how raila lost the presidency

Dada Nereah,

This is unsettling dossier, if factual. But why has it never been told?

As Raila claimed that the presidency was stolen from him, why did he not state that at some point Kibaki was ready to concede to him? Why didn't he ever tell the public about this "protection" business? Why did it take so long for something so significant to come out? Might someone be recreating history?

mank ;D

i agree with you.given that this is a publication by an insider and which has been leaked to the media(either deliberately or by happenstance)then it behoves agwambo's media handlers to give it the attention it deserves.


it rubbishes the propaganda that agwambo is the type of a leader who would go any extreme to acquire power. if indeed he adhered to his stringent ideological conviction by turning down the conditional offer by kibaki's men then he has been vindicated in the fullness of time.

one of the poorly kept secrets here in nairobi is the existence of this shadowy group who remain fearful of agwambo's ascendency for reasons stated in the story by mwere.

why would the powermen resort to extra parliamentary/democratic means to block raila? it is not raila but what he stands for which is equal treatment of all kenyans.

now,the question is: was raila indeed approached and would he confirm this? how useful is this bit of info on understanding the post election shenanigans and even the desperate and disparate anti raila formations in kenya's political landscape?

we will know much sooner than expected.

The confidence by which Raila is approaching this elections and jitters in the other camp indeed points to the fact that the above might have been true.

horth,

great seeing you and welcome back to where you truly belong. b.t.w what became of the sister member from asia? my regards and best wishes.

pleasantries aside....... you command my respect by making known your regard(attitude towards) agwambo before proceeding to help yourself with the narrative that the authoritative nairobi weekly,the sunday express, has gone to town with. this, if you ask me,is how it should be done.

i never shy away from re-affirming my unshakeable belief in one raila amollo odinga for reasons that warrant another thread.for record and purposes of this discourse, i am not his supporter but a follower.

now on your brilliant take on the soon to be released memoir by an insider on why raila lost the presidency, i beg to differ with you in the hope that you will be edified at the end of this submission.

may i begin by stating that it wasn't in vain for agwambo to have broken bread with kanu, accommodated individuals with questionable reform credentials and even sued for peace when mzee kibaki robbed him of victory and subverted the sovereign will of millions of kenyans by clinging onto power(kriegler report) in what jukwaa's biggest o ;D famously called a civilian coup.

may i put it to you, horth, that you, just like most of those anti-raila minds i often countenance, have never understood raila and have miserably failed to appreciate the complexity that is agwambo. without opening another front for debate ,let me disabuse you of the notion that agwambo is kigeugeu by the dint of his political associations and engagements.

as you were walking into jukwaa, you may have seen a thread in which 50 cents is provocatively asking what became of the kenyan left. five years later the sunday standard is sufficiently inspired to interrogate their causal effect. and without stripping agwambo of his bragging rights as the last revolutionary standing,the media house goes as far as informing us that the social leftists are seeking fresh bearing under raila's shadow.

mischievous vegetarian ugandan journalist onyango obbo, who needs no introduction to you, had the temerity to refer to agwambo as an expired leftist for reasons that informs your contestation of this revelation by an insider:misunderstanding the man.

yes, he broke bread with the reactionaries and anti-reformists and even today tag team with most of these elements in the grand coalition government. horth, you may want to inform me if kenya would still be where it was---especially after all those abortive successes by the mutungas and paul muites----if raila had not gone to bed with kanu and destroyed it from within or cobbled up the likes of kalonzo the musyoka,george saitoti,bill ntimama,joseph kamotho,dalmas otieno and mzee mwai kibaki to sent kanu packing in 2002?

wasn't it raila who took saitoti to court over goldenberge scam and the very one who was inducting him to the kenya's sphere of social democracy? wasn't it agwambo who said kibaki tosha but rallied the likes of gedion moi, ohuru kenyatta,stephen musyoka and bill ruto in the 2005 no campaign against anti-reformists?

those contradictions you are premising your disdain and apprehension on raila are redundant when measured against raila's relevance and pivotal influence in contemporary kenyan politics(instructively without state power).

it is idle,lazy and insulting to attempt to be slighting raila the person and deconstructing raila narrative based on his strategic engagements with those our kamale called dodgy characters while deliberately choosing to ignore the persuasion of the kenyan masses.

why have kenyans masses who genuinely believe and want transformation of this society been so unkind to those who you would imagine makes better leaders than raila? is it raila's fault or kenya's historical political infrastructure that some leaders who i cant mention and who were senior to raila in the struggle rues in neglect?

was raila to stick to the the tested and unworkable/untenable approach/s? horth, i want to state here without fear of contradiction and equivocation that as things stands in kenya today, there is only one individual and one individual alone who can save the ocampo four. just as he said kibaki tosha to the consternation of many, it would take agwambo declaration of no to hague for the deferral or referral to happen.

