The Goldenberg Affair and Judicial Reforms.

Kamlesh Mansukhlal Pattni, also known as Brother Paul, is a fascinating man. For twenty years, by some accounts, he has "romped through the Judiciary" using chicanery, bribery and fraud to keep his hide out of the loving embrace of the wardens at Kamiti GK Prison. Some members of the Judiciary are accused of being his footstool, bending to his every whim each and every time he presents himself in court on one cause or the other to perpetuate his continued liberty. Mr Pattni is accused of robbing the Government of Kenya and, by extension, the people of Kenya blind. The sordid tale of the Goldenberg Affair has been told and retold a thousand times over. It was even the subject of a Commission of Inquiry and featured prominently in international litigation. It continues to boggle the mind of keen watchers of Kenya's administration of justice machinery why Mr Pattni is a free man. I believe I have the answer.

First, from the outset, let it be known that Mr Pattni is yet to be convicted of any crime. For twenty years the State has attempted to prove that Mr Pattni was the spider at the centre of the web that became the Goldenberg Affair. Second, despite the findings of the Bosire Commission into the affair, there has been a singularly spectacular lack of will to prosecute him in the manner required. Third, and most important, Mr Pattni has proven to be quite the intelligent and clever quarry. He must have studied the criminal and civil law of Kenya with a determination that is singularly lacking in the half-dozen or so prosecutors and private-practice lawyers who have attempted to hold him to account in one form or the other. He has managed to find loopholes and gray areas in the law of Kenya that have contributed to his string of successes in the corridors of justice.

In the decades that the Goldenberg Affair has occupied the minds of keen watchers, Mr Pattni has become an expert at the civil and criminal procedure of Kenya. Bernard Kalove, his lawyer, is a capable advocate for his client. But I believe that it is Pattni who has the better grasp of the ins-and-outs of the law. His timing, as in everything else he has been embroiled in, has been spectacular. He has not just exploited the loopholes and gray areas, he has also managed to turn a profit at every turn. Not Mr Pattni for the subtle approach; he has wielded the sledgehammer of the law to get things done his way. Every calculated move he has made in the past two decades has not only been designed to protect his liberty, it has also contributed enormously to his great wealth and destroyed those who would seek to destroy him. If he weren't considered the most odious man alive, he would be celebrated as a folk hero who has bested the mighty Kenyan State and his legions of enemies.

Those caviling at his rare successes miss the point. When they demand that judges and magistrates be investigated for making rulings that favour the businessman, they betray the fact that they have failed to understand the facts. And they refuse to admit that the judicial reforms currently successfully underway are only one half of the equation. The other half comprises police reforms and reforms in the prosecution services of the State, both of which leave a lot to be desired. If we accept that the evidence exists to convict Mr Pattni of the litany of charges that face him, then we must also accept that the reason he is yet to set foot behind bars for his crimes is because our police and prosecutors are out of their league. While we may abhor the manner in which he has exploited the law to his advantage, we cannot deny him the right to do so, even when it makes the bile in our stomachs rise up with such putrid vengeance. We must instead ask why the State, in its many manifestations, has failed to lay a glove on the cherubic face of Mr Pattni. When we give satisfactory answers to that question, then, perhaps, we may begin to reverse the losses that the State has suffered at his hands.

But it could be that the rot is too deep and that the radical surgery, the vetting of magistrates and judges, and the reforms in the Judiciary have all been cosmetic. It is not suggested that the Chief Justice or his judges and magistrates are corrupt. It is not suggested that the officers of his court are corrupt. It is not suggested that the lawyers involved in the matter are corrupt. And it is not suggested that the police who keep investigating and re-investigating the Goldenberg Affairs are corrupt. But perhaps the sclerosis that hobbled the Judiciary for decades will take a wee bit longer to resolve. The hiccup during the reading of the Presidential Petition judgment points to the slow-burn form of the judicial reforms taking place. It will be a while before Kenyans can honestly stare in the mirror and agree that the Judiciary is a paragon of virtue. That day may be realised when Mr Pattni finally gets his just desserts.

Seize space, don't beg for it.

There is a feeling among the chatteratti and the punditocracy that Kenyan civil society is under assault by agents of the State. This may be true. But the solutions being proposed will do nothing to restore civil society to its rightful place. In the 1980s and 1990s, civil society, especially in the political and human rights arenas, was the moral champion of the nation. Its members suffered brutal depredations at the hands of agents of the State. No one questioned their moral authority to say what they said and to do what they did, other than the agents of the State who kept muttering darkly about "foreign interference" in the affairs of the State. The fruits of their labour are plain to see: a liberal Constitution and the institutionalisation of the business of governance.

Sadly, today civil society is a pale shadow of its former self. To be sure, in key areas it continues to do what must be done and to say what must be said so that Kenyans can have what they need. In the field of education or healthcare, civil society soldiers on where the State has decided to take a more laid back approach to things. But in the fields of human rights and politics it is hard not feel a little ashamed that active civil society organisations have not a clue as to what must be done to restore their moral leadership. Begging for scraps from the State is not the way to go about it.

Today, cant and sophistry define civil society. They have, since 2003 at least, become handmaidens of political interests out to sow unrest in the nation. If there be unrest, it should come from the unfettered, undirected hands of civil society warriors, not from the diktat of this or that political champion with an axe to grind. A recent example will suffice to demonstrate how low civil society has sunk. March 2013 marked a watershed in Kenya's political evolution. A massive electoral exercise was conducted to elect Kenya's next government, its newest under the three-years' old Constitution. As is common in Kenya, the results of the election were disputed and the aggrieved went to court.

It was their right to do so. But it is in the behaviour of civil society - NGOs, CSOs, faith-based organisations and the media - that we must admit that civil society is dead. Instead of keeping the interests of all Kenyans at the front of their minds, they picked sides and chose winners and losers. Some went so far as to attempt to intervene in the choice of the men and women who would be on the ballot. Some called on the international community to ostracise the government if their bete noirs were elected. When the presidential petition was heard in the Supreme Court, they did not have a logical, credible case to present other than arrant sloganeering that failed to persuade the six judges who heard the petition. Now they wish to persuade us that because they opposed two elected officials, these officials pose a threat to their survival because they opposed their candidature every step of the way.

In politics or human rights, civil society has not covered itself in glory. It has become petty and partisan, choosing battles with an eye to winning a popularity contest against the State. Instead of speaking the truth to power, and pointing fingers in every sordid corner of our land, they pick which politician is cleaner than the rest and appoint him our Messiah. Regardless of what is done elsewhere, Kenyan civil society must break free from the thrall of acting as king-makers. When they see injustice, even from their heroes and heroines, it must point it out. When it sees corruption and theft, it must point it out. When its political champions stand idly by as innocent Kenyans are murdered and maimed, it must carpet them for their lack of spine. It must do so even when the funds disappear or when its men and women are arrested in the dead of night, unlawfully detained or murdered in cold blood. It must regain its independence if it is to regain the support of the huddled masses. When we see the doyens of civil society hob-nobbing with the high and mighty from this or that political side, we know that they do not have our interests at heart, but they are looking out for the next Big Cheque. And the State is not going to give an inch. They must seize the space they have lost, not beg for it. That is not the civil society we knew.

Hypocrites, one and all.

It must be stated at the outset that we do not - NOT - approve of the goings on in Mombasa. Even in the most liberal of democracies or the most laid-back of autocracies, bestiality must be frowned upon and snuffed out before it rages like a prairie fire. What happened in Mombasa, and it has happened before, should not be seen by the fairer of the sexes falling on hard times as a legitimate way to earn a living. The men, and it is always men, who contrive to entrap our children in a life of licentious abandon without considering the imperiling of our children's immortal souls must be found out, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and hounded out of our country never - EVER - to return.

The moral fabric of this nation is in shreds. We all have had a hand in the sorry state of affairs that we find ourselves in. It is not just the sordid tales of bestiality that prove this to be so - the unquenchable thirst of our elected representatives for the sweet honey that is the Consolidated Fund is a pointer to how low we have sunk. The pursuit of mammon at the cost of our morality has become the raison d'être that is consuming our youth. A year ago, a promising post-graduate student was murdered in unclear circumstances. The rumours surrounding her early passing revolved around illicit narcotics and prostitution. Her name was dragged to the mud. And yet to date no one person has been detained for her death; her parents continue to live their lives not knowing whether their child had fallen victim to gangsters or was a participant in some other sordid tale.

