates meeting, the agenda was to block the then Vice-President, George Saitoti, from being a significant player in the succession game. True to form, the meeting amended the party constitution to allow for the absorption of the National Development Party (NDP), hence the creation of the "New KANU" and the four positions of party Vice-Chairmen. The Party line-up at the end of the meeting was as follows:

NAME	OFFICE	PROVINCE	ETHNIC GROUP
ETHNIC GROUP	Chairman	National Office	Tugen/Kalenjin
Raila Odinga	Secretary General	National Office	Luo
Uhuru Kenyatta	Vice-Chairman	Central	Gikuyu
Musalia Mudavadi	Vice-Chairman	Western	Luyia
Kalonzo Musyoka	Vice-Chairman	Eastern	Kamba
Katana Ngala	Vice-Chairman	Coast	Giriama

On the surface, the line-up may appear less tribalistic than the Kenyatta 1966 line-up. However, given the fact that Moi had little respect for protocol and was therefore more at ease dealing with lesser officials than with senior ones, the Kalenjin community, and by extension the KAMATUSA group got the lion's share of the positions that mattered. Besides Moi's executive party Chairmanship, there was Nicholas Biwott (Organising Secretary), Julius Sunkuli (Deputy Secretary-General), William Ruto (Director of Elections) and his son Gideon Moi who was not a party official. The events leading to the last year's general election and after clearly demonstrate that power was vested in the lesser officials (and non-officials) rather than in the Vice-Chairmen or the Secretary-General.

That Moi successfully set the political agenda since the advent of multi-party politics in the country in 1992 is not in doubt. As such, it was likely that the average Kenyan would have agreed with Moi's assertion that KANU was the only national party, while the rest were ethnic outfits. As was the case with Kenyatta, it was therefore logical for Moi to assume that anyone who opposed the "New KANU" line-up could be seen as an enemy of the "tribe", hence the logic governing the creation of the four positions of party Vice-Chairman. Those elected to these positions came from the ethnic groups that provided significant opposition to KANU: the Luyia (who were led by Kijana Wamalwa), the Gikuyu (who were led by Mwai Kibaki) and the Akamba (who were led by Charity Ngilu). The only exception were the coastal communities who, it was hoped, could help tip the scale in KANU's favour if the race for the State House came too close to call, hence the inclusion of the colourless Katana Ngala.

By making Raila Odinga Secretary-General of the "New KANU", Moi hoped to bring intra-Luo opposition politics to an end. It was, therefore, expected that any Luo (read James Orengo and Shem Ochuodho) who opposed KANU and therefore Raila Odinga, would be regarded by the Luo as an enemy of the "tribe" because he/she was obstructing the ascendancy of one of their own to the presidency. In one stroke, Moi reduced Raila Odinga from being the representative of the cosmopolitan Lang'ata Constituency to the position of the undisputed leader of the Luo ethnic group. It was also hoped that Musalia Mudavadi would become the undisputed leader of the Luyia (with the exception of the recalcitrant Bukusu) and Kalonzo Musyoka and Uhuru Kenyatta undisputed leaders of the Kamba and the Gikuyu (and the Embu and Meru ethnic groups), respectively.

According to the Moi logic, any Luyia who opposed Musalia Mudavadi (read Kijana Wamalwa) would be seen as an enemy of the Luyia. Similarly, any politician from the Coast who opposed Katana Ngala, became an enemy of the Coastal peoples. Anybody from the Gikuyu ethnic group who opposed Uhuru Kenyatta (read Mwai Kibaki and Kenneth Matiba) was an outright enemy of the Gikuyu (and the Embu and Meru communities). And any Kamba politician opposed to Kalonzo Musyoka (read Charity Ngilu) was an enemy of the Kamba community. If one belonged to the KAMATUSA group and was opposed to Moi, Nicholas Biwott, Julius Sunkuli, or William Ruto (read Kipruto Kirwa, Kipkalya Kones and Tabitha Seei) he/she automatically became a sell-out for helping another community to steal the presidency from his/her own. These manoeuvres only served to polarise this country's politics further along ethnic lines. Is it surprising at all that KANU is on its way to becoming an ethnic party?

It is not lost to a keen observer that, with the exception of Katana Ngala, whose ambition for high office was always doubtful, the new KANU officials wasted no time in trying to consolidate their positions. Kalonzo Musyoka, for example, quickly threw a party in his Mwingi constituency to celebrate his victory in the new KANU "elections". In so doing, Kalonzo intended to consolidate his position as leader of the Kamba ethnic group, with the blessings, of course, of Mulu Mutisya (the hitherto undisputed Kamba king-maker). Being somewhat more sophisticated than Mulu Mutisya, Kalonzo reportedly transported representatives of KANU from every district in Eastern Province to the victory party. Of course, attainment of provincial leadership status would come in handy for Kalonzo in sharing the spoils if KANU triumphed in the general elections.

Understanding Moi's tribal card game

It is quite amazing that Moi, a man with less than ten years of formal education outperformed Kenyatta, his teacher, in the game of politics, striding the Kenyan political landscape like a colossus for close to a quarter of a century. Besides his legendary patience and ability to exploit state resources to his advantage, his persistent presentation of himself as an underdog enabled him to reign supreme. That Moi appears to have started his political career as the "reluctant politician" is significant. (Recall in this connection Benjamin Kipkorir's description of himself as a "reluctant scholar" and more recently Sally Kosgei's description of herself as a "reluctant civil servant"). This stance enabled him to watch from the sidelines before striking back, as his enemies exhausted their missiles. It also enabled him to escaped public censure for practising tribalism in virtually every aspect of life.

