|
Post by adongo23456 on Oct 30, 2008 22:58:46 GMT 3
PM You say' The Waki report was doomed to failure from the start simply because we as a Nation have not yet arrived to the point where we look at ourselves as a people with one common goal, rather than, a collection of tribal enclaves. When will we arrive at that point? Don't you think the PEV was one such point - a perfect opportunity to show how interconnected our destinies are as a nation? Moreover key persons who were accused to have played a role in the fostering of post election violence were not deposed. Was kegs deposed under oath? jomo jnr? Ruto? Isn't the tribunal THE perfect place for all suspects to get their chance to rebutt any accusations? The commision called Kibaki to testify - he flatly refused. Moi was called, he refused to come. Do you smell IMPUNITY? That's the problem right there. IMPUNITY. Not the execution by the Waki commission. Some of these commissions always end up with good recommendations which are then either ignored or flatly stonewalled. Waki's seems to be following in the same footsteps. Goldenberg Commission for instance recommended that Saitoti be investigated (evidence collection) and prosecuted. Kibaki instead went ahead to use the judiciary to absolve Saitoti. That's the mtafanya nini element of IMPUNITY. Waki's was just a fact-finding template, not the alpha and omega. Ruto was called, he came and gave his views. Uhuru was called, he did the same. The tribunal would have been a perfect place to clear names, rather than leave wananchi's jury to make their own verdict out there based on hearsay. But I guess the victims of PEV are just way at the bottom of the foodchain - no one cares. Folks like Oloo's brother in law who were shot by rogue Administration Policemen or others who were burnt in Eldoret & Naivasha may not get justice afterall. Basi kazi iendelee Lets get a few things straight for the sake of the country. The ODM has trashed the Waki report. I am shocked they did not denounce the National Accord altogether and declare Kibaki and PNU won the election fair and square and they are ready to go into opposition. That is the natural conclusion from their latest stand. What we are hearing from ODM is that the Koffi Annan National Dialogue process was a hoax. It wasn't necessary. It was only needful to get them into the government and now that they are there, nothing else matters. We get the message. Trust me. The nation will respond to it very forcefully. ODM has joined PNU in telling Kenyans that impunity and human rights abuses is a good thing for the country as long as it serves the interests of key political weasels. We get it. I am not sure the ODM gets it. But they have the M.Ps and the money and they can do anything they want. I wonder for how long. I don't know if anybody notices that neither the ODM, PNU or even the now disturbed ODM K have suggested what next after they have rejected the Waki report. Do we just say nothing happened? They have no clue. They never had. Now we know. Thank you very much. The dangerous message we get from all these is that politicians are telling Kenyans "if you want to be safe arm yourself and be responsible for your own security" I am not sure the politicians will like the results of that message. I am fine with it. Kenya is now a country where lawlessness and political murder is the official policy of the state. What else is new? It is in the political DNA of the nation. The political elites do not seem to know their window of opportunity keeps shrinking. That is the good news. adongo
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Oct 30, 2008 23:39:06 GMT 3
Man I had a sneaky feeling this will come to naught!