For a decade now, sex-for-grades has been an open secret in our institutions of high learning. Young men and women (yes, men too) are compelled to offer sexual favours to men and women who should know better in order to graduate. It is unclear whether the students deserved the horizontal grades they receive; it is clear that the lesson they take from the Ivory Towers is that one must do what it takes to get ahead in life. It is not enough that you are bright and hardworking; if that fails, shelve your moral qualms and dive into the quagmire. It is the only way that your name will appear in lights and you will be the envy of your peers.

The Roman Catholic Church is among the oldest, most influential and wealthiest organisations in the history of mankind. Yet, in the Twenty-first Century, when not only the soul but the body is at risk, it insists that the moral code it has enforced for millennia is the only code that may apply in our lives. In Kenya, today, it is an open secret that whether one is married or single, in a committed relationship or still searching, sexual libertineness pervades the land. It rare person who has only the one sexual partner. It is there rare person who will take into account the health risks of promiscuity and act accordingly. In the collapse of institutions, including the church, that kept the youth on the straight and narrow, the explosion of sexual abandon has come at a very steep price. It is reported that at least 100,000 persons in Kenya become infected with the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus that sometimes blossoms into full-blown Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome. This does not take into account the hundreds of thousands more who are stricken with sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis or gonorrhea. Blind to this fact, and blind to the continuing suffering of our youth, the church argues that the use of prophylactics is against God's will! You invite the wrath of the Cardinal and the Archbishop if you use a condom to keep your body safe from infection.

It is with regard to sex that you can tell how low we have fallen. But sex is just one of the areas where we can measure our moral strengths. IN other areas, we are just as condemned. We turn a blind eye to our friends and relatives when they steal; we argue that every one does it and it is the poor sap who will not take a five-fingered discount when the opportunity presents itself. We turn a blind eye to the neighbour who uses violence, whether physical or linguistic, against their family. We argue that what happens behind closed doors is the business of the residents of that house. We celebrate our young when they cheat to pass their exams. We argue that the ends justify the means employed. We are not shy about cutting corners when constructing buildings. And like the proprietor of the ill-fated building that collapsed recently in Bangladesh, we will scurry and hide from the long arm of the law when disaster strikes.

The moral messages we pretend to impart on our children are the empty words that we offer our creator every day we lie, cheat or steal. We should no longer be surprised when our youth, seeking the lucre that comes with being bad, engage in risky acts to make a fast shilling regardless of the risks to their lives or their souls. When we allow anyone and everyone with a fat wallet to get away with murder, we have no business feigning outrage at the immoral acts of those that get caught.

The worst Fifth Columnists.

Kenyans no longer have a champion who will speak up when their rights are threatened. Even in the dark days of the Kenya Peoples' Union revolt, Kenyans had faith that their elected representatives had their interests at heart; it was the business of elected representatives to represent the interests of their constituents in the highest corridors of power without fear. The late Martin Shikuku, Jean-Marie Seroney and Ronald Ngala may have at one time or the other faltered in their duties, but there isn't a Kenyan alive who knew them who could argue that they betrayed their duty to represent their constituents. In the late 1970s, Kenyans had the Seven Bearded Sisters who did all in their power, in and out of Parliament, to point out that the kleptocratic authoritarian regime inherited from Kenya's First President has hell-bent in stymieing the natural expansion of democratic rights and space a nation undergoes as it becomes better educated and wealthier.

 

In the 1980s, the Mwakenya Movement became the catch-all phrase to describe the men and women who worked in secret to educate Kenyans on their rights and on the sins of their government. Whenever Kenyans linked to the movement were arrested, unlawfully detained and prosecuted, Kenyans, cowed or not, knew that there were others willing to sacrifice their liberty, even their lives, for those who could, or would, not. Dr Willy Mutunga, the Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court, was one of the champions that Kenyans could rely on to speak truth to power for which he paid a very steep price. In the 1990s, it was institutions like the Law Society of Kenya, and pressure groups such as the Forum for the Restoration of Democracy, that finally forced the State to accept that progressive change was inevitable. The repeal of section 2A of the former constitution was an admission by the State that political progress was a necessity of Kenyans were to fully realise their potential. It was also a confirmation that until the day Kenyans had institutions in which they could repose their full faith, champions were necessary to get things done for the people.

 

What Kenyans thought was the final defeat of the KANU machinery built up since 1963 when Mwai Kibaki was sworn in as Kenya's third President in 2002 turned out to have been a mere blip in the radar. When Mr Kibaki and his cohort moved swiftly to not only consolidate their power but to also co-opt the champions Kenyans had come to rely on to keep the State out of their affairs, the euphoria of the moment blinded us to what was truly going on. Suddenly civil society organisations were lending their members to State agencies; many were being funded by the State to address key bread-and-butter concerns of the people. But in the important, nay, critical, areas of political progressivism and expansion of democratic space, the Kibaki regime was quick to stamp its own authority and to use the very same draconian techniques that had been employed by every regime since 1921 to control how Kenyans thought, with whom they associated, what they read, and what they could say. And it turned out that many of the champions who should have spoken up for Kenyans had feet of clay; civil society had its nose too embedded in the trough of State truffles it could not be bothered to raise its head, or its voice, or to prick its ears to the incessant cry of pain from the people whose duty it was to protect from their own government.

 

With the co-option of the home-grown champions by the Kibaki regime, a new breed arose: urbane, well-read, well-travelled and well-funded. But their sophistication hid many flaws, some which are proving to be near-fatal to the state of freedom in Kenya. What had started out as an experimentation in the hey-days of the nyama choma ambassador, Smith Hempstone, had been perfected by the envoys of the European Union: it was not enough to fund civil society champions; they would be "educated" as to what they should do, what interests they should pursue and what issues they should raise. While their language mirrored that of the champions of the 1970s, '80s and '90s, their intent and effect was quite different. Certain progressive ideas were inevitable, especially when the State accepted them as so. Multi-party politics was here to stay. An equal voice for the discriminated and marginalised was the only way forward. Women must play a greater role in the development and governance of the State. These, and many others, were noble, laudable issues to be advanced for the benefit of Kenyans and champions have risen in the past to advance them.

 

But since 2005, civil society has lost its way. Its obsession, it seemed, was the elevation of one man above all as the True Champion for Kenyans. He has become the darling of the Western powers after Mwai Kibaki discovered that it does not matter where dollars come from, so long as they come and he forged ahead with developing and deepening ties with non-traditional partners such as China, Iran, Russia and India. While the West is mired in its "economic meltdown", the East surges forward and Kenya is hanging on its coat-tails for dear life. But at the same time, the State has adopted mannerisms and behaviours that remind Kenyans who can remember of the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s when men and women were rounded up in secret and either murdered in cold blood or jailed unlawfully. While champions arose to check the State then, today the only people available are only interested in "programmes'' and "policies" and the next fat pay-cheque from overseas to implement a "grass-roots programme" to ameliorate this or that social ill. When they do speak on political issues, it is to repeat what Western ambassadors are saying: that one man is to be trusted over all others to steer the ship of State in the right direction. We no longer have champions; what we have are the worst of the Fifth Columnists: those who would recolonise our minds.

This is not the civil society of the 1990s.

Usually, I take pleasure in disagreeing with the Nairobi Law Monthly Leader; not this month (Supreme Court had every reason to throw out the presidential petition, Nairobi Law Monthly, May 2013.) I will resist the urge to quibble with the Leader's opinion that the Supreme Court's judgment is well-written (the atrocious grammar alone should be reason enough to demand that they revisit their high school English text-books.)

In a rare meeting of minds with the Leader, it is impossible not to see the vitriol rained on the Supreme Court by the more excitable elements of Kenya's civil society as something other than their desire to prove to their benefactors that they are doing all in their power to justify the hundreds of thousands of dollars given to them. We also agree that it is unlikely that the civil society organisations are fifth columnists out to foment civil strife at the behest of foreign donors; what they are, and what they have become since 2003, is the willing, pliable vessels of foreign powers out to secure a toe-hold in the highest (and lowest) echelons of public policy in Kenya.

Since the formation of the Forum for the Restoration of Democracy in the early 1990s, the relationship between the State and civil society has undergone a sea-change. In the halcyon days of civil society agitation for greater democratic and political freedom, civil society organisations, especially non-governmental organisations, played a commanding role in keeping the agitation for greater political space alive in the face of overwhelming odds. Indeed, statutory ones such as the Law Society of Kenya, played their part in not only defining the political issues of the day, but also in mobilising resources (from the self-same donors we cavil against today) and the hundreds of thousands of Kenyans who participated in the mass rallies that signalled an evolution in the thinking of all Kenyans. Only the most intransigently anti-donor would refuse to admit that if it were not for donor, especially Western donor, funds, Section 2A of the former Constitution would not have been repealed and Kenya would not have taken the first faltering steps to the promulgation of a new Constitution in 2010.