Throughout his reign, Moi enjoyed playing politics to the public gallery, where he delighted in humiliating people who were better educated than him. Such humiliation did not only raise questions about his culprit's academic credentials and abilities in the public mind, but also left the culprit at Moi's mercy. This streak is also evident in the manner he chose and treated his Vice-Presidents, all of whom were university graduates and from large ethnic groups.

he humiliation that each one of them suffered at Moi's hands appears to have been a desperate attempt by Moi to demonstrate to them and to the general public that university graduates and, indeed, university lecturers and professors were Moi's second best. Undoubtedly, this was the mind-set of a man with a serious inferiority complex, trying to compensate for his rather low education standards. This observation is given credence by the fact that throughout his reign Moi never humiliated politicians with his level of education or less like the late Kariuki Chotara, Kabiru Kimemia, Philemon Chelagat, Stephen Michoma, Mulu Mutisya, Shariff Nassir and Ezekiel Bargetuny, to mention a few.

If anything, by their poor education, or lack of it, as well by their lack of sophistication, such politicians made Moi look good.

Viewed against this background, one is tempted to forgive Moi for his naked promotion of parochial ethnic interests at the expense of national interests. Unlike his teacher Kenyatta, the student failed to appreciate the relationship between the nation's economic prosperity and self-preservation in politics, hence the country's economic stagnation throughout his reign. The student appears to have been so keen to promote himself to professor that he forgot he had to matriculate and graduate before he could be allowed to tutor undergraduates, let alone become professor. For a man who always reminded the country that he did not have advisors, it is highly likely that his ego got the better of him, thus making him ignore good advice whenever it was proffered.

Under both Kenyatta and Moi a small group of State House supporters had a priori knowledge of the planned sequence of events during the 15 March 1966 and 18 March 2002 KANU national delegates meetings at the Limuru Conference Centre and at the Kasarani Sports Complex, respectively. According to one-time Moi confidant, G.G. Kariuki, the design of the 2002 "elections" followed the system that was employed in the October 1978 KANU "elections". In those "elections" the party national delegates conference was presented with a "slate of party officials…listing the names of the candidates for all party offices on a provincial [and ethnic] basis." This approach had the desired effect of "surpris[ing] the internal party opposition, which was still deliberating its strategy, and thus left the impression that the names on …[the] list (which …[was] titled "Kenya imeamua" or "Kenya has decided") had the support of the Kenyan people.

Given the similarities between the 1966 and 2002 KANU national delegates meetings, one is tempted to pose a few questions. To begin with, was it by coincidence or by design that the position of Secretary-General in both cases was filled by a Luo, namely, Tom Mboya in 1966 and Raila Odinga in 2002? Was Moi making a statement to Raila Odinga that, like Tom Mboya, he had reached the pinnacle of his political career in KANU when he became Secretary-General? Secondly, was it by coincidence or by design that both elections, ushering in a "new KANU," were held a mere three days apart in March? Was Moi hoping the Kenyatta magic would rub off on his manoeuvres?

Tribal politics-a way out?

That the recently elected NARC government has been accused of nepotism and tribalism raises the question whether this country will ever have a government that will escape such accusations. Is this really possible granted that we define our individual identities first by ethnic affiliation? Is ethnicity necessarily bad? Since there is strength in diversity, why cannot we, as Kenyans, harness that strength instead of using it divisively?
Unfortunately for Kenya, the majority of our leaders, who include politicians, religious leaders, in addition to the economic and academic elite, are not known for being social reformers. Instead, virtually all of them seek high office as a means to accessing and appropriating public resources for selfish reasons. Insofar as this state of affairs persists, ethnic factors will remain a major bane to this country. Perhaps there is hope that the enactment of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Bill and the Public Officers Ethics Bill, which will promote merit and punish theft of public resources, will help us to harness the strength in our diversity.

---

A JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS CONCERN
Published Quarterly by DR. GERALD J. WANJOHI
Likoni Lane - P .O. Box 32440 - Nairobi - Kenya 
Telephone: 254.2.712632/311674/312822

---

THE DEATH OF ARGWINGS KODHEK

From YUTUBE

Argwings CMG Kodhek was born in 1923 in Nyawara, Gem, Siaya in central Nyanza. He was educated at Yala {now popularly called st Mary's], Maseno and Makerere University College then, in Uganda. In 1947 he got a further scholarship to the University of South Wales, graduating as a lawyer and social scientist in 1949. From there he went st Andrews in Scotland. He returned to colonial Kenya at around 1951 and went into legal practice as the first black, and worse, married to a white, Tate Mavis. That was not done in colonial apartheid societies.
Kodhek took to the defence of Mau Mau freedom fighters and other patriots who ran foul of colonial law. So he had no shortage of clients, just time and money. With a huge intellect, confrontational personality, solid education, perfect mastery of the colonial language, murderous humor and wit, Kodhek ran rings around colonial courts. One day, having out argued a chief-justice who still thought blacks could not practice english law, in exasperation he jabbed:
Woe and wilt upon Brittania, that she chooses to export the most stupid and vile of her sons to civilise Africa! Oh mistaken queen, come and evacuate these simpletons who understand nothing of you, neither your jurisprudence nor your languange. Their perfect idiocy insults your royal foolishness!