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Oct 31, 2008 0:05:25 GMT 3
Implement Waki Report fully, envoys sayUpdated 1 hr(s) 5 min(s) ago By David Ochami The international community is demanding the prosecution of politicians and businessmen alleged to have sponsored post-election violence. Germany and US urged the Government to implement the Waki and Kriegler reports fully. "We support full implementation of the Waki and Kriegler reports. They were credible reports," said the US ambassador. Ambassadors Michael Ranneberger of the US and Walter Lindner of Germany said in Nairobi on Thursday Kenya’s credibility in upholding the rule of law will be judged by how it implements the Waki Report. This, they said, would enforce justice and stem impunity.The envoys said the West would not dictate the implementation of the reports but expect the Government to live to its international reputation. Ranneberger described the Waki Report as "credible" as Lindner characterised it as containing "great substance".‘Do not cloud facts’The US ambassador said politicians had a democratic right to comment on the Waki Report but should not cloud the facts."We want to see people held to account and fundamental reforms implemented to avoid problems in the future," said Ranneberger. He added: "The violence early this year was a watershed. Kenya has to finally grapple with the culture of impunity. There is widespread consensus among the people of Kenya that this (Waki) report has to be implemented." The envoy said President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga have assured him they support the reports’ implementation. He said on Thursday instead of rubbishing the Waki Report, the recommendations were a window for those mentioned to clear their names."What do they have to hide? They should welcome the opportunity to clear their names," he said.He said the US believes the Kenya can host the proposed tribunal without compromising political stability. Lindner said Germany is not trying to impose on Kenya but said the reports contained "great substance." "The parties agreed to form the commissions. No one can now say they do no know what was in their mandate We will have to come to a conclusion. It is important to implement...the report...people should be held to account. We are trying to ensure that what happened should not happen again," he said. Ethnic cleansingMeanwhile, post-election violence was premeditated but cannot be classified as genocide, US under-secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer has said. Dr Frazer also said the US would support the implementation of the Waki Report. The report recommends police and administrative reforms and a special crimes tribunal. "We will offer our support," she said without elaborating. Speaking on the sidelines of the Igad regional summit on Somalia in Nairobi, on Wednesday, Frazer restated her earlier classification of violence in the Rift Valley as ethnic cleansing, which like genocide is a crime against humanity under international law. She said the violence was planned to deport immigrant tribes from some areas. "When I was here in January, I said the violence in the Rift Valley was organised and intended to push some communities out of the area. It was based on my discussions with victims of this violence," she said She added: "They (attackers) were not carrying out genocide. They were not trying to kill them. They were trying to get them off the land. That was the distinction I was trying to make and which I am insisting was the case." Course of actionThe US State Department reportedly criticised her over the characterisation, believing it favoured one side of the conflict while implying the US was obliged to intervene. Frazer also said the US will not dictate how the Waki Report would be implemented but may come up with unspecified course of action if the Government fails to deliver on the recommendations. "The US Government will consult with its allies and former US Secretary-General Kofi Annan for action if Kenya fail to establish the proposed a special tribunal locally," said Frazer. She said those who killed, deported and plundered must account. www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143998262&cid=4&
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Oct 31, 2008 0:12:07 GMT 3
Waki Report rejected. So what next?Updated 1 hr(s) 4 min(s) ago By Standard Team The Waki Report was last night left in tatters after politicians across the political divide united to reject it. In an unlikely unity of purpose typical only of politicians, Prime Minister Raila Odinga was singing the same tune as Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka, and by extension President Kibaki whose foot soldiers on Wednesday trashed the report as "shallow" and "shoddy".Also getting in the mix was Water Minister Charity Ngilu, who was emphatic that any blame on the post-election violence — that consumed the country at the start of the year — lay squarely on the laps of then presidential candidates Kibaki, Raila and Kalonzo. "If I fought, I did not fight my war, I fought for Raila. If somebody else fought, they fought for (President) Kibaki. We should be honest and stop looking for the small people,’’ said Ngilu.But as expected of the international community, its lead point men, United States Ambassador Michael Ranneberger and German colleague Walter Lindner, immediately sent out another warning shot: "We are keenly monitoring events in Kenya". They told a press conference in Nairobi that international actors would institute an alternative course of action if the Government reneged on its promise to punish those responsible for the violence. Yet as the clock ticked on the report — in which chairman Justice Philip Waki and his team built in timelines and automatic escalation in case "the process is subverted" — Kenyans paused to reflect on the development and whether or not the politicians’ actions spelt a death-knell for the report that has gripped the attention of the country. The Raila-led Orange Democratic Movement emerged from a Parliamentary Group meeting to unanimously reject the report, only a day after Central Kenya MPs led by ministers Uhuru Kenyatta and Kiraitu Murungi had made clear their stand — that the report in its current state could not be implemented. VP Kalonzo was not to be left behind — he stood up to be counted by declaring that the Waki findings could not sustain serious charges against the perpetrators of violence.