But since the defeat of Uhuru Kenyatta and Musalia Mudavadi's KANU in the 2002 general election, and the election of the Mwai Kibaki-led National Rainbow Coalition, civil society, especially "political" civil society, has morphed into an unrecognisable caricature of its former self. In the 1990s, civil society luminaries were proud to wear their unlawful detention as a badge of honour; many bore the marks of the cruelty and viciousness of a system that was determined to remain unreformed for all eternity. While civil society organisations took money from donors to carry on their functions, they did so knowing that they were beholden to no one and that it was their intellect, intelligence and persuasion on the facts that wedded them to the fate of the people. They were not mere vessels for the likes of Smith Hempstone to pour ideas into; they had the strength and determination to define what the nation needed and how those needs could be met.

Mwai Kibaki was never truly a friend of civil society; he simply rode the civil society wave to State House, taking advantage of the euphoria of 2002/2003 to cement his place at the head of what turned out to be a singularly perfidious and repressive regime. Using the cachet of civil society champions in his government, he began the process of rolling back many of the gains that had been made since 1992. Indeed, in the decade that Mr Kibaki was in charge, billions of shillings, almost on the scale of Goldenberg, disappeared from public coffers, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Kenyans were maimed or killed at the hands of State agents, all, ironically, in the name of security. But his master-stroke was to co-opt civil society into his perfidious government; by the time John Githongo was exposing the Anglo-Lasing rot, it was too late. It was at this moment, I believe, that Western donors saw a chance to build an entirely new civil society that THEY would control. This is the principle difference between the champions of 1992 and the marionettes of 2013. While in 1992 civil society accepted money from Western donors without ceding intellectual control, in 2013 many took Western cash and ideas and effectively allowed foreign agents to think for them.

It is for this reason, principally, that civil society today is unable to marshal credible ideas against the re-expansion of the State's power into areas that it shouldn't. Contemporary examples abound of the failures of civil society to hold the State to account. In the past three weeks alone, at least ten Kenyans have been murdered and scores viciously wounded at the hands of unknown bandits in Busia and Bungoma. Civil society, it seems, can no longer chew and walk at the same time; while Kenyans continue to be denied basic security from the State, civil society is only interested in whether elected representatives "deserve" fatter pay-cheques at the end of the day. "Austerity" is a Western pet-project today; security of the person and property in the developing world is not. If Kenyan civil society will not recognise this, its losses, even at the Supreme Court, will continue to mount.

How will they govern?

The President's nominees reveal very little about how he will govern, save perhaps to emphasise that there will be a fresh way of doing things. However, his retention of Francis Kimemia, and the nomination of Charity Ngilu, in the powerful lands docket, and Najib Balala, places the nomination process in jeopardy. Mr Kimemia is the bug-bear of the Opposition; his interference in the process of devolution, as alleged by his detractors, is a key reason why his confirmation by Parliament may prove rocky. Mrs Ngilu and Mr Balala both come to the process with baggage of their own, though Mr Balala's record of performance may stand him in good stead with Parliament. Mrs Ngilu continues to face questions regarding her stint as the water minister in Mwai Kibaki's government.

It is in the nomination of former Law Society chairman, Rachael Omamo, and Amb Amina Mohammed that Mr Kenyatta takes a stride beyond where even Presidents Moi and Kibaki would not, or could not, tread. Ms Omamo's time as the head of the lawyers' association is remembered for the histrionics in the Council. Amina Mohammed secures the nomnation after missing by a whisker the post of Director-General of the World Trade Organisation. By all accounts, those who have worked with her in the Minister of Justice and the United Nations are impressed by her intellect and work ethic. The two, for want of a better word, class up the Cabinet like nothing else ever will.

But the question remains, how will Mr Kenyatta govern? He and William Ruto, have made campaign promises that they may struggle to keep. By nominating Mrs Ngilu and Mr Balala, they have signalled to Parliament that they will not run a government without ensuring that it is politically cohesive. That the two are not from either TNA or URP speaks to the bridges they wish to build with the Jubilee parliamentary party, ensuring that the Jubilee agenda is not held hostage to the whims and demands of parliamentarians.

Mr Kenyatta may actually govern like a technocrat; much, much different from the Kibaki era or the Moi era. In the latter, the focus of the president, especially after the 1992 multi-party elections was to keep the government politically safe from the vagaries of the political arena. With Mwai Kibaki, it seems, the focus was to reward The Boys while at the same time making way for the resurgence of the GEMA in the corridors of power. The behaviour of some of his foot-soldiers, most notably Kiraitu Murungi, seemed to confirm this. The Anglo-Leasing and Triton scandals were merely the most visible representations on this reality.

Messrs Kenyatta and Ruto have done their best to put a different spin to their Cabinet nominations, but a clear-eyed assessment points to the fact that political survival is very much on their minds. No one will quibble with the fact that on paper the nominees are more than adequately qualified. But the dominance of the Cabinet with men and women from their political strongholds betrays the fact that politics comes first and competent management of the affairs of the State plays second fiddle. Given the incredible discipline that they have demonstrated over the past few months over their troops, especially in getting the likes of Aden Duale, Ekwe Ethuro, Justin Muturi and other die-hard Jubilee MPs to play ball, the two are going to keep a very firm grip on the Cabinet. There will be none of the free hand that Kibaki famously gave his Ministers; these nominees will do as they are told or face the steel toe. Slowly, the two are recreating the firm style of the Moi years. Whether they succeed, and their government succeeds, only history will tell.

Chief pathological...

Dr Johanssen Oduor may be a competent pathologist, but given his performance during the pathology examination of the remains of the victims of the helicopter crash that claimed the lives of George Saitoti and Orwa Ojode, perhaps it is time he moved to the private sector. His performance during the crucial hours after George Saitoti's death has led many experts in his field to question his competence or professionalism. It is not with surprise that the Mutula Kilonzo family sought out the services of a foreign pathologist to complete the examination of the late Makueni Senator's remains.

The Chief Government Pathologist in Kenya has quite often been an office with burdens that no man (or woman) can bear. Think back to every high profile death in Kenya and the role of the Chief Pathologist in either muddying the waters or covering up a murcer (assassination) is paramount. Pio Gama Pinto, Tom Mboya, JM Kariuki, Bruce McKenzie, Robert Ouko, Alexander Kipsang' Muge, Father Kaiser, George Saitoti...the list of high profile autopsies that have remained unresolved is long and frightening.

Speculation about what might have killed Mutula Kilonzo will remain high regardless of what the pathology results say. The late Senator had his fingers in many pies, and his record in private practice and public service has given rise to multiple scenarios regarding his untimely demise. Could it be that he was privy to information that someone feared would be released since his election as Makueni's Senator? We will never know, but the outpouring of positive news stories (and a few negative ones) about his life give credence to the theory that a cover up is being perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

It does not help that the late Senator was a notoriously secretive man. What is being revealed about his private affairs points to a man who trusted few, even in his family, about what he did, where he did it and with whom. How can it be that he kept his immediate family out of his Maanzoni home when he invited scores of strangers to pay for the privilege of "seeing how conservation should be done?" Why is it that he kept a strong-box in his office to which he had the only key? Who is the "fifth person" seen at his Maanzoni home in the hours before his death? Did he have a hand, in the 1990s, in declaring Cyrus Jirongo an enemy of the state? How much land and other properties did he own? How much did he owe the tax man? These and dozens of other questions may never be answered.

What is clear is that CORD has lost a strong voice in the Senate; its leadership is in disarray. Not to put too fine a point to it, but Jubilee is going to capitalise on the CORD loss. While it is not in doubt that CORD/Wiper will retain the Makueni Senate seat, whoever replaces the late Senator will not have the same level of influence in the Senate as he might have had. Whether it is John Harun Mwau or Gideon Ndambuki or some other man, the late Mutla Kilonzo's replacement will not be smart enough, wealthy enough or connected enough to ensure that CORD's dominance of the debates in the Senate will be as assured as before his unexpected death.