In 1956 he launched the NAIROBI DISTRICT AFRICAN CONGRESS. 1961-63 he was in the Legislative council [Legico], and after independence he became the KANU representative for Gem constituency.
He died JANUARY 29,1969 in puported road accident along the road which now bears his name[ Argwings Kodhek ] in Nairobi.
Ramogi then composed one of the saddest songs in contemporary Luo conciousness. I offer two versions, the recent one done by Tom Kodiyo, and the original one of 1969.

LESSONS FROM THE MAKUENI "LITTLE GENERAL" ELECTIONS:REVISED

By P.Anyang' Nyong'o

It goes without saying that the Makueni by-election was not just an ordinary by election in Kenya. For all intents and purposes it was a "little general" election in which the two major political coalitions have taken keen interest and the whole nation has been mobilized to pay attention to it. For almost two months the media was full of news about Kethi Kilonzo and the election.

For Jubilee the fact that Makueni was right in the middle of a CORD strong hold was no reason to let the by-election go to the rivals just like that. One only needs to remember that a European sitting somewhere at the Hague or an American in Washington has very little knowledge of Kenya's geography. The by-election, being the first after the controversial presidential election, would obviously be of great interest to the world out there with regard to which party wins. A Jubilee loss would be viewed as a much bigger event out there  and a much more useful trophy to the opposition. Jubilee was determined to ensure that the trophy eludes their rivals.

This election reminds one very much of the Gem by-election held in late 1966, the same year the Kenya People's Union emerged as a post independence opposition to KANU. The election was fought between the KANU candidate Omolo Rading and the KPU candidate Wasonga Sijeyo. Except for the absence of the KANU Secretary General Tom Mboya from the campaigns, KANU released all its big guns to face the KPU brigade led by Jaramogi Oginga Odinga on the ground in a predominantly KPU stronghold. But KANU was determined to win the seat, if only to demonstrate to the world that the KPU was no challenge to it and it was very much in charge in the whole country. In the end the KPU floored KANU without much ado, just as Mutula Kilonzo Jr. just sent the Jubilee team packing after only four days of being in the campaign trail.

While the Jubilee big guns did not troop to campaign in Makweni in large numbers, they spent most of their ammunition in Nairobi within the law courts and the IEBC. The tremendous efforts, logistics, manoeuvres and tricks used by Jubilee to find anything in the law to stop Kethi Kilonzo from contesting the Makueni seat were clear signs that Jubilee never intended to take its case to the people of Makueni: judges, lawyers and the IEBC mandarins were its carefully orchestrated constituency to decide for the Makueni people who their candidate was. The joke making the rounds in Makueni during the  campaigns was that after the Supreme Court saga, Jubilee had decided that it was much cheaper to win elections using the courts than to bribe thousands of voters in the countryside.

But why did the by-election in Makueni in the end become a "little general" election in Kenya?

To begin with the man who passed on and who was to be replaced, Mutula Kilonzo, somehow grew larger than life in his death. As Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs Mutula had taken a very clear and firm legal stand on the ICC. As far as he was concerned there was absolutely no way by which Kenya could avoid its responsibilities to the ICC having been signatory to the Rome Statutes. Secondly, there was no way by which justice towards the victims of the Post Election Violence could be downplayed by not going ahead with the cases at the Hague, or tampering with evidence in any way whatsoever. This clear and unequivocal stand that risked making him unpopular with the Kibaki government won him the admiration of many Kenyans who thought as he did but rarely came out so succinctly on this issue as he did.

A continued focus on Mutula Kilonzo by getting his child take over his seat in the Senate was not the kind of thing that the powers that be wanted to put up with for the next four years. Moreover, when that offspring happened to be Kethi Kilonzo of the AFRICOG case in the Supreme Court petition that challenged the election of Uhuru as Kenya's fourth president, then one can see why Jubilee went out of the way to mess up Kethi's candidature.

Kethi's performance in the Supreme Court elevated her to national and international fame. Kethi in the Senate and staying in the lime light was something that could have metamorphosed into many things that the Jubilee mandarins and their intelligence squads did not want to wait and see. Nipping the whole thing in the bud without going to the ridiculous extent of rigging an election was a much better approach. Hence even after the IEBC had properly nominated Kethi to run it had to look inside its own house and manufacture some mistakes as reasons to withdraw the nomination from Kethi. Whatever the case, Kethi has now been fully initiated into national politics in a by- election which has been truly a "little general" election.

From now on Kethi has no other alternative but to look up, keep her profile high and prepare for 2017. She need not go back to Makueni. There are several options worth looking at which need not preoccupy her today lest she runs too much ahead of herself. But the options are there; those who have eyes to see let them see.

Young, gifted and female Kethi has the vibrant youth constituency to attend to. Disarmingly calm and articulate, she brings the best out of this generation as someone who has respect for her seniors while not giving them room for unnecessary patronage. Just by being herself she exudes some sense of authority when she speaks and reasons. She is obviously well grounded in her profession and a good number of people feared that politics may rob her of the opportunity to develop fully in her profession, thereby making even much more contribution than she would in politics.