(anyone disputing this is welcome for a debate in a new thread for this discussion.note: i am stating that referral and deferral cause falls flat without the crucial concurrence and mobilization of the man kibaki and his handlers are overlooking as they reach out regional statesmen)

if i heard you correctly, you were in effect questioning agwambo's reform credentials and ideological convictions. i have therefore attempted to illustrate that he is the only politician in kenya whose relevance stems from a people based and trustworthy agenda irrespective of the tendencies or engagement platform.

i have also sought to disabuse you of the notion that agwambo is self-serving and lastly i am confident that i have impressed on you the need to understand the ideological underpinnings and most importantly the inexplicable inevitability of his mission for kenya. i rest my case.

I think the propaganda of ‘bar talk’ should be left there.

Raila was never a ‘principled man’ portrayed here. To me, he is simply an opportunistic populist. If he won the election, as claimed, then my views rings truer. He won the election to concede defeat and settle for second position, some cheap imitation of the real 'position'. Good grief!

ODM supporters were people who earn their daily bread in any one of the slums that was looted and burnt beyond recognition during the PEV. Their wives and daughters are among the scores of women who were gang raped in the midst of the ongoing violence. Their families burnt beyond recognition in places like Naivasha. Their youth shot by the police.

Raila owed these people the decency to ask for his rightful winning. Justice has been denied to all of them in a rigged election. What ‘principles’ did he then stand for, if not cowardice?

There are usually was of getting your memoirs publicised Take for instance the memoirs of Mgina Miguna. We have snippets of what he will tell us in his book. But most importantly he has declared himself the author.

Now read this statement from the gutter press sheet that Oloo stopped working for:

The details of these events, unknown to the Kenyan public, are contained in the Memoirs of the Untold Story of Kenya’s Darkest Moment in its election history, by a former Commissioner at the defunct ECK.

Just why would the commissioner willing to tell us all about the negotiations and telephone calls between Kibaki and Rala not willing to be identified?

Because this is a fake! You tell fakes when certain thing are alleged and the author cannot possibly link his knowledge of events to any authority. The telephone calls between Raila and Kibaki would have had to be told to the commissioner by someone privy to the conversation hence cannot be authoratatively claimed by the Commissioner.

As Mank asked above, this is such 'hot' information to have been hidded from the pubic!

Danielwaweru you're quite something. You have audaciously claimed there was violence by 27th. Casual reading may let you get away with so much. Are you saying violence before 27th Dec 2007 was POST-election violence? Where was this violence? All reports I've seen refer to violence breaking out after 31st Dec when Kibaki was sworn in at night. If this is another attempt to link Raila to PEV you will have to try harder.

Violence was meted on so many people in Kisumu and other areas long before the real election begun on suspicion that they were policemen send by Kibaki to rig the elections.

Apr 30, 2012 10:55:48 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

Apr 30, 2012 8:44:11 GMT 3 @danieldotwaweru said:

This is thoroughly uncompelling. He might have been convinced he won the election, while at the same time accepting (i) he had no decisive evidence for the claim; certainly, no evidence that would convince a neutral observer, and (ii) even if he did have decisive evidence, neither the government, the nation, nor Kenya's imperial overlords were going to let him assume the presidency because of the violence that had already occurred. In any case, it is obvious that he and Kibaki were compelled by outside pressure to accept the deal on the table. I'm not a fan of Raila, but his actions don't show that he didn't believe that he had won the election.

I find your argument contradictory. If Raila was convinced he won the election, he must have had some ‘evidence’ on which to base that conviction. Unless of course you are arguing it was merely a ‘gut-feeling’ which you have not told us how your reach that view.

If he had won, and that is what we are told happened, then everyone would have stood with him as he claimed his coveted prize. I doubt id people would have rubbished his claim, if he stood up and said as such. Contrast with the cases of Zimbabwe and Ivory coast.

PEV took place before the coalition and creation of prime minister. It is not the case, if he had not subserviently submitted himself to be the prime minister position, the country would have gone up in flames. By the time they were making deals the country was already burnt, smouldering.

He actions to me are clearly of a person who was not sure of himself and jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism when the premier position was flashed before him.

(1) The claim is that his actions aren't inconsistent with his possession of evidence that he had won. That claim turns on the nature of the evidence: in particular, whether it was sufficient to convince a neutral observer. It couldn't have been, because he didn't follow up on his promise to produce it. But it does not follow, from the fact that he didn't produce it, that he had none.

(2) In any case, even if he had produced the evidence, ODMers had killed sufficiently large numbers of people to guarantee a full-blown civil war if he took power. The Ivory Coast example refers.

(3) Again, his not being sure of himself is consistent with his possessing evidence, but not evidence sufficient to convince a neutral observer.