We end where we began: the pathology report is of academic interest at this point. Every high profile death in Kenya has been shrouded in mystery. If today we still do not clearly know how Mzee Jomo Kenyatta died, or why Pio Gama Pinto, Tom Mboya, JM Kariuki and Robert Ouko were assassinated, I see no reason to believe that we will ever get the full story of how and why Mutula Kilonzo died. And it all boils down to how the office of the Chief Government Pathologist is managed.

The moral argument.

Both sides of the debate on whether the battle between Parliament and the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) regarding the demand by Parliamentarians to have their salaries and perks renewed to the levels enjoyed by the Tenth Parliament are instructive. Mithika Linturi and Justin Muturi, among other parliamentarians, rely on the provisions of the Constitution and the law of Kenya to make their case. In some aspects, their arguments are persuasive. The other side, too, relies on the Constitution, and their arguments, too, are persuasive. However, it is when interested parties such as the Confederation of Trade Unions (COTU) and the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) enter the fray that things get murky.

Francis Atwoli, COTU's Secretary-General, is adamant that he does not support a pay-rise for parliamentarians; he merely worries that if the SRC can "cut down" the pay of parliamentarians, it might set the stage for "unconstitutional" cuts in workers' pay, whether in the public or private sectors. This is the same fear that Wilson Sossion of KNUT echoes; he states that if the SRC can reduce the MPs' pay, they can do the same for the hundreds of thousands of teachers in the union, even where a Collective Bargaining Agreement has been struck between the union and the government regarding the pay-and-benefits of teachers.

Some have attempted to argue their case in moral terms, on both sides of the debate. On this ground alone, the MPs do not have a leg to stand on. Nicholas Gumbo, an engineer representing Rarieda Constituency, attempts to argue that MPs work even when they are asleep. They receive so many monetary claims that it would be immoral for the SRC to cut their pay to such an amount that they cannot contribute to the medical and funeral expenses, among many others, of their constituents. He argues that the representation provided by the MP extends beyond making the case in Parliament; that MPs when they go about their duties, work long hours and cover many expenses that the proposals by the SRC amount to interfering with MPs' mandates to represent their peoples.

Okiya Omtatah, the indefatigable civil society activist who has gone to court to challenge the move by Parliament to raise their pay-and-perks to pre-March 2013 levels, argues that MPs have the option of challenging the SRC decision in the High Court. He also points out that MPs' pay-and-perks amount to over a million shillings, quite above what the Tenth Parliament enjoyed, which was around sh 850,000. He points out that it is unconstitutional for MPs to determine their pay-and-perks: that is the preserve of the SRC, an independent constitutional commission. Any MP who feels aggrieved by the decision of the SRC can only challenge it in court, not by passing motions after motions in Parliament.

The moral angle of the debate must be pursued to its logical conclusion, though. The difference between MPs and other workers is that MPs actively sought the votes of their constituents in order to sit in the august house. The qualifications to be elected as an MP are set out in the Constitution and the Elections Act. For the most part, they revolve around moral issues, rather than technical ones. MPs, despite their arguments, are not the same as other workers. It is for this reason, and the history of MPs' demands over the years, that when Kenyans ratified the Constitution in 2010, they did so knowing that the Constitution would prevent MPs from setting their own terms and conditions of office. MPs had abused that privilege and Kenyans were united in agreeing with the Committee of Experts' position, that an independent body would review and set the terms and conditions of service for MPs. It is immoral for the MPs to argue that they can usurp a power that the people of Kenya granted specifically to the SRC. It is immoral for them to demand a class or status that they do not deserve; the Constitution proclaims the people to be supreme, sovereign; it is improper for MPs to declare that they are supreme, sovereign above the people they must serve.

In a nation where millions go hungry daily, and in a nation where hundreds of thousands live under the fear of starvation or banditry attacks, MPs receiving millions per month have no moral basis for demanding more from the same people when they have security and food on the table in some of the finest establishments in Kenya. Where is it written that they must purchase homes in Nairobi or that they must swan around in swanky limousines paid for by hardworking Kenyans? They could live in rented houses and drive the shit-boxes hundreds of thousands of Kenyans have to make do with. If they are dissatisfied with the terms and conditions that the SRC has laid out for them, and they think that they deserve the millions they are demanding, perhaps it is time they resigned their seats and took their chances in the harsh world of private enterprise.

Too early for judgment day.

Will it be style over substance, flash at the expense of real work? The announcement of the first four nominees to the Cabinet by Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto was certainly very different from the Mwai Kibaki and Moi moulds. Moi relied on suspended terror; he would make announcements in the most off-hand way. It became routine that every person concerned paid due attention to the one O'Clock news bulletin on the radio - Voice of Kenya as it was once - to discover whether they had kept their jobs or were in deep doo-dah with the Head of State. Mwai Kibaki tended to simply send a an announcement to media houses and stayed firmly behind the high walls and security of State House. Mr Kenyatta's unveiling of the four is the stuff of American-style politics, and it is a breath of fresh air.

There are fears, however, that he intends to be a micro-manager. These fears are without substance. There are other fears that it will be all politics all the time when his Cabinet finally gets to work. Again, these are without foundation. Just as are the fears that he intends to make mince-meat of the human rights provisions of the Constitution, especially freedom of association and speech. Nothing he has done since he was sworn in suggests that these fears are warranted. Indeed, his response to the Garissa massacres was criticized for not being American enough, and second, for being too draconian when he finally dispatched the Inspector-General and his internal security teams to that benighted town.

Mr Kenyatta's is a markedly different style from that of the self-styled Professor of Politics or of his acolyte, Mwai Kibaki. Mr Kenyatta ran a campaign promising change: in leadership and in governance. He has not ruled long enough for us to stand in judgment of his style. His Cabinet is yet to start working; neither is he yet to get the senior members o his civil service appointed. When he does, and when they begin their work, only then will we be able to determine whether he is the consummate back-seat driver or something else entirely.

Many still colour his future with the prism of the ICC. This is unfair, both for the President and for the nation. In their every utterance, his most ardent detractors paint a picture that is in dissonance with what we are seeing today. They argue that because of his indictment by the international court, he will be unable to discharge his functions of the office without distraction, some of which may lead him to make improper or dangerous decisions. Some have even attempted to link the free-laptop-per-child policy with the ICC! Some have began worrying that the witnesses against him are suddenly going to develop collective amnesia or that they are going to suffer acute lead poisoning. None backs up any of his conspiracy theories with hard facts or data.

This is not to say that we should casually remain aloof as the world falls down around our ears. The Constitution that we venerate so much provides for a more interventionist citizenry if only we are willing to organise and play our roles. Recent full-page ads in the dailies by various counties regarding the 2013/2014 budget is a pointer to what we are required to do to hold our elected leaders to account. The likes of Makau Mutua and Maina Kiai may cavil from the comfort of their sinecures in civil society, but it is at the grass-roots that Kenyans will be able t hold their government to account. It begins by organisation and education. If we do neither, and should Mr Kenyatta morph into a combination of his late father and Mr Moi, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

We. Don't. Care.

Larry Madowo and Farah Maalim had an interesting conversation on tonight's NTV bulletin. Their thrust was that the State was doing precious little to interdict the terrorists raining havoc on the people of Garissa and the forgotten Northern Frontier. They bemoaned the continued massacre of Kenyans at the hands of al Shabaab affiliates and wrung their hands at the continued hands-off approach of the State in securing the persons and properties of the long-suffering residents of Kenya's continually at-risk communities in the North Eastern Province. Larry Madowo and his co-anchor went out of their way to demonstrate that in the same week terrorists wrecked havoc in the city of Boston, and Garissa came under armed attack, the reaction of Barack Obama was markedly more hands-on than that if Kenya's Uhuru Kenyatta. They questioned why Kenya's law enforcement agencies, including its security and intelligence agencies, continued to fight the war against crime that the United States' government seemed to be winning.

The harsh truth that we are unwilling to admit is that we get the security that we pay for. The United States, even in the midst of an economic situation that is hostage to the bitterly divided and partisan Congress, spends more on national, and local, security than any other country on earth, bar, perhaps, the dictatorships in Iran, North Korea and Cuba. Kenya, on the other hand, is not the fount of dollars that we'd all like to believe it is. Our priorities, such as we see them, seem to revolve around holding expensive elections in the name of "bringing democracy closer to the people." We spend more on our politicians and their pet white elephants than we do in the institutions that will guarantee us basic security, whether we are in our homes or places of employment or palaces of leisure. We laud such inherently unwise investments as free laptops for school-going children as by-words of "keeping election promises" instead of investing in the tools that will keep us safe. We have lavished billions of shillings on our soldiers in the name f keeping our borders secure, and still billions more on our politicians in the name of facilitating their function of "making laws for all Kenyans." Witness the hundreds of millions we spent on a Vice-presidential palace, a prime-ministerial "office" and a "refurbished" Parliament, and weep at our pro-democracy leanings.