But there is really no reason why she cannot do both. The present US Vice President, Joe Biden, shocked Americans when he became one of the youngest senators in 1972: he was in his twenties. He eventually carved a legacy for himself as one of the most respected legislators in the US Congress.

The Kenyan senate is slowly emerging as a house where painstaking work on law making and policy debates are key to the success of legislators. It is small enough to encourage collegial discourse and collaboration and yet big enough to influence the trajectory of Kenyan politics. Somebody like Kethi with both an intellectual and professional persuasion could, after a long haul in that house, make a difference which can only be imagined for now given the potential she demonstrated in her Supreme Court performance.

ARAB SPRING CANNOT HAPPEN IN KENYA NOW OR IN THE NEAR FUTURE

By Jerry Okungu

Nairobi, Kenya

July 24, 2013

One Eliud Owalo, a relatively unknown Kenyan is being given his moment of fame by the police and in return being harassed by the same police that he is a dangerous man capable of overthrowing the Uhuru government.

 I must confess I never heard of or met a man called Eliud Owalo until Raila Odinga plucked him from obscurity and made him the Prime Minister’s campaign manager upon the departure of James Ongwae and Barrack Muluka.

After running the Raila campaign to a dead end, one would have expected that Owalo would return to wherever he had come from. Instead, he has reemerged under very unflattering circumstances, a scenario that is giving him sleepless nights.

It is true Eliud Owalo is a Kenyan who has the right to agitate for reforms just like every patriotic Kenyan. In fact being a member of ODM or CORD, he stands a better chance of being the next generation of youthful leaders to take over the leadership of his political party if he has the mettle to do it and if party members feel he has the wherewithal to assume such a role.

However, what I do not or cannot buy is the idea that Owalo has the capacity to affect an Arab Spring in Kenya. I say this because to have a substantial following, you must have a clean record of patriotism, guts and ability to persuade your followers that you have a set of beliefs  and values that you are ready to die for if need be.

Secondly, the Arab Spring needs an Arab culture and fanatism that is prevalent in Middle Eastern cultures. To have an Arab Spring you need a critical mass of the population that is ready to sacrifice everything to achieve their objective. You need a critical mass that is equally suicidal with the madness of facing the police and if need be the military with bare hands for days on end without bothering about their personal safety. This culture is definitely missing in our society.

In Kenya, we have more distant spectators when we have a public demonstration than the actual number of participants. We saw it when the crowd deserted mothers of political prisoners in the 1990s at Uhuru Park as police clobbered naked mothers to smithereens.

Even the most celebrated Kamkunji rally now known as Saba Saba Day, there were more people running away at the slightest unleashing of tear gas than the number of demonstrators that confronted the police. In the end, the crowd took off as Rev. Timothy fell victim to the merciless GSU while James Orengo and others were nabbed by the police.

A clear example that Kenya does not enjoy an Arab Spring culture was evident in a recent public demonstration against parliamentarians when the Civil Society invaded the precincts of parliament using pigs as a show of disgust with MPs’ greed. And for the first time, there was a measure of police tolerance of demonstrators unlike in the past when the strategy was to prevent any form of demonstrations by any means necessary.

If the Pigs’ event in parliament did not excite the Kenya public enough to  join it in their thousands and occupy parliament for days until their demands were met, nothing in our life time can  excite Kenyans to take to the streets in larger numbers as we have seen Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians and Syrians do.

The reason the Arab Springs have succeeded is because of numbers. Public demonstrations in Tunis, Cairo, Damascus and Libya’s Tripoli were so big that they outnumbered national security agencies many times over. Now when there is a crowd in the cities numbering their millions and is composed of fanatics that are ready to die, the sheer numbers make the political class and their security apparatus think twice before they move against the crowds with guns and buttons.

The best moment when the Arab Spring would have taken place in Kenya was in January 2008 when parts of the country erupted in what one would have called a near uprising. At that time large regions of the country felt short changed following the 2007 rigged elections.

The uprisings were more pronounced in Rift Valley, Nyanza, Western and Coast regions. This uprising did not achieve its objective because it lacked ideological leadership.

The masses were left to their own devices to manage the uprising. And before long, the fighter youths turned into murderous gangs, raping and looting causing untold suffering to ordinary Kenyans. This indiscipline made it possible for the police to go on the rampage and shoot to kill innocent Kenyans some of whom were fished out of their homes and shot dead as long as they were in the opposition strong holds.

At the end of the day the ethnic dimension that the conflict took almost gave Kenyans the first real civil war that would have pitted the Kikuyus against the Luos and Kalenjins along with other tribes aligning themselves with their traditional allies.

Moreover, the growth of the middle class and pursuit of wealth at any cost, coupled with extreme selfishness makes it difficult for the masses to join demonstrations in large numbers. They will whine and moan about prices of basic commodities but they will not lay their lives on the line for prices to come down. They would rather pay high taxes than risk losing their meager savings to looters in mass demonstrations/

This man who was head of Raila's presidential campaign secretariat has been linked by the CID to the March 4 Movement, an organization the police claim is creating networks to destabilize the government and cause a revolution, an organization whose ownership has been claimed by human rights activist, Okiya Omtata. 