He said the report was a threat to national cohesion and would achieve very little in terms of national healing.ODM, with a 103-member-strong presence in Parliament, vowed to shoot down the Waki Report that comes to the House for debate in 10 days time.Emerging from a four-hour meeting chaired by Raila at Parliament’s Old Chambers, ODM vowed to block any rendition attempts against any Kenyan to any part of the world on matters related to the Waki Report. Abuse of natural justiceRaila and Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi have been vocal in demanding the full implementation of the report as a measure of dealing with impunity. "ODM finds the Waki Report an abuse of the rule of natural justice. The commission itself stated that it was not able to conclusively carry out its mandate and they lacked sufficient time to give those adversely mentioned a chance to defend themselves before coming up with the names," said ODM Parliamentary Group Secretary Ababu Namwamba.A pensive Raila and Mudavadi sat by as Namwamba read the ODM verdict.The party expressed concern that Justice Waki belittled his appointing authority by failing to give it the List of Shame, which he handed over to Chief Mediator Dr Kofi Annan."It was very clear that Justice Waki was to hand over his report in its entirety to the two principals (President Kibaki and PM) but he overlooked them and handed the report to Dr Annan," said the statement. ODM said its verdict was arrived at after a team of lawyers scrutinised the report that spelt out tough implementation guidelines to the Government, including arraignment of those implicated before a Special Tribunal for Kenya or the International Criminal Court of Justice at The Hague. Ababu continued: "On what basis did Justice Waki then conclude that those who were mentioned but never given a chance to defend themselves were guilty and should be subjected to the tribunal?"Namwamba said 75 ODM MPs agreed with the party’s legal experts that the report was an abuse of the country’s rule of law.Luo NyanzaA Cabinet minister who attended the closed-door meeting told The Standard that Raila and Mudavadi’s attempts to explain their positions on the matter failed to convince the MPs, who had already made up their minds on the report.The PM and his deputy’s position was only supported by four MPs led by Cabinet Minister Chris Obure. Even 18 MPs from Luo Nyanza, who ordinarily back the PM, and 15 Luhya MPs who would have easily favoured Musalia’s position joined their colleagues from Coast and Rift Valley in strongly rejecting the report.The ODM statement drew instant reaction. "It’s unfortunate that our leaders have succumbed to sectarian interests as championed by some leaders while proclaiming their personal interests," said Assistant Minister Richard Onyonka, whose PDP party is an ODM affiliate party."Waki did an excellent job and what ODM should have done was to let the report be tabled in Parliament for MPs to debate and decide," said Onyonka. While tearing into the Waki recommendations, the Vice-President said: "African problems can only be solved by Africans themselves. The Hague is not the way".But ODM-Kenya Secretary-General Mutula Kilonzo swiftly rejected his boss’ position, warning: "If we dare reject the report, I can tell you the culprits who planned, financed and executed the violence will one day answer for them even if it will be post-humously." US envoy Ranneberger and Germany’s Lindner said Kenya’s credibility as a viable nation-state that upholds the rule of law would be judged by how it implements the report to enforce justice and stem impunity. Their warning came only a day after US Under-Secretary of State for African Affairs Dr Jendayi Frazer said the report should be implemented to end impunity in Kenya. "The US Government will consult with its allies and former US Secretary-General Annan for action against Kenya if Kenyan authorities fail to establish the proposed special tribunal locally," she said. Assistant minister Mwangi Kiunjuri warned that the country could not avoid implementing the Waki Report as the world was watching. www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143998258&cid=4&
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Oct 31, 2008 4:12:58 GMT 3
Coalition accused of colluding to block justiceBy Beauttah Omanga Fury, disbelief and chants of grand conspiracy greeted the apparent turnaround by politicians on the Waki Report. Assistant Minister Richard Onyonka and former MP Paul Muite led the condemnation, saying chances were that the International Court of Criminal Justice in The Hague would overlook Kenya. Kenya National Commission on Human Rights vice chairman Hassan Omar and Muite read conspiracy in the position taken by coalition partners. "It is clear that the coalition partners have colluded to defeat justice. This looks like a choreographed move. It cannot be that different players in both sides of the divide, who hailed the report, will all of a sudden rubbish it in a span of 24 hours," said Muite. Omar, speaking on behalf of KNHCR, warned political players that while they might succeed in frustrating the establishment of tribunals to try those implicated, it would not protect any action the ICC would decide to take. Postpone the problem"What ODM has done is merely suspend the problem… but that will not stop the ICC from using the evidence as compiled by Waki