Decades of political sclerosis have led us to this dark pass; waste and corruption has bequeathed us a national police force that spends more and more of its time reacting to criminal incidents (and collecting bribes from Kenyan motorists) than in investigating and intercepting would be brigands with proto-religious messages of "purity" and "liberation." In our zeal to eat at the same table as our political leaders, we care not for the things that make a democracy resilient in the face of incessant broadsides by those too invested in the politics of war and violence. When we walk by the ramshackle hovels we call Police Lines, we do not care to see the dehumanising conditions our men in uniform endure. Nor that of their families and loved ones. When they crack under the strain of keeping us safe and turn their weapons on each other, we simply chalk it up to "an act of God" (or the devil, depending on what your pastor said recently.) Until we can learn to prioritise our needs, and until we can learn, once again, what it is to be a nation, Garissa and similar attacks will forever be a hallmark of the "tranquility" we market to the "five million tourists" William Ruto wants to attract to our white-sand beaches of Mombasa.

As in the past, we will swear "to leave no stone unturned, no lead un-pursued" in our "zeal to bring the perpetrators of the Garissa attack to book." But we know this is just paying lip-service to the victims and their families. IN a day or two, we will return to our daily staple: whether Parliamentarians should earn a fatter pay-check or whether the Cabinet will "reflect the face of Kenya." By all means, shed a tear for the suffering, but please, try not to pretend that you care. If you did, David Mole Kimaiyo, Maj Gen Michael Gichangi, PS Mutea Iringo and the rest of the National Security Council would be answering hard questions from determined peoples' representatives and swinging into action. Baragoi, Tana Delta and Garissa are proof that we don't give a damn and never have.

Set their asses on fire

Now that Mithikia Linturi has taken the fateful step to attempt to dismiss the Salaries and Remuneration Commission through Parliamentary procedure, it is time that we interrogated the unrelenting greed of our elected representatives. Mr Linturi was a member of the much-reviled Tenth Parliament, so this is par for the course for the man and his colleagues. What boggles the mind is that he is willing to attract the unremitting wrath of his constituents, and other Kenyans, in his, and his colleagues', familiar desire to live like princes and princesses. What is not in doubt is that the proceedings of Parliament will be pro forma; they have made up their minds to dismiss the SRC and nothing short of an act of God will prevent them from doing so.

When the SRC invited members of the public, citizens all, to comment on their decision to cap the pay-and-perks of State officers, the overwhelming response was that, at least for MPs, the caps were not low enough. A rough citizens' cost/benefit analysis of the pay-and-perks of MPs demonstrated that they were not worth the millions they were trousering every year. Citizens wanted even deeper cuts and lower caps. Mr Linturi perpetuates a long and odious tradition of the National Assembly turning a deaf ear to the concerns of their constituents. Their arguments, so far, have been facetious at best, and down right immoral at worst.

They have, for a long time, lived as if they were in some European parliament or an American city, while their constituents continue to grapple with bread-and-butter issues that should have been consigned to the ash-heap of history. While millions of Kenyans live hand-to-mouth, our parliamentarians continue to eat in the finest restaurants (though some of them take it to extreme ends), live in the leafiest suburbs and are chauffeur-driven to and from their various political and personal engagements (including their assignations with persons who are definitely not their spouses.) They insist in defying the President when he warns them that the public wage-bill, of which their pay-and-perks is consumes a disproportionate amount, is unsustainable over the long term and imperils the Government's operations, including the vital legislation-making functions of Parliament.

But thankfully we have options, as provided for in the Constitution and the Elections Act. If they insist on doing that which we continue to find opprobrious, the power to recall them remains. If we could only set aside our minor differences and collected sufficient petitions to recall the likes of Mithika Linturi and Jimmy Angwenyi, we will send a powerful message to the men and women who continue to take us for granted. In the two years that we have, let us document every single act of parliamentary defiance, we may just have enough to set their asses on fire!

The silver lining.

Vestigial remnants of the "Tunaomba Serikali" mindset are to be seen in the utterances of various political leaders in the wake of the horrific flooding across the country. No one expected that the turnover to devolution would immediately usher in an era of self-sufficiency, but it is a little jarring to listen to governors, senators and members of the National Assembly begging the national government to intervene to solve one problem or the other caused by the raging waters. When devolved systems are finally up and running, it is only the most efficient of the county governments that will be able to offer their residents the kid of life we see in better run democracies across the world. This is not to say that the national government has no role to play; the announcement by William Ruto of the establishment of an expanded national emergency fund is salutary. But the fund should only augment what is already being done by the county governments; it should not supplant those efforts.

Devolution is just one of the magic bullets in the revolver of the transformation of governance (and politics) in Kenya. During Moi's twenty-four years at the helm, the State became a by-word for corruption, inefficiency and the steady decline in the delivery of public services. It is difficult to blame Moi for the problems caused by his administration without pointing out that the foundation was laid by the First President, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta. In his zeal to destroy all opposition, Jomo Kenyatta allowed many things to slide. Now, fifty years after Uhuru, we have the opportunity to re-shape our destinies, and in devolution we have the opportunity to engage in policy and decision-making at the grassroots like never before.

Take, for example, the suffering caused by the current rains. This is not a new phenomenon. Every year, when the rains fall, thousands of Kenyans suffer horrific floods and mud-slides. The Kenya Meteorological Department posts updates on where and when heavier-than-expected rainfall will occur. The Executive is frequently aware of this. All the floodplains have been mapped and it is no longer a question of where there will be floods, but when. So it is surprising that every year the same faces will be televised to millions of Kenyans asking for succour from the national government. It is whipsred that in every disaster is an opportunity for rent-seeking and if this is the case then the solution is in our hands. IN addition to identifying the many creative ways for siphoning off relief funds, the national government together with county governments must establish a mechanism for early warning, evacuation and rehabilitation. Long term they both must ensure that flood plains are protected, either through dykes or some form of canalization. If there are any victims, their welfare must be the priority of both government; these people must be assisted to return to productive work in the shortest time possible. The longer the income-earning members of a family are out of work, the greater the cost to the government in supporting them. This model could be replicated for all the disasters that seem to strike with metronomic regularity.

It is high time that Kenyans gave up the mentality that there is nothing they can do to help themselves survive their harsh environments. Grassroots organisation will be bolstered by the new sub-county structures established by legislation. If citizens had a greater say in how scarce resources could be allocated, they may feel that they have a stake in how their governments perform in development and disaster relief. It will no longer be a question of whether they will receive support from their governments but how that help will be channeled. Their participation in day-to-day governance issues will give them an opportunity to shape their fates. It s the only way that the phenomenon of "Tunaomba Serikali" can be eradicated once and for all.

It's time Makua Mutua let it go.

Prof Makau Mutua's animus for the new President and Deputy President continues unabated (Is there too much Ruto at President Kenyatta's side? Sunday Nation, April, 14, 2013.) Mr Mutua, in the guise of analysing the chances of success or failure in the UhuRuto partnership, reads mischief in the apparently close contact between the principals of Kenya's fourth administration. This author will not deny the scale of Mr Ruto's ambition; it has been plain to see ever since he joined active politics as one of President Moi's ardent foot-soldiers in the 1990s. This author will also not deny that the glue that holds the two together is their shared experience of being indictees of the International Criminal Court. But this author would find it very unusual that the two would not be seen together in the first months of their administration; before the machinery of their administration begins to work with precision, the two must be seen together in order to cement in the minds of Kenyans that theirs is a partnership that will run the full course.

For instance, the President and Deputy President agreed on a fifty-fifty split of the Cabinet and Principal Secretaries' slots in their administration. Were they simply carrying on from a previous administration, the issue could be sorted out via e-mail, or as they joked on the campaign trail, Skype, they being the Digital Generation. But surely, even Mr Mutua must admit that that is not how politics is done. The two must, necessarily, meet and be seen to be meeting, when agreeing on who will and who won't be in the senior ranks of their fledgling administration. They must also, necessarily, be seen to be presenting a united front in their initial dealings with Parliament. The ramblings among Members of the National Assembly regarding the niggardliness of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission presents them with a political problem that must be solved quickly. Any hint that either may be peeled away from the other and convinced as to the wisdom of raising the MPs' salaries will spell doom for their economic and financial plans for the public service and the nation at large.