If he is not in any way affiliated to M4M, why is the police hell bent on sticking the label on him? Is Owalo the most attractive individual to make the authorities believe their security agencies are working?  Is it because Owalo is linked to Raila, the real target in this thoughtless saga? If I were in charge of Security agencies, I would revisit this whole story and throw it out as garbage.

Jerryokungu@gmail.com

CANAN CALLS ON NIGERIA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY TO RIGHT THE WRONGS AGAINST THE GIRL-CHILD

CANANUSA.ORG, NY, July 23, 2013---As the process for the amendment of the Nigerian 1999 constitution progresses, CANAN, today wants to commend those who have spoken out clearly in condemnation of a law that seeks to promote Child Marriage in Nigeria. We are aware that a recent draft amendment to ensure that the marriage age be clearly stated as 18 years and above was defeated in the Nigerian Senate. This is a most shameful outcome! Based on records from United Nations Children’s Fund, Nigeria is among countries where underage marriage is thriving attendant with all the physical and mental damages to the Girl-Child, including Vesicovaginal Fistula, which makes the little girls incontinent, dripping urine and feces! It is shocking that we can find a significant number of the Nigerian upper chamber lawmakers that are so uneducated and uninformed, and at least one that is currently known to be keeping an underage wife! We are concerned at the level of ignorance of some of this senators, who are among the best paid lawmakers in the world! But it is an outrage that a Nigerian lawmaker married to an underage is still allowed to sit in that chamber having clearly violated the Child Right Acts. It is a travesty that the Senate Ethics Committee have not challenged this senator, and also that the Nigerian Attorney-General not brought charges against him! It is because of these two critical failures in the system that has allowed the same Senator to block the passage of a common-sense amendment to the Constitution; an amendment that proposes to act in line with the Child Rights Act by stipulating age 18 as the minimum age for marriage. We are today calling on the Senate President, Honorable Senator David Mark to use his good offices to correct this reproach on the integrity of the Nigerian Senate. We are also calling on the Nigerian House of Representative to avoid a similar occurrence at the other chamber of the National Assembly. To paraphrase JFK, let it be clearly stated that in the defense of the Girl-Child, all Nigerians of goodwill all around the world should be prepared to ‘support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival’ of the Nigerian Girl-Child from the rapacious onslaught of a few greedy men who are trying to have their shameless way against defenseless girls. We at CANAN want to be counted in and we are calling on all our members in the United States to add their voices against this wickedness and pervasion. It is however encouraging that support for the Nigerian Girl-Child cuts across religious and ethnic divides in the country.  Laolu Akande laolu@cananusa.org Executive Director, CANAN New York

WHY KENYANS MUST CHANGE THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS FUNERALS.

By Alex Kamau

The only things certain in life are death and taxes (Benjamin Franklin- American Statesman).

The last two years have witnessed the deaths of prominent Kenyans notably Michuki, Karume, Saitoti, Ojode, Okuta and now Senator Mutula Kilonzo SC. Their funerals bar one were graced by presidential attendance.

Mutula has been eulogized in acres of print and electronic media and it’s not my purpose to repeat what others have said so eloquently including those who have spoken and written movingly about him.

Opening the obituary pages of Kenyan newspapers provides a precise prediction of the social and economic backgrounds of the dead; with the well-off generally occupying bigger spaces; while the poor bury their dead incognito- often unable to afford radio announcements.

While showing respect to the dead is a universal practice that transcends cultures, we must reject as despicable lavish spending on funerals. Is it not hypocritical that there are Kenyans willing to spend 100,000 shillings to bury a parent they were reluctant to offer a few hundred shillings to buy food and medicines while they were alive? Why waste on the dead money the living desperately need?

Time has arrived for Kenyans to ask how long spending so much on funerals especially those of public figures can continue. The well-off Kenyans-many of them politicians, former politicians and their families need to set an example by declining funeral donations from the impoverished public. It should become an emblem of honor that funeral costs for the rich and mighty are met by their estate and family. They could alternatively offer such donations to charity and it must be welcomed that the Mutula family bequeathed the collection made at his requiem service towards the charitable foundation he set.

A Kenyan society free of the greed of the rich is better placed to support its weakest and most vulnerable.

Yes the dead shall always be with us but Kenyans must question how much funerals shall cost, especially the cost to the taxpayer of burying public figures. It is unfair for the government to always pledge to help the families of the rich and the powerful on their deaths. Most don’t need help since while in office they made and stole from the taxpayer more than they or their families need-and in death must not expect the same taxpayer to pay their final earthly bill. With a burgeoning governance structure, we shall have more politicians to bury in the future. As with their salaries while alive; the already burdened Kenyan taxpayer can’t afford their lavish funerals.

By conservative estimates, burying Mutula may have cost the Kenyan economy and taxpayer in excess of 100 million shillings, which would have paid for a modern school in the county he devotedly represented. This figure isn’t outrageous. The funeral-over two days and streamed live on national television was attended by the elite in government, parliament and senate, the judiciary, Governors and top corporates, conservatively about 400 of these. Each with their near 1 million salaries –and individual driver and security- and spouses would have probably cost 50,000 shillings per day; totaling 40 million (Kshs. 50,000x400 x 2days) paid mainly by the taxpayer. Their attendance no doubt resulted in cascading costs to the economy and the taxpayer by way of delayed decisions and lost revenue.  Adopting a reverse multiplier to a factor of 3 results in a staggering 120 million shillings. Include ordinary Kenyans in attendance and the figure surges further.