to prosecute those implicated," warned KNHCR. Muite said: "The blood of the 1,500 who were killed in the post-election violence and whose graves are still fresh will continue crying for justice until it is seen to be done". Omar said Kenya could not afford to ignore the Waki Report, adding that punishment was rife for those who masterminded the abuse of over 1,500 Kenyans’ human rights through the politically instigated violence. KNHCR said it would resist attempts to accord blanket amnesty to those who instigated violence. Muite said ODM and the coalition Government had schemed to protect each other’s interest by blocking the implementation of the Waki Report. "Claims that Waki got his facts wrong are misleading. Waki stated that his commission had found a prima facie case against those whose names are on his list to warrant further investigation by the tribunal," said Muite. block amendmentsHe regretted that ODM would now block any constitutional amendments to create room for the setting up of tribunals through an amendment of the Constitution. Waste of time"ODM is wasting time. If Kofi Annan presents the Waki Report with its evidence against those named, action will be taken by the international court," warned the former Kabete MP. "The fight for prosecution of abusers of human rights can never be controlled by political statements or party positions by the ruling partners. The issue can only be suspended but action will one day be taken against the perpetrators," said Omar. PNU spokesman George Nyamweya blasted the ODM position accusing them of biased demands. "The Waki Commission was established out of a National Accord that brought them to Government. They have since demanded for full implementation of the Kriegler Report. Why are they now rubbishing the Waki Report? It is because they suspect some leaders of the party have been implicated? We will press for justice," said Nyamweya. www.eastandard.net/news/InsidePage.php?id=1143998251&cid=159&
|
|
|
Post by gathura on Oct 31, 2008 18:54:27 GMT 3
I do not think RO is going to be the true leader some people expect him to be (purely a gut feeling), and I am not going to pretend I know what's what by over analyzing various political situations played out in the media, without actually knowing the money trail... Cause at the end of the day isn't it what it has all been about, money, power and perceived respect. But he still has an opportunity to define the role of the PM - it is in this area that there is great potential to leave a legacy.
But hey, maybe this is a silly question...In 2012 how will the next PM be chosen?
On the other hand, I do blame Kibaki for a lack of leadership and completely misreading the whole situation from 2006!
Still waiting for the next true great kenyan Leader
|
|
|
Post by tiskie on Oct 31, 2008 19:18:57 GMT 3
Man I had a sneaky feeling this will come to naught! politicalmaniac You seem to be able to see in to the future(point on) But i sincerely hope Hague will come into effect... look at the other countries that have gone through the same... their leaders have been frog marched kicking and screaming to the international criminal courts and i didn't see anyone standing up for them internationally.... In Kenya the same will happen....
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Nov 2, 2008 0:35:59 GMT 3
Waki Report exposes the beasts in our politicsUpdated 2 hr(s) 12 min(s) ago By Edward Kisiang’ani Over the past few weeks, there has been heightened disquiet within the ranks of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party. Such tension is not necessarily unusual, especially within political outfits, which encourage the nurturing of diverse opinions on various issues. In many respects, dissent is good for the growth of our democracy. However, the current dissonance in ODM is significant because it originates from the controversial findings of the Waki Commission on post-election violence. Soon after the release of the report, Regional Development Minister Fred Gumo asked Kenyans to forget about the Waki findings and endeavour to forgive each other. Gumo was of the view that implementing the report findings would serve the twin purpose of destabilising the coalition government and renewing conflict between opposing communities. Following submissions by Gumo, more politicians from both the ODM and the PNU joined the debate. Some supported the total execution of the Waki revelations while others vouched for selective or partial implementation. Still more asked for the total rejection of the release. In ODM, the unanimous disapproval of the report by Kalenjin MPs was rather unconcealed. Led by Agricultural Minister William Ruto, Kalenjin members of Parliament have trashed the report and accused Justice Waki’s team of taking Kenyans for a ride. On the other hand, the ODM faction led by both Prime Minister Raila Odinga and his deputy Musalia Mudavadi hold the view that the Waki report should fully be adopted. That changed on Thursday when the party agreed to trash the report. AcrimonyAt the centre of the acrimony is the yet-to-be-opened envelope containing the list of suspected perpetrators of the post election violence. The Rift Valley lawmakers think that if blame was to be apportioned, it should, first and foremost, go to the top leadership of the ODM, including the Prime Minister himself. It explains why Isaac Ruto, William Ruto, Henry