Mr Mutua is on record as rejecting the Uhuru Kenyatta presidency. Why, then, is he so keen to offer unsolicited advice to the duo? Would it not, perhaps, be better of the partnership was riven with discord from the very beginning in order to ensure that it is so strong at the next general election? Perhaps, despite his animus for the new administration, Mr Mutua does want them to succeed. It is what any patriot would want regardless of their personal feelings or political convictions. After all, if the UhuRuto administration is successful, then the nation advances that much closer to economic Shangri-La for the masses.

This author believes, albeit without any proof whatsoever, that the seemingly close contact between the President and Deputy President will lessen when their administration functions like a well-oiled machine, or as close to it as they can get it. Both will be too busy to be seen holding hands all the time. For sure, every now and then, political capital will have to be raised by shows of solidarity between the two very different men, but it will not be the leitmotif of their administration. Kusema na Kutenda was their campaign slogan; it will only be true once they get down to the serious business of governing and it will only be demonstrated when both spend more time getting things done than shows of political bromance.

The Law Society must transform itself to remain relevant.

I sprinkled a liberal dose of sodium chloride on Jasper Mbiuki's polemic on the Law Society of Kenya before digesting it because he is The National Alliances Secretary for Legal Affairs (Why Law Society lost its clout as the people's voice and watchman, Standard on Sunday, April 14, 2013.) But I must admit that Mr Mbiuki is right. The Law Society has lost its focus; it spends more and more of its energies on politics than on the unglamourous end of its statutory mandate, especially of civic education on the law of Kenya. Its obsession with the political end of its mandate has had quite pernicious effects, even on its management. In 2007, just before the general election then, the Law Society was split right down the middle into pro-ODM and pro-PNU camps that did little to forestall the violence unleashed after the presidential results were challenged. In 2013, the Law Society would not be heard by the Supreme Court because in its public utterances, or those of some of the members of the Council of the Law Society (its highest decision-making organ), were biased towards the Uhuru and Ruto team.

When the Law Society, under the chairmanships of both Paul Muite and Willy Mutunga waded into the political arena in the 1990s, it was as a champion of the rule of law and a defender of the fundamental rights of all Kenyans. Sure, the target of the Society's ire was the KANU government of President Moi, but it did not specifically ally itself to the fate or fortunes of the Forum for the Restoration of Democracy movement that was at the forefront of agitations for greater political freedom for all Kenyans. Today, the Society has morphed into a partisan tool to be wielded against this or that political (usually presidential) candidate.

The Society faced a challenge in reinventing itself after the 2002 general election that ushered in the National Rainbow Coalition government. Many of its members were co-opted, in one form or another, into President Kibaki's administration. The Society ceased being a disinterested observer of the goings on in government. As a result, it could not find a unifying voice to cavil against the corruption and gross human rights abuses perpetrated by the Kibaki regime. The Society reached its nadir in 2007 and 2008 when it was unable to speak with one voice against the political violence that erupted after Raila Odinga of ODM lost to Mwai Kibaki of PNU in that year's presidential contest.

Today the Society finds itself unable to agree on a credible programme to advance its interests. If it is unable to persuade the highest court in Kenya that it is non-partisan, then it is incapable of being seen as an honest broker when major national events call for its advise. The Government of Kenya, all three arms of it, is undergoing transformational reforms in order to serve the peoples of Kenya better. It is time the Society took a leaf out of the political reforms being undertaken and undertook to transform itself for service in the Twenty-first Century. It still has a crucial role to play, especially in the political arena. But it can only play this role legitimately and credibly f it is not seen as a political plaything for one nabob or the other. The Society must have an internal debate about its future. It is the only way it can restore its bruised and battered reputation and be trusted, once again, as the voice of reason, truth and justice.

Untying the Gordian Knot

Untying the Gordian Knot of pre-election promises in his quest to form a Cabinet will be no easy task for the President. He has vital political interests to protect, not least when he has Najib Balala and Charity Ngilu, erstwhile ODM rebels, as his points-persons in key electoral zones (Coast and Ukambani). But President Kenyatta should not fall into the trap of keeping his political promises at the expense of crafting a dynamic team of go-getters who will implement his visions for the country.

Daniel Toroitich arap Moi and, to some extent, Mwai Kibaki relied on suspended terror to keep their Cabinet Ministers in line. The fear of losing their flags kept their Ministers on their toes. In his second administration, the little leeway Mwai Kibaki had allowed his Minister flourished into an almost flagrant disrespect for the principle of collective responsibility. While his two administrations had achieved a lot, in the end, especially with the Grand Coalition Government, it became a hotbed of infighting, intrigues and conspiracies. John Githongo did a lot to make Ministers suspicious of each other, as well as ensure that senior civil servants were unable to collaborate even where collaboration was a necessity in implementing Mwai Kibaki's vision.

There are calls from all and sundry for Uhuru Kenyatta to accommodate minor political functionaries who lost elections in his administration. He should resist this. There are also desires by some newly elected representatives to resign their positions for a place in his Cabinet. He should discourage this too. The former have been rejected by the people; it is unconscionable that they should be allowed a say over the fate of the same people who rejected them. The latter are a vital cog in the implementation of his vision; if he allows them to resign and they are approved by Parliament before appointments to the Cabinet, there is no guarantee that Jubilee will keep its majority in the National Assembly or the Senate. The risks of losing seemingly safe seats remains high in light of the desire by CORD to win back whatever advantage it has lost since the Supreme Court ruling.

Many will suggest that Uhuru Kenyatta must appoint a generally youthful Cabinet as well as in the senior ranks of the public and diplomatic services. This is a valid point. However, he should ensure that the men and women he appoints not only have proven records both in the private and public sector, but that they share his vision as encapsulated in the Jubilee manifesto. They must also be prepared to take a huge pay-cut in some instances; public service is not the road to self-aggrandizement it once was, but a means of giving back to society for all the advantages they enjoy. These are the people he must identify and persuade to join his administration. He must not, however, ignore experience. In some cases old is not necessarily a byword for old ideas. By now, given his more than a decade of senior public service, President Kenyatta must have a list of senior public officers who have proven themselves in the service of the country. These are men and women who will help navigate the treacherous waters of the public service and he needs their counsel and assistance in meeting the objectives he has laid out for his administration.

Finally, he must keenly see to it that some of the softer requirements of governance are met. He must appoint a Cabinet that represents the face of Kenya. He must give the female gender prominent positions in order to inspire even more women to go into public service. He must give at least one or two positions to really youthful persons so that we too are inspired. Finally, he must make it a priority to ensure that persons with disabilities are no longer treated as lesser Kenyans. This will especially be reflected in how he makes it easier for them to communicate, travel and access public services or institutions. He must, after all, start thinking of re-election.

Uhuru's headaches (No, not the ICC)

Margaret Thatcher will be lionised by many when she is laid to rest. The Iron Lady, inspiration perhaps for Kenya's Martha Karua, changed the face of British politics and international relations. Thatcherism became a byword for making hard choices as and when needed, even when those choices ended in a lot of pain a a lot of people. In her foreign policy, however, are lessons for Kenya's brand new administration. She used he close relationship with Ronald Reagan to sustain British influence in world affairs at a time when the decline of Great Britain was being accelerated by economic woes and labour troubles as well as IRA terrorism.

Uhuru Kenyatta assumes the presidency at a time when Kenya is attempting to square the circle of low revenues against huge development priorities, especially in education, healthcare and infrastructure. Until the Chinese came calling with open wallets and a no-questions asked attitude, Kenya was at the mercy of the diktats from mandarins of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Its participation in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks, that morphed into the World Trade Organisation talks, Kenya was constrained in its dealings even with its neighbours because of the strings attached to all the money it had borrowed or all the agreements it had signed with the United States, the United Kingdom, or the European Union.

When Mwai Kibaki began the long and arduous task of disentangling Kenya's messed up finances, his Look East policy was a shrewd calculation that even a wholesome embrace of the Chinese Dragon would not push away Kenya's traditional Western development partners. When Uhuru Kenyatta finally demonstrated that he had the capacity to mount a credible presidential bid, despite his indictment at the ICC, Kenya's development partners, save for those in Asia and Africa, were aghast. The United Kingdom led the charge with its waffling talk of "essential contacts" while the United States piled in with its warnings of "consequences". William Ruto captured the mood of the people when he celebrated our peculiarities; instead of heeding the wise counsel of the West, we not only ignored them, but not only elected Uhuru Kenyatta and his ICC co-indictee as president and deputy president, we supported the Supreme Court when it upheld their election and asked the losers, especially Raila Odinga, to let it go and move on.