Remember last month, the president and much of the political leadership attended the funeral of Okuta, the KNUT secretary - at similar cost. When one considers the cost and arrangements needed for the presidential entourage and elite, one appreciates why our attitudes towards funerals must change. We have IDPS, pregnant women at Pumwani maternity who have to struggle to pay 50 shillings to have any hope of a less traumatic child birth. Why should the taxpayer shoulder 100 million shillings to bury one Kenyan?

Interesting research shows that lavish funeral spending is consistent with poorer and corrupt countries. Even amongst immigrant communities in Europe and America, lavish funeral spending closely mirror immigrants with inferior economic and social progress in their host countries. Indeed the poorer a country or region is, the more likely that a greater proportion of its meager resources are dispensed towards burying their dead. Well known to Kenyans is that lavish funeral spending and feasting is associated with poorer communities and retrogressive practices that condemn them to avoidable poverty. Why hold endless meetings in city hotels to raise money for one off expenditure on the dead? Would the 14 million raised for Mutula’s funeral by leaders led by billionaires Raila Odinga and Charles Njonjo not have been better used to feed the hungry mouths in the part of the country Mutula came from; where we have in the past read of people feeding on dead dogs on account of starvation? Why does someone who could afford Kshs.700,000 a month to feed lions and other predators need financial help for burial? I suspect Mutula would have been disgusted by such a deceitful and shameless gesture.

It should prick our conscience that at a time of diminishing resources, more from those with so little should go to cater for the dead, while the living languish for lack of the basics. There should be collective national revulsion about the morality of lavish spending on funerals.

We surely must optimise our limited resources to maximise life-not glorify death.

Alex Kamau is a Kenyan working as a lecturer in London.akkamotho@yahoo.co.uk

A REPRIEVE FOR KENYA’S FORMER TOP CIVIL SERVANTS

By Jerry Okungu

Nairobi, Kenya

July 17, 2013

Francis Kimemia has fully recovered from the shock he received when the Uhuru government subjected him to a parliamentary vetting which he survived by a whisker.

When President Uhuru Kenyatta announced his cabinet line up, he said something that spoke volumes about the former Head of the Civil Service and Secretary to the cabinet. He alluded to the fact that Francis Kimemia would be retained as Cabinet Secretary for purposes of transition.

To observers, this was taken to mean that Francis Kimemia was only retained temporarily as the President shopped around for a suitable replacement. It was probably after further consultations that the President changed his mind and chose to give him a soft landing as Cabinet Secretary.

It will be remembered that when Francis Kimemia took over as Head of the Civil Service and Secretary to the Cabinet following Francis Muthaura’s departure, that short period before the country went into elections, Francis Kimemia ruffled many feathers in the coalition government. Because of his uncomfortable relations with the Prime Minister’s office, he was accused by the ODM fraternity of working hard to ensure that Raila Odinga did not become the President upon Kibaki’s departure.

Although Kimemia vehemently denied these accusations, the perception that he was campaigning for State House friendly candidates did not go away. In fact it was strongly believed that his support for Uhuru Kenyatta only took preeminence when the first State House favourite, Musalia Mudavadi came a cropper following Mudavadi’s rejection by the Mt. Kenya MPs.

It will be remembered that during Francis Kimemia’s short term as Head of the Civil Service, he facilitated the recruitment of 47 county commissioners contrary to the constitution.

And even after the High Court nullified the appointments, those appointments were never revoked. The Executive still found a way to formalize those appointments through an act of parliament.

As politicians got busy campaigning for general elections, there were a few actions that the Head of the Civil Service undertook to prepare himself for appointment in the new regime. He was instrumental in the appointment of many ambassadors and high commissioners and several high profile promotions in the public service.

What perhaps Mr. Kimemia did not know was the fact that the Jubilee coalition partners had a different idea about the kind of government they had in mind. Obviously Kimemia may not have been fully privy to the size of government that would emerge and more so if the Head of the Civil Service position would be abolished and have those functions spread among the 18 Cabinet Secretaries who would in turn be in charge of public servants under them.

As things stand today, the Cabinet Secretary has one major function, to take the minutes at cabinet meetings and prepare minutes and agenda for the same.

It is true after so many years in public service, Francis Kimemia made many friends. Obviously he bonded with some more than the others. The spirit of comradeship could be the reason he has come out publicly to vouch for the reappointment of some former permanent secretaries into some public corporations.

If one looks at the current cabinet, of the 41 former cabinet ministers and over 50 permanent secretaries, only three former permanent secretaries became full cabinet secretaries while in the former cabinet of 41, only Uhuru Kenyatta, William Ruto, Charity Ngilu and Najib Balala survived the onslaught.

Obviously someone of Francis Kimemia’s caliber must be feeling lonely in a cabinet that may not feel his power. Therefore finding a way of staffing government corporations with his cronies will give him a sense of belonging since he will have people he can pick a phone and call in case he needs some favour to be done from time to time.

Whereas  Francis Kimemia is in order to be mindful of his fallen colleagues, it is obvious that the Uhuru list that came out last with the final list of 26 principal secretaries, must have been received in bad taste especially be some of the PSs who were so sure of making it to the list.

