We
must resist the temptation to conflate the fates of Uhuru Kenyatta and
William Ruto at the ICC with the right of the peoples of Kenya to elect
them on The Fourth. Messrs Kenyatta and Ruto are not barred from
standing for elections. Neither the Independent Electoral and Boundaries
Commission nor the High Court has found any basis, Constitutional or
otherwise, to prevent them from offering themselves to the electorate on
The Fourth. But the inherent dangers in conflating their indictments at
the ICC with their candidacies at the next general election are
exacerbated every time the impression is reinforced that their victory
will be a declaration of their innocence by way of the "sovereign will
of the people."
Those in the civil society who disingenuously claim that their indictments mean that they cannot beet the Chapter Six threshold must now hold their fire, unless they intend to plead their case at the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Kenya. Messrs Kenyatta and Ruto are merely accused persons, and after the recantation of the testimony of a key witness in Mr Kenyatta's case, he may yet be acquitted after trial at The Hague-based court. Both have continued to plea their innocence at every political rally, and, barring any instructions from the court, they are free to do so. With the ruling of the five-judge Bench, they are also free to prosecute their political campaign without fear of interference.
This is in no way an endorsement of their joint candidacy. Regardless of the outcome of the ICC trials, both are quite possibly unfit to lea. In a presidential race n which all candidates are flawed, their flaws are far too serious to be casually ignored simply because "their" people have made a choice. Despite their intelligence and obvious youthful vigour, they are yet to demonstrate that their plans for the nation are nothing more than an attempt to wind back the clock. Their campaign rhetoric betrays the fact that they too do not appreciate the difference between their travails at the ICC and their constitutional rights. Their daily attempts to link the Prime Minister and his acolytes to their legal troubles as part of a grand scheme to deny them power is a pointer to how they will govern and how they will apply themselves to the implementation of Kenya's barely three-years old Constitution. In short, they see the country as being in need of an all powerful presidency, sans checks and balances from Parliament or the reformist Judiciary.
Messrs Kenyatta and Ruto cut their political teeth at the feet of the Professor of Politics, Daniel Toroitich arap Moi. Kenyans are still coming to terms with the sclerosis that pervaded the government he bequeathed Mwai Kibaki in 2003. The lessons that the two took away from their classes with President Moi are lessons Kenyans should not have to survive a second time around. President Kibaki's was always going to be a transitioning presidency, marking time for when Kenyans would make a clean break with the perfidious and odious KANU past. The two represent that past and are ill-suited to the business of bringing Kenya finally out of the sins of its past and into the virtues of its future.
Those in the civil society who disingenuously claim that their indictments mean that they cannot beet the Chapter Six threshold must now hold their fire, unless they intend to plead their case at the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Kenya. Messrs Kenyatta and Ruto are merely accused persons, and after the recantation of the testimony of a key witness in Mr Kenyatta's case, he may yet be acquitted after trial at The Hague-based court. Both have continued to plea their innocence at every political rally, and, barring any instructions from the court, they are free to do so. With the ruling of the five-judge Bench, they are also free to prosecute their political campaign without fear of interference.
This is in no way an endorsement of their joint candidacy. Regardless of the outcome of the ICC trials, both are quite possibly unfit to lea. In a presidential race n which all candidates are flawed, their flaws are far too serious to be casually ignored simply because "their" people have made a choice. Despite their intelligence and obvious youthful vigour, they are yet to demonstrate that their plans for the nation are nothing more than an attempt to wind back the clock. Their campaign rhetoric betrays the fact that they too do not appreciate the difference between their travails at the ICC and their constitutional rights. Their daily attempts to link the Prime Minister and his acolytes to their legal troubles as part of a grand scheme to deny them power is a pointer to how they will govern and how they will apply themselves to the implementation of Kenya's barely three-years old Constitution. In short, they see the country as being in need of an all powerful presidency, sans checks and balances from Parliament or the reformist Judiciary.
Messrs Kenyatta and Ruto cut their political teeth at the feet of the Professor of Politics, Daniel Toroitich arap Moi. Kenyans are still coming to terms with the sclerosis that pervaded the government he bequeathed Mwai Kibaki in 2003. The lessons that the two took away from their classes with President Moi are lessons Kenyans should not have to survive a second time around. President Kibaki's was always going to be a transitioning presidency, marking time for when Kenyans would make a clean break with the perfidious and odious KANU past. The two represent that past and are ill-suited to the business of bringing Kenya finally out of the sins of its past and into the virtues of its future.
No comments:
Post a Comment