Mr Kenyatta faces tougher challenges than providing 800,000 free laptops to Standard One children in 2014. While Mwai Kibaki finally managed to turn around the economy and lay the foundation for future prosperity, job-creation is woefully low, economic growth is only in upper reaches of the middle classes and the wealthy, and the quality of essential public services such as healthcare and education continues to be a continental embarrassment. His challenge lies in not only ensuring the continued inflow of Chinese direct investment in infrastructure, but also keeping the West on-side in terms of technology transfer and a sympathetic ear in the halls of global institutions such as the United Nations Organisation, the IMF and the World Bank. He should chart a largely independent line when it comes to future revenue policies; if he allows them to be dictated by the West, the Structural Adjustment Programmes of the '90s will seem like a cakewalk. If he allows Chinese investments to raise the inflation rate, he'll have a balance of payments crisis on his hands that coupled with increasingly high cost of living that may lead to civil instability. He must temper his enthusiasm for domestic public spending with one for expanding manufacturing, exports of finished goods, increased food production and value addition for commercial crops. It is one of the ways that he can keep both the West and the Chinese in their proper places.

Step by Step.

President Uhuru Kenyatta (has a familiar ring to it, don't it?) lowered the boom on those who were looking forward to an easy ICC prosecution: international relations are based on mutual respect and reciprocity. Obviously, it is easy to presume that this means he will not be co-operating any further with the International Criminal Court. I don't think so. The case against both him and the Deputy President is already collapsing. More significantly, the African Union, the East African Community and other "well-wishers" are already mistrustful of the ICC given its record over the recent past. The fact that the United States, whose waning hegemony must surely chafe, has refused to ratify the Rome Statute reduces its moral authority when it comes to matters dealing with "international crimes". (So too its continued coddling of the Jewish State of Israel as it continues to massacre Palestinians, the crimes committed by its forces and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its continued dysfunctional relationship with the Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Jordan.)

Not since the ascension of Daniel Toroitich arap Moi to the seat of power has Kenya had a dynamic youthful president being sworn (he was fifty-four when he took power). In the twenty-first century, it would have been anachronistic to take on a geriatric for Commander-in Chief. But in Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, Kenya embarks on a journey whose outcome, while shrouded in the mists of time, looks bright regardless the stain of an ICC indictment or impending trial. Their manifesto details the things they will attempt to accomplish in the diplomatic realm. With his declaration that diplomacy will be based on mutual respect ad reciprocity, President Kenyatta is announcing that Kenya will react according to the respect it is accorded and whether the other party reciprocates or not. Diplomacy is not a one-way street where Kenya gives in time and again while the other party just smiles all the way to the bank.

He links his diplomatic agenda to the security and stability of the East Africa region, including in the Horn of Africa, and commits Kenya's diplomatic and other resources to the continued efforts to stabilize Somalia. The President realises that our home economy is under threat whenever there is instability in Somalia's territorial waters in the Indian Ocean and off the Gulf of Aden. Shipping is crucial to the cost of doing business, and cost of imports, and a stable Somalia reduces the costs of both.

The assurances of the Common Market of East and Central Africa and the East African Community as well as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development that they will stand shoulder to shoulder with Kenya in its diplomatic and trade efforts means that we are beginning with goodwill in plenty. What remains to be seen is whether Parliament will play its proper role in advancing the interests of the country while keeping a beady eye on how the government goes about its affairs. In its oversight role, Parliament should not behave like a flower-girl. Nor should it become an undisciplined policeman by constantly taking the Executive to task for every little infraction it imagines has occurred. To advance Kenya's interests, Parliament must ensure that whatever international agreements Kenya intends to enter into are vetted and subjected to the scrutiny required to protect not just our sovereignty, but our interests, especially in world trade.

We await the President's inaugural address to a joint session of Parliament on the in seven days. How he manages his relationship with Parliament will determine the success or failure of his agenda. A clue as to how the relationship will work will be given by the process of vetting and appointing Cabinet Secretaries, Principal Secretaries and diplomats. If there's even a hint of dysfunction in the relationship, all bets are off.

Kenya's Obama.

It must surely occur to you that a Kikuyu/Kalenjin presidency is not an odd thing, right? (Kenyatta/Moi, Moi/Kibaki, Moi/Saitoti, and now, Uhuru/Ruto). What is surely unusual is that in the past, the president was the dominant partner in that relationship. Moi was dominated by Kenyatta, and he in turn, dominated Kibaki and Saitoti. In the UhuRuto "coalition", none seems to have the upper hand, presumably because each is master of his own considerable flock. It also seems very odd that both are so freakishly young for African leaders; we are used to ancients sitting atop a bloody pile of bones. UhuRuto are simply following global trends in their ambitious seizure of power and only the mean-spirited refuse to acknowledge that their youthfulness is an incredible asset for the nation.

Now, Raila Odinga may have had the most progressive ideas for the advancement of democracy in Kenya, but that point is now moot. Messrs Kenyatta and Ruto had the more compelling ideas; they did not keep banging on about the constitution or democracy or "change" and to their credit, did not claim that these were not important. But they appealed to a large cohort of the youth because they addressed things that were important to them: opportunity, access and security. It is young people who are frequently denied opportunities in Kenya: employment, education, healthcare...you name it. They find it near impossible to gain access: to credit, procurement opportunities, institutions of power such as political parties, etc. And it is young people who experience, to an overwhelming degree, the total breakdown in security: they are frequently perpetrators and victims of major crimes.

The Jubilee Manifesto went to great lengths to identify the "issues" that appealed to the youth and to detail policies it would pursue and programmes it would implement to ensure that their lot in life was better than that of the generations that came before. It is only the blindly loyal of other coalitions that refused to acknowledge that while the Jubilee ideas appeared pie-in-the-skyish, they were well-reasoned and well-explained. CORD, forgetting the lessons of 2002, simply pursued the same strategy that had lost Raila Odinga the election in 2007 (he will forever claim that he won, and he and his acolytes may be the only ones who do.)

Kenyans are (usually) not the sheep they are presumed to be by their political overlords. Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto realised this, even when many of their advisers like Francis ole Kaparo, Samuel Poghisio and Joshua Kuttuny did not. William Ruto's URP is a study in conservatve values, sticking to the tried and tested political style of KANU's dead past, while TNA engendered an insurgent spirit, youthfulness and military-like discipline. CORD became a byword for intrigue and infighting. When it was apparent that Jubilee would maintain an 800,000-vote lead throughout the count, I believe, this was because of the youthful Kenyans who threw in their lot with the flashy new toy rather than the crapped-out jalopy that simply would not run well.

Uhuru Kenyatta has done what not politician in Kenya has done at the national level: successfully take on not only the establishment but a powerful, if disorganised, opposition. When he held on to KANU for so long, none was sure why he did so. I think he wanted legitimacy for as long as possible before he identified the perfect vehicle for his ambitious goal. Had he jumped into Kiraitu Murungi's bus, he would have suffered the same fate Raila Odinga did when Kalonzo Musyoka "stole" the original ODM from under his feet. He found a party, or secretly financed its formation, injected hundreds of millions into it, ensured that it was managed by professionals an hired even more professionals to spread his message. Mr Kenyatta ran the perfect campaign. When he persuaded the URP and other minor outfits to get in line behind him, he cemented his position. CORD, and Raila Odinga, on the other hand, kept shooting themselves in the foot, especially when they allowed a Luo cabal to behave like hegemons.

When Mr Kenyatta receives the Instruments of Power from Mwai Kibaki today, he can be proud that he is now to be considered the Barack Obama of Africa. Not Kikwete. Not Nkuruzinza. Not Kagame. And Not Khama. Him. Read it and weep.

The next one.

My sojourn at the Coast comes to an end in a few days. I will miss the changing of the guard in Nairobi, but that is neither here nor there. Few, if any, worries flit in my empty skull, not being one to incessantly worry about the "What ifs" of the future. Security, it seems, is in the hands of men and women who know what they are doing. As does the transititon from the Kibaki Interregnum to the Uhuru reign. Whether he will have a firm grasp of the reins of power, what with his hands full of the instruments of power that Mwai Kibaki is going to dump on him, remains to be seen. After all, he has chosen one of the most dynamic, intelligent and ambitious politicians for his Deputy. In William Ruto, Mr Kenyatta has the potential of a dedicated partner in his governance project or a dangerous King Cobra at the heart of his administration.