Recalling top civil servants from forced retirement may have its own complications based on how they viewed their being sidelined during the initial appointments. Obviously some of them with active career skills like law, engineering, architecture or IT have moved on and started their own consultancies.

Indeed if the truth be said; one did not expect Dr. Bitange Ndemo, the man who put Kenya on the IT world map to be left out of the Uhuru –Ruto government either as Cabinet Secretary or as Principal Secretary considering his contributions to the IT penetration in Kenya in the last ten years.

Because of Bitange Ndemo’s initiative and enthusiasm, Kenya acquired multiple cyber optic cables concurrently, drastically reduced telephone charges and the time of his departure, was on the verge of overseeing migration from analogue to digital broadcast.

The challenge for whoever will be selecting former PSs to be redeployed will lie in the criteria that will be seen to be fair and transparent. Is Francis Kimemia up to the task? Is it even his docket to do so?

jerryokungu@gmail.com

THE CID AND RAILA'S AIDE

P. Anyang' Nyong'o

It does not take a lot of imagination to notice that the IEBC failed Kenyans badly in the March 2013 elections. That this was done to favour the TNA presidential ticket is no guess work either. As soon as the election was on all organs of state security were mobilised to take care of any public protest against the doubtful results. That too is no subject to guess work: ordinary Kenyans are privy to the knowledge.

What is more disturbing is that after peace loving Kenyans accepted the dubious Supreme Court ruling these same state security organs now serving the Jubilee regime do not want to leave Kenyans alone. They still feel uneasy about "the big lie". They want to keep on prying into what Kenyans are thinking so as to be sure that there is absolute acquiescence to "the big lie".

That is not surprising to those of us who have studied the genesis and evolution of totalitarian regimes that derive their legitimacy from regimented support and loyalty where to criticise such a regime is equivalent to treason. Owalo is just but the first victim: as we learnt from both the Kenyatta and Moi regimes, many more Owalos will soon follow if we don't stand up now against this creeping political intolerance and repression.

It is interesting to read the summons that the CID originally issued to Owalo and what was reported in the Standard of the twentieth of July. In the original letter to Owalo, no mention was made of the so- called March Movement. On the July twentieth rendition of why the CID wants Owalo the Movement is now the main issue. If so, why was it not mentioned earlier so that Owalo could be clear on the treason charge he was being accused of? Why change the goal post after the CORD leadership called the bluff of the CID?

To begin with there is nothing wrong at all in starting a movement in Kenya called the Movement. I would like to join such a movement if its aim is to clean up the IEBC, guarantee Kenyans free and fair elections, safeguard our democracy, uphold constitutional government, keep security forces away from adversely interfering with the democratic process and promote justice and human rights. The more such movements we have in Kenya the stronger civil society will be.

But I can understand why the CID is weary about the mention of such movements by any Owalo, Kariuki or Cheruiyot. Kenyans are so alert to their democratic rights that when the state has ignored or trampled on such rights in any way state organs will do all in their power to conceal the deed. When they fail in the concealment project, they resort to cajoling, frightening, repressing or even eliminating critical citizens. The constitution now prohibits detention without trial, but the other types of repression are still open to such bodies as the CID.

So where do we go from here? Let nobody within the state think that citizens cannot demonstrate. That is our constitutional right. It does not matter whether somebody on Kiambu Road or Vigilance House thinks such demonstrates can mimic Tahir Square; that does not in any way make them illegal or treasonable. In any case when it comes to a point where Kenyans resort to the Arab Spring style of changing our political regime it is not the people who will be doing something strange; it is the regime itself which will have long gone astray to invite the wrath of its citizens.

The feeling I get is that a good number of Kenyans feel they ran a race that they never finished. This feeling is further reinforced by the inability of the IEBC to tell the truth, pure and simple. The old adage that statisticians can lie successfully with figures has completely eluded the IEBC mandarins to the extent that they can blatantly refuse to swear to tell the truth.

Now what would be wrong for Wambui, Wamugunda and Mwakilenge to go to the streets demanding that Kenyans deserve an IEBC that can not only do its job fairly and perfectly but also stop lying when it has failed to do so? Why should such a public expression of genuine concern for accountability in government be regarded as treason?

Once a government feels and says that somebody is plotting to overthrow it the citizens ought to realise that the government has done something wrong it is trying to conceal or it is just about to commit treason against its own people, like abrogate the constitution for example. It is our duty to speak our minds on such issues or wait to suffer the terrible consequences of totalitarianism.

We remember the old story in fascist Germany where Hitler was picking up his critics one by one and sending them to the gas chambers. At first he came for the intellectuals, and the rest of society kept quiet. Then when he realised that not all intellectuals were bad and that it was mainly the Marxists who were uncompromising, he decided to target the Marxist intellectuals. The rest of society still kept quiet thinking that the Marxists had gone too far. Then he realised that most intellectuals and Marxists were Jews so he went for Jews en masse; the rest of society thought the Jews were strange anyway. Then he went for anybody who was not an avowed follower and sycophant: it was now too late but but to suffer the consequences of fascism whoever you were.

