Yesterday will go down as another first for Kenya's fourth president, he was the first sitting president to be accused at the ICC for crimes against humanity and now has had his case dropped as the prosecutor could not find sufficient evidence to sustain a case.
But was Uhuru Kenyatta taken to ICC in the first place. Because no one believed that the Kenyan judicial system had what it takes to give a fair trial for those who bore greatest responsibility for the Post Election Violence of 2007 that left over 1300 persons dead and hundreds displaced. Thus six persons, including his deputy president, William Ruto, were charged. Four are now off the hook and only Ruto and Sang are left.
There has been celebration for those who support the president. While I am not celebrating, I am among those who are not convinced that the ICC process was the right way to handle the issue. Infact I tend to think that ICC was to achieve other goals and the PEV was just but a window of opportunity. That said, and holding that one is innocent until proven guilty, I think the president has a greater challenge. He is president of the victims and perpetrators of the violence. He thus must make sure that justice for both is achieved. Any celebration of his acquittal must be tampered with the sensitivity that there are many whose lives have been affected in ways that are difficult to comprehend. it would be in order that he is seen to make it his goal to ensure that the real perpetrators are brought to book.
This is a hard call, but there must not be created an impression that the means to power does not matter. It does and must always matter, I think.
Greatness is in using your own success to make others successful, and more using the privileges you have to privilege the less privileged.
Monday, December 1, 2014
I have spent my working life travelling across Kenya doing research, training and giving talks on various aspects of public governance. Have been brought up in the cosmopolitan town of Nakuru, where I spent the first 18 years of my life, I was used to interacting with persons of different cultures, languages and socio-economic classes. But listening to people discuss other communities, I imagined that maybe they are worse off than those they described. So I desired to see those places and people when I grew up...Growing up I did and got the opportunity to go work in Nairobi, Central, Nyanza, Northern Rift Valley, Coast and literally all places.
I have made two observations
First in all the places, those who have means enjoy the best there is in their place. It does not matter what language, religion or even political ideology they belong too, they mingle freely, take their children to the same schools, shop in the same places and patron the same clubs. They have same worries of whether their wealth is safe and increasing, whether incase they are sick they will get the best health facilities at their nearest place and whether they will remain in places of influence. They compete to get a space in the upcoming suburbs where they can live without disruptions. They are proud to have made it and wonder why others are not making it. They are never troubled by who gets to power as long as they have a surety that they will be safe.
On the other hand, the poor and those struggling all looked the same. They were struggling to put food on the table, to pay rent, and were engaged in hard labour (though in some places only the women and children were working). But interestingly, some thought they were in their situation because one of their own was not in power. But this could not hold in central province where the current and former president came from, there I was told that development would finally get to them as long as they ensured their man remains in power. I wonder if this still holds with county governments where each community more or less has their own as governor.
So when election 2013 came around, I volunteered in one of the presidential campaigns and my observations were confirmed. On social media and in the streets there were all manner of arguements for and against candidates. To my amazement the candidates and their close allies seemed to have nothing against each other, they mingled freely and would even spend evenings making fun of each other’s campaign goofs and tactics.
So I ask, why do the supporters fight when the contenders seem to be friends in a competition?