CORD, on the other hand, is a ship at sea. Its losses since March Fourth continue to mount, and if Aden Duale has his way, CORD will be left with the PIC and PAC as the only watchdog committees of Parliament in its hands. While I harbour grave doubts about Mr Duale's intellect, I have no doubt that he has matured into an intelligent and effective political attack dog. He will make sure that CORD does not enjoy a second of peace over the life of UhuRuto's life.

The issues that bedevilled Mwai Kibaki's administration are going to bedevil Uhuru Kenyatta's. But Mr Kenyatta does not enjoy the near-imperial power that Mwai Kibaki or his predecessors did. He has t contend with a Parliament and county governors who may not see his writ as holy. Mr Kenyatta must stamp his authority over the TNA parliamentary party; otherwise, he may find himself negotiating with an undisciplined rabble that has, in the past, demonstrated a tendency to rogue behaviour, especially when it comes to self-aggrandizing schemes. He also faces the challenge ow working with spectacularly ego-centric governors who have already demonstrated in their first few public events that their main concern is not service to the people but to themselves.

It is now emerging that we are woefully uninformed about the content of the Jubilee manifesto, despite the pomp that accompanied its launch. Everyone is obsessed with the speed with which the freebies will be distributed by the UhuRuto government; none seems to care much for their economic or diplomatic policies. Today, Kenya is on the record that it will support all international efforts to hold those accused of heinous crimes to account; but the two have been indicted at the International Criminal Court. Whether one thinks they should stand trial or not, how they thread that needle while managing the diplomatic minefield to which they find themselves will be a test to their planning, cunning and intelligence. I see a glimmer of hope though; the recent statements by doyens of the human rights world may actually kill the ICC trials. But it is in international trade that Messrs Kenyatta and Ruto should devote the lion's share of their diplomatic efforts. Kenya must be allowed to trade with who it wants and on its own terms. And this trade must transfer valuable technology and skills to Kenya. It is the only way that we can achieve the lofty objectives of Kenya Vision 2030.

We should all look forward to a peaceful inaugural ceremony tomorrow. We should pray that despite the poisonous air of the presidential campaign, this atmosphere will not pervade politics for the next five years. We should all hope that Parliamentarians and governors get it into their heads that theirs is not the place to demand ever fatter wallets but to serve with humility and dedication in the hope that we will reward them for their efforts. We should try and nurture the goodwill we enjoy as a nation in the hopes that it will be converted into peace and stability for the long haul. It's time we stood up and were counted.

Recall them.

Is it wrong to state without fear that my heart is in Ukambani? I should hope not. Though I'm a long-time resident of the Green City in the Sun, it is the affairs of my motherland that keep me sane. One day, and that day may come sooner that we all think, I shall retreat to the home of my ancestors, raise a family and crops, not necessarily in that order. But my heart is distressed at the antics of one of my governors. Dr Alfred Mutua is obviously an intelligent man (we will ignore the hiatus as the government spokesman) and also, obviously, a consummate politician. Going toe-to-toe with the terrifying Wavinya Ndeti and Mutua Katuku to emerge victorious is a victory worth celebrating. But when he joins with the likes of William Kabogo and Ken Lusaka to demand "better treatment because we are governors," doubts about the governor's intentions for the people of Machakos begin to emerge.

Mwai Kibaki was quite right to tell off the governors assembled in Naivasha. The issues that they enumerated in their ill-advised memo to the President reveal men (and it is all men, remember?) whose idea of service delivery is setting up their (mostly) fat asses in palatial homes, offices and swanky cars, while the people they "lead" live in squalid misery. Back to my beloved Ukambani. Makueni has the rather brainy Kivutha Kibwana (we will forget the little hiatus as Mwai Kibaki's "advisor" on coalition affairs) while Kitui has the equally brainy Julius Malombe. Thank God the two are professors; it must explain why they are not getting all worked up over flags and offices the way "Dr" Mutua is.

Received wisdom has it that Machakos is set to be the most important county in Ukambani because of its proximity to Nairobi and Dr Mutua's ties to the Mt Kenya region. Allow me to offer an alternative: Kitui. Kitui sits on large reserves of coal, iron and limestone. The coal, if it is exploited intelligently, and not in the manner that Kiraitu Murungi's ministry had intended, is set to be the backbone of an electricity revolution in Ukambani, climate change deals notwithstanding. The limestone, if properly exploited, is set to establish Kitui as a rival to Machakos as a producer of cement. The iron...you get my drift, don't you?

Both Kivutha Kibwana and Julius Malombe demonstrate that governance is not about the flash-in-the-pan moments when one gets notoriety, the kind that Dr Mutua is attracting with his bandwagoning over the flags and whatnots of the past week. Governance is about establishing systems that will help you meet the challenges the your people face. This is the path that Dr Evans Kidero, who does not behave like "Dr" Mutua at all, has chosen to tread. (Now that we know he has the strength of character to sow panic in the corruption cartels in the City, we wait to see how long he lasts before things become kawaida.)

Dr Kidero, when he was informed that the PM's office would not be available to him as Nairobi's governor, announced that he would work even out of his car if necessary; it is not the trappings of power that make one honourable but the performance of his duty even in the face of challenges. Dr Mutua and the rest of cabal that thinks they should be treated like kings need to learn this lesson before we are motivated to seek their recall. In California, an actor unseated a sitting governor in recall election; this is something the new governors should keep in mind when going about their duties.

Kiai and Mutua: You are on your own.

It is interesting to observe how the ones who campaigned against the election of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, and who invested so heavily in the election petitions challenging the results of the election, are faring after the Supreme Court of Kenya declared that the election of the two was valid. The Mutunga Court, after fourteen days of intense legal gymnastics, declared that despite the irregularities that even the IEBC admitted had occurred, the election of Uhuru Kenyatta as president and that of William Ruto as deputy president was after all valid. Raila Odinga swiftly accepted the verdict of the court. However, there are those who are still fighting the election and the re-litigating the election petitions, long after everyone else has set their minds to move on.

Maina Kiai, the former head of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and Makau Mutua, the director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, had done everything in their power to ensure that first, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto would not be on the ballot, and second, failing in that mission, to ensure they lost the election petition challenging their election. The two are two for two: Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto were on the ballot and the court dismissed the petition challenging their election.

Messrs Kiai and Mutua have not taken the news well. Mr Kiai penned a poisonous diatribe against "home guards" linked to the Uhuru presidency and another one calling the Charperson of the IEBC vile names for the manner in which his lawyer, the combatively indefatigable Ahmednasir Abdullahi, defended him in court. Makau Mutua has declared categorically that he will not and cannot accept Uhuru Kenyatta as the president of Kenya.

For two eminent human rights campaigners to treat the will of at least 6 million Kenyans in such a cavalier manner beggars belief. The Second Liberation was all about unleashing the will of the people to make the choices that they will without the nannying, oppressive hand of the government leading them hither and thither. With the dismantling of the KANU machinery that had been abused by former presidents, Kenyans overwhelmingly ratified a new constitution that guaranteed them democratic rights that had been stifled for decades. The flip side of the bargain was that politicians, whether standing for the presidency or some other public office, had to offer themselves to the people in the most persuasive way possible. Mr Makau continues to argue that Mr Kenyatta is an insider and that he benefited from his links to the government and its machinery. He refuses to accept that Mr Kenyatta and the wily Mr Ruto made a compelling case to the people of Kenya, persuading many from areas other than their strongholds in the Mt Kenya region and the Rift Valley.

Some of us were opposed to the election of Uhuru Kenyatta or William Ruto and we made our feelings known at the ballot. That battle is now past and we are prepared to live with our choices, or lack of them. Some of us were never persuaded that the two should not be on the ballot, regardless of the persuasion from Messrs Kiai and Mutua. We never agreed that the ICC was the killer knock-out punch that would deny them their place on the ballot. And we never agreed with the two that they were hamstrung by Chapter 6 of the Constitution. We thought that their manifesto was a pipe-dream; now we will see whether they will prove us wrong once again. But we will not join Messrs Kiai and Mutua in their poisonous campaign against a government that is yet to even take office officially; that is a path to heartache or worse. We will do what other patriots are doing: we will work with the government we have to make our lives a little better.