Kosgey, Joshua Kutuny and others have gone ballistic. There is a sense in which one could sympathise with the sentiments of the lawmakers from Rift Valley. Most of them feel that whatever they did in the aftermath of the December polls was aimed at defending the party and Raila. Thus they see Raila’s take on the report as a callous exhibition of malice and betrayal. Kenya is obviously bigger than any political party and the implementation of the Waki Report should not be determined by the extent to which it has either acquitted or implicated certain political party stalwarts. It is important to understand that the Waki Commission was not obliged to only accept evidence, which favoured the leadership of political parties. Supported by the United Nations, the commission had a duty to secure Kenya’s national interests and not to protect partisan preferences. Though the report has exacerbated the rebellion in ODM, the problems of the party go back to the final years of the Narc administration. Because of President Kibaki’s failure to implement the mutually agreed upon Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Narc disintegrated with one faction remaining with Kibaki and the other one walking away with Odinga. The Odinga group transformed itself into the Orange movement that mobilised the Kenyan people to reject the government-friendly Wako Draft Constitution. ReferendumBut the events of the 2005 constitutional referendum also revealed that the Orange team was united by two major factors. First, most of its members are former Kanu conservatives and young members who had quit the independence outfit to protest President Moi’s move to anoint the relatively unknown Uhuru Kenyatta as the party’s presidential torchbearer in 2002. In this group, we had, among others, such personalities as Raila, Ruto, Ntimama, and Balala. These people were not necessarily revolutionaries. Thus, the 2005 constitutional referendum provided the Kanu wing in Narc a chance to take political revenge on Kibaki. The new anti-Kibaki faction transformed itself into ODM and was soon joined by more Kanu leaders like Mudavadi, Chris Okemo, Kosgey, Bett and Ruto, and for a brief period, Uhuru. In ODM, the struggle for party leadership and ownership has taken a very dangerous ethnic angle. Two ethnic communities are rivalling over the control of the three-year-old party. On one hand we have Luo MPs and councillors fighting hard to retain control of the party and on the other hand there is the Kalenjin faction, which wants to wrest power from the Luo. Each of the two camps has a chief priest. Odinga for the Luo camp and Ruto for the Kalenjin faction. Beyond the two camps, the remaining members form the cheering crowd. Some of the cheerleaders who have taken factional positions include but are not limited to Mudavadi, Magara, Gumo, Alfred Sambu and Ababu Namwamba. A party so much embroiled in ethnic politics can hardly find time to address national issues. It is against this background that Kenyans might appreciate why the Kalenjin leadership is currently intimidating Raila to back out of the move by the Government to evict from the Mau forest people who, several years ago, fraudulently acquired land in the water-catchments area. Nobody in the Ruto faction seems to care that the destruction of the Mau forest will irreversibly damage the ecological system of the entire region of East Africa. Like their ODM counterparts, some PNU leaders have also dismissed the Waki Report, saying the findings had ensnared those who had defended themselves against the attackers. Led by Central Kenya MPs, these legislators have been holding several ethnic meetings to divert national attention from the real issues raised in the Waki dossier. On Wednesday, Uhuru held a meeting with his tribesmen and cousins from Nairobi, Central and upper Eastern provinces to drum up ethnic hostility against the report. His response is hardly surprising. FriendsHis political operations have always been fed by ethnic chauvinism. He was not expected to act outside the ethnic ethos of his father’s and Moi’s Kanu. Being in Kanu and PNU, Uhuru and his political friends in Central and Eastern provinces are not expected to be reformers. Uhuru’s sentiments on the report are similar to Ruto’s. How can Ruto the supposed reformist concur with Uhuru the conservative over such an important matter as the post-election violence? It has become apparent that PNU and ODM are hatching similar plans to dismiss both the Waki and the Kriegler findings before they eventually conspire to kill the efforts of the Kenyan people to write a new constitution. Alongside ODM, PNU should never be allowed to control our lives again. What we require in the coming years is for Kenyans to press for a new constitution that provides a suitable avenue for nurturing a leadership filled with fresh ideas and a commitment to build a new Kenya. The scenario begs a few questions. If Ntimama, Ruto, Raila or Balala had taken power in 2003, would they have performed differently from Kibaki? Can any leader in ODM persuade Kenyans that they can provide this country with more progressive leadership what we so far have today? Where is the evidence that an ODM leadership could solve the problems caused by PNU? Apart from some people distributing government jobs and tenders among themselves, what else has changed in this country? Both PNU and ODM should not be allowed to interfere with the full implementation of both the Waki and the Kriegler findings. The Kenyans must demand action from politicians. I am afraid we need real change in this country but that change might never be realised through ODM or PNU. —Dr Edward Waswa Kisiang’ani teaches History and Political Studies at Kenyatta University
