We must elevate public debate

A strange argument is gaining currency that the nominees for the positions of Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice are unfit to hold those positions because they will adversely affect the moral fibre of Kenyan society, especially given that the nominee for the position of CJ is an ear-stud wearing two-time divorcee, the nominee for DCJ is single, and both of them have shown a disturbing level of tolerance for deviant behavior, especially homosexuality, and a permissiveness regarding abortion that borders on the genocidal. If they are confirmed in their positions, the argument goes, the two will preside over a Supreme Court hell-bent on re-writing the moral code of the nation and encourage the murder of the unborn on a scale never seen before. In other words, the two are the vanguard of the Dark Days predicted by so many apocalyptic religions. They are un-African and un-Kenyan.

The debate that their nominations has generated, and the debate now surrounding the question of when the Budget will read, demonstrate that when it comes public discussion of matters of national importance, facts are to be treated with contempt. The number of persons that purport to speak for the masses, or to speak with professional certainty, boggles the mind. Some are now styling themselves as the conscience of the nation, determining who is right and who is wrong, who is a man of integrity and who is not. Some style themselves experts at the interpretation of the Constitution, never mind that they keep quoting sections that do not exist.

A good example is the equation that integrity equals morality. A keen reading of Chapter Six on Leadership and Integrity shows that "morality" is absent from the entire Chapter. Key phrases in this Chapter include "respect for the people", "honour to the nation", "dignity to the office", "serve the people", "personal integrity, competence and suitability", "objectivity and impartiality", and "honesty". If one wishes to challenge the nominations of Dr Mutunga and Ms Barasa on the basis that they do not satisfy the conditions, or the objects, of Chapter Six, they must demonstrate this using facts, not innuendo, as has been the case so far. Indeed, Dr Mutunga and Ms Barasa will, or they should, welcome scrutiny based on what they have done and what they have said in the past, but the evidence provided so far as to their suitability would be laughed out even from a kangaroo court.

It is expected that any person who wishes to engage in public debate must do relying on facts. This is a condition that must be observed by everyone who purports to be involved in the implementation of the Constitution, including public officers, church leaders and members of the general public. Anything less is to be construed as an abdication of public duty and should be ignored.