Having suffered for speaking against political repression before we are not afraid to do so today. Having been in the trenches we are not afraid to go back there to defend our hard won constitutional rights and the constitution itself. So we are with Owalo and against the apostles of fear mongering and repression.

WHY UHURU’S MAY TURN OUT TO BE A PRESIDENCY OF MISSED OPPORTUNITIES.

By Alex Kamau

The greatest disappointments are borne out of the greatest expectations- Vladimir Putin- Russian President.

When Uhuru was confirmed president, a fatigued and bitterly divided country agreed in the name of peace and country to carry on. In speeches full of hope he promised to make Kenya better for all.

Over 100 days later, there’s little to show and unless President Uhuru provides decisive leadership, the future may be bleak. Shrewd leaders understand that any new government has limited time to make its mark. Once the honeymoon dissipates; a disillusioned electorate begin to view speeches as rhetoric and promises as falsehoods. President Uhuru must avoid this eventuality.

His privileged background means the expectations on him are enormous. He is likely to succeed if he identifies issues of greatest concern to Kenyans and devote his energy to these; conscious that Kenya’s myriad challenges can’t be solved in one or even two terms.

History is replete with examples of leaders who focused on few areas and succeeded.

Within days of being elected British Prime minister in 1997, Tony Blair took three bold decisions he is remembered for to date. First his government mandated the Bank of England (the country’s central bank) to set interest rates free of political interference. Secondly they passed a law guaranteeing a minimum wage for all employees. These two acts met the needs of two competing constituencies -the capitalists on the one hand; and employees on the other.

His later attempts to pass landmark laws were harder and of course the Iraq debacle eternally tainted his reputation. Ronald Reagan in 1980s America championed market deregulation and the crusade against communism; culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall. Obama’s healthcare plans ring true here as is Kibaki and free primary education.

For president Uhuru, the following six may be a start:

First, although he had a difficult task choosing cabinet secretaries, Uhuru and Ruto’s communities disproportionately took the juiciest ministries thereby missing an opportunity for national healing and renewal. Safe for Jubilee supporters, other Kenyans feel marginalised. He should have boldly given two powerful ministries to Odinga’s acolytes thereby neutering his bitter nemesis and validating himself as a nationalist. All is not lost and the president could in addition to ensuring devolution succeeds; make future appointments represent the face of Kenya and accommodate his opponents. Obama did this with Hilary Clinton and also offered Mitt Romney a position though he declined.

Secondly, imposing VAT on essentials including food is unfortunate.  From Antoinette’s 17^th Century France to 2013 Egypt, history teaches that when citizens are unable to feed themselves their avoidable actions have dethroned monarchs and presidents. Mr President has the opportunity to put food security at the heart of his government and achieve for the hungry Kenyans what his father and two successors failed in 50 years in office. VAT on food will not help.

Thirdly spiralling insecurity remains a nightmare for Kenyans. With a resurgent police force, a reforming judiciary, the president needs to position his security team to ensure criminals receive punitive deterrents to dissuade them from their trade-including annihilation. Criminal cases must be expedited through the courts. Importantly, the root cause of crime-youth unemployment is core to the Jubilee manifesto and what’s needed is leadership to bring coherence to existing policy.

Fourth the profligacy of elected leaders has left the public nauseatingly disgusted. With a majority in both houses, President Kenyatta should have cracked the whip; requiring the greedy legislators to drop their demands. However with his close ally the Speaker of the National Assembly acting like a Union steward in defence of the legislators, the opportunity to tame the gluttony of the already well paid lawmakers was lost. It was a matter of time before public servants took to the streets to demand higher pay. Teachers have and others shall follow. Why blame teachers for asking a rise of Kshs. 20,000 while MPs demand Kshs. 400,000 on top of Kshs. 600,000?

Fifth, Uhuru’s munificent upbringing allows him; from the vantage of high morality to relentlessly fight rampant corruption. Having the dubious distinction as the 4^th most corrupt country on earth isn’t a badge of honour. As long as police receive bribes in full glare of cameras, corruption shall be more spoken about with little action. This requires leadership, courage and boldness.

Finally, the deaths on our roads remain a national tragedy. Every accident victim is someone’s mother, father, child, etc. President Uhuru should take action and establish an independent and well-staffed quasi-Judicial body-The Driving Standards & Safety Authority to delineate and judiciously enforce driving and safety standards across Kenya; with severe punishment including punitive fines, bans and jail terms for offenders. Any death is one too many. 

The driving skills of many Kenyans are appallingly reckless and more deaths sadly await us all. Ours may be the only country where it takes a few months from getting a licence to becoming a matatu driver. In Britain a similar body ensures that all drivers receive rigorous driving instructions with severe punishment for offenders. About 52% of those who sit the driving test in the UK fail. It may explain why despite having comparably more vehicles, the UK has a minuscule fraction of the carnage available on Kenyan roads.

Additionally, circumstances may dictate that cherished manifesto promises are abandoned. Many Kenyans are rightly sceptical about the need to provide laptops to pupils- half of whom may be malnourished.

That said, the president can wait for 2017, to be confronted by a savagely divided, hungry, insecure, broke, corrupt and mourning country; all ingredients for electoral obliteration. The choice is his.

Mr Kamau is a lecturer in the UK; and a Director and Strategy advisor to Rock Ventures, a Diaspora Investment Company.  akkamotho@yahoo.co.uk