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Nov 2, 2008 0:56:44 GMT 3
The tete-a-tete that saved party from implosionUpdated 2 hr(s) 39 min(s) ago By Oscar Obonyo A breakfast meeting between Prime Minister Raila Odinga and Agriculture minister William Ruto on Wednesday morning may well have saved ODM from a major split. Coming in the wake of a frosty relationship between the two leaders and against the backdrop of a rebellion, mainly by MPs from Rift Valley Province, the meeting was meant to calm rising tempers. The Standard On Sunday has reliably established that the breakfast meeting at a "very quiet location" had only two main items on the agenda — a ceasefire of the verbal tirade among legislators and an agreement that they both attend last Thursday’s Parliamentary Group (PG) meeting "without failure". The two leaders might have succeeded to rescue the situation — at least for the moment — but MPs polled by The Standard On Sunday confess that this was just a stop-gap measure and "trouble is far from over". Raila and Ruto have fundamentally differed on how to approach the Waki Report and there is no denying that this document has hit the Orange party harder than any other political party. Although rage and discontent has been boiling among ODM MPs for some time, their frustrations came to the fore rather dramatically last Tuesday when a group of 23 legislators defied an order by the party’s parliamentary whip Jakoyo Midiwo of holding a Parliamentary Group meeting. Led by the PG Secretary Ababu Namwamba, they met and dismissed the PM’s position as "personal". They resolved to stage another meeting two days later. While the PM supported the implementation of the report of the Court of Appeal Judge Phillip Waki-led probe committee into post-election violence, Ruto wanted it trashed "in toto". He carried the day. The argument advanced by Ruto and Water Development minister Charity Ngilu, in blocking the implementation of the report, is that it would harm the party’s political class, who were only but protesting over a stolen election and by inference protecting Raila’s political interests. Raila’s attempt to have the legislators see it another way has failed flatly. During the Thursday meeting, Raila reportedly implored on his colleagues stating that the "matter at hand is larger than you see it". Image before international communityAccording to one MP, the PM stated that even as they trashed the report, they needed to think about the image of the party in the eyes of Kenyans and the international community. Raila was disturbed that Kenyans would in future judge the party harshly for condoning crimes against humanity. "Listening to Raila, I really felt pity for him. Even as we told him to forget about Waki, these issues are heavy and he may still have to rethink his decision considering that he has a huge responsibility in this matter and Kenyans are watching, as well as the US, UK and the UN," observes the MP. Nonetheless, the development partially vindicates Raila and now effectively catapults Ruto into the driver’s seat. Having been heavily outgunned by the ODM PG, the responsibility of what transpires as from this moment, in regard to the Waki document, squarely lies in the hands of those who have pushed for the ODM standpoint. Incidentally, both Raila and Ruto are signatories of the statutes that led to the setting up of the Waki Commission. Raila by appending his signature to the National Accord that ushered in a shared Government with President Kibaki and Ruto by signing the establishment of the resultant probe committees, as member of the Serena negotiating team. One of the documents signed on March 4 partly stipulates that the Waki team will "carry out investigations of gross and systematic violations of human rights and that those found guilty are brought to justice." And touching on the dreaded "secret envelope", it is categorical that "certain aspects of the report or annexes may be kept confidential in order to protect the identity of witnesses or persons accused." Separately, The Standard On Sunday has established that prior to ODM’s decision, a group of top party lawyers had been mandated to read the report and establish "whether it raises grounds and hard evidence against members of the ODM fraternity." Admittedly, there was a huge sigh of relief among members following the lawyers’ findings. These included, that it was heavily flawed and attempted to shield certain individuals. The report, the lawyers point out, targets the ODM fraternity over reactionary activities (street protests) while it totally excludes "real actions" (alleged rigging plot) by those who triggered the poll mess. But most importantly, the lawyers return a verdict that there is no serious and credible evidence to prosecute any of the ODM legislators or party’s top brass. The lawyers recommend, among other things, the prosecution of members of the police force responsible for a third of the post-election violence deaths and other "minor" perpetuators of the violence. Neglect"The lawyers are competent and known to all of us, in fact some are personal lawyers of the party’s top brass and were nominated for the task by these politicians. It is therefore unfortunate for some to deliberately poison the situation as a weapon to settle political scores," laments a party official. But an MP from Coast Province instead accuses Raila of "abandoning members and neglecting interests of Rift Valley residents to appease the Kikuyu". Says he: "These guys will never vote for him come what may. My colleagues in Rift Valley feel that their place in the party is not taken seriously." Namwamba concurs that things were indeed getting out of hand: "Discontent is not just from Rift Valley alone. There has been a disquiet right from Coast, Northern Kenya, Western and even Nyanza. The only difference is that Rift Valley MPs have been more vocal." And while noting that the PM might have been consumed by responsibilities in Government, including projecting a national image, a host of ODM legislators accuse their Rift Valley colleagues of washing the party’s dirty linen in the public and wrecking the party from within. "Much as we need to address our internal issues, let us do so with decorum. The PM has enough problems with the President Kibaki and (Head of Civil Service, Francis) Muthaura in Government and (DPM Musalia) Mudavadi, Ruto and others ought not give him more stress," says a Nominated MP. According to Namwamba, however, the sole challenge rests with Raila. He observes that the President and Muthaura are by extension part of ODM’s frustrations and Raila should make clear some issues. Says the Budalang’i MP: "As they put pressure on us to deliver on several fronts, our supporters need to be told that we are not fully in charge — Kibaki and Muthaura are. This is the reality that our PM needs to confess as it will ease a lot of pressure on him from his expectant supporters in Rift Valley and across the country."
|
|
|
Post by okhunyanye on Nov 2, 2008 8:45:13 GMT 3
One of the overlooked ramifications of the Waki report is that Kalonzo Musyoka will be the next president of Kenys come 2012. The deep divisions that has emerged among ODM supporters following the release of the report and Raila's quick endorsement of it essentially means that Raila is the report's greatest loser. I foresee a realignment in the political landscape with Kalonzo emerging as it's greatest beneficiary just because Karua (or anybody for that matter) will never deliver Agikuyu votes to Raila. Uhuru and Ruto, negatively mentioned in the report, will not garner for the highest office in the land. They will however definately join forces with someone who will protect them from appearing at the Hague. All indications are that they both, together with people implicated in other scandals in previous administrations, will find a willing friend in Kalonzo. www.kenyatimesonline.com/content.asp?catid=2&articleId=2077Ruto’s quit letter that shocked Raila Updated on: Sunday, November 02, 2008 Story by: Moses Koech Agriculture Minister William Ruto threatened to resign on Wednesday morning touching off a sequence of events that led to Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s surprise change of mind on the implementation of the Waki report, we can authoritatively report. According to a source close to the Eldoret North MP, the minister ambushed the PM at his Treasury Building offices with his resignation letter that he said he was ready to hand in and go public if he (PM) insisted on the implementation of the report, which has caused tempest in ODM. The report widened the rift between the PM on one hand and Mr Ruto and Rift Valley MPs on the other. Since the formation of the grand coalition government in April, Rift Valley MP’s relationship with PM has been souring over several issues. During the more that one hour meeting which surprised the PM, an angry Ruto told his boss on the face he was ready to quit the cabinet together with other minister’s from Rift Valley if he (Raila) continued insisting on the implementation of the Waki report. A surprised Raila is reported to have kept his cool as Ruto took him through the events that led to the post-election violence and the role the PM together with other ODM big-wigs encouraged party supporters to resort to including mass action in protest of the election outcome which eventually degenerated into violence. Mr Ruto, the source said questioned why the PM was abandoning him yet he had stood by him through the campaigns to the post election crisis and the negotiations that gave him the premiership. During the meeting, the minister is said to have candidly told the PM that he felt he had been betrayed and that he was ready to quit the Grand Coalition Government together with a host of ministers and assistant ministers from the Rift Valley.The same sources says that the minister had decided to quit both the government and ODM: "Yes I can confirm to you the fact that Mr Ruto had made up his mind to resign from his ministerial post and eventually quit ODM if Mr Odinga continued pushing for the implementation of the Waki report," our source added. Convinced that the secret envelope handed over to former United Nation boss Kofi Annan contained his name and that of others from Rift Valley, Ruto told Mr Odinga to change his stand on the Waki report or those ministers from the province and other MPs quit ODM.Placed between a rock and a hard place and knowing very well the consequences that would befall ODM if Mr Ruto delivered on his threats, Mr Odinga is said to have pleaded with his minister to give him up to the evening of the same day to consult and get back to him. But to the surprise of Mr Odinga, Mr Ruto is said to have stood up and without uttering any further word walked out on his boss. Immediately he stormed out of the PM’s office Mr Ruto called for a meeting with MPs from Rift Valley at a Nairobi hotel where he briefed them on his meeting with Mr Odinga.After listening to the minister, the MPs are said to have vowed to stand by him and promised to quit the cabinet and the party in solidarity with Ruto.During the meeting the MPs present wondered why the PM was calling for the implementation of the Waki report yet he knew very well that those from Rift Valley participated in the post-election violence to fight for the PM whom they believed had been robbed of victory. A worked up Ruto is reported to have told the MPs that: He (Raila) cannot use, cheat and dump me and now have me taken to The Hague to be tried. ’’ Rift Valley gave Raila nearly two million votes.According to sources present at the meeting convened by the minister to brief them on the happenings of earlier in the day at Mr Odinga’s office, the MPs said they read mischief in Mr Odinga’s support for the implementation of the Waki report. The MPs said the document was tailored to specifically target Mr Ruto and other leaders from the community and that by supporting the document, Mr Odinga was trying to discredit and eventually eliminate Mr Ruto from the political arena before 2012 by having him prosecuted. It is believed Mr Ruto is planning to abandon Mr Odinga and run for the Presidency in the next elections. Mr Ruto who trashed the document dismissing it as "based on hearsay, rumours, and innuendo" is also on record saying he was ready to resign from his cabinet position and face trial if there was convincing evidence linking him to the post –election violence.Last week Mr Ruto publicly admitted that he suspected his name is on the well-guarded secret list. Parts of the report which has been made public recently claims that the planning of the post-election violence in Mr Ruto’s Uasin-Gishu District was done at his Eldoret home. Back to the Wednesday meeting between Mr Ruto and the PM, our sources told us Mr Odinga after consulting some of his key confidants in the cabinet from Nyanza called the minister and assured him that he would reject the document during last Thursday’s ODM Parliamentary Group Meeting.Come Thursday’s PG meeting at Parliament the party resolved to reject the document in total, a resolution that in effect means that the PM had conceded to Mr Ruto’s demands. Since the release of the Waki report two weeks ago, the PM had been a staunch advocate for its implementation. Among other things, Waki recommends the establishment of a special tribunal to try those suspected to have planned and executed the violence that claimed the lives of close to 1300 people and displaced 350,000 from their homes. Others in ODM who have been for the implementation of the report include Deputy PM Musalia Mudavadi and Lands Minister James Orengo.But Mr Ruto and several ministers and MPs from Rift Valley have been bitterly opposed to the report, saying it unfairly targeted people from the province. The conflicting opinions on what to do with the report had strained relations in the party. A Parliamentary Group meeting scheduled for last Tuesday was called off at the last minute due to the growing rift of opinion between leaders who were in favour of the implementation of the report and those against.But some MPs defied the cancellation and went ahead with a parallel meeting in which they harshly criticized the PM’s stand on the report saying his opinion was not the party’s position. The mounting anxiety in the party necessitated the Thursday meeting in which Mr Odinga was overruled by party MPs and a resolution to reject the report in its totality adopted. ODM’s rejection of the Waki report was followed by another rejection by several PNU ministers and MPs. The party is yet to come up with an official position but a majority of the leaders including Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka, Deputy PM Uhuru Kenyatta, Energy Minister Kiraitu Murungi and several MPs from Central Province have voiced the discomfort with the report. President Kibaki, who initially promised that the report would be implemented in full, has since softened his stance with his Kenyatta Day’s "tempering justice with forgiveness" call. But Justice Minister Martha Karua has steadfastly stood her ground insisting that the report must be implemented in full. With politicians from both sides of the divide closing ranks in rejection of the Waki report, its future increasingly is in doubt. While the cabinet and Parliament are yet to give their verdict on the report, the stands taken by individual politicians and political parties is a clear indication that the report is likely to be trashed by the two institutions. Foreign missions, civil society groups and the media are the few remaining advocates for the implementation of the report. If the politicians succeed in derailing the creation of a special tribunal to try the suspects, the next option according to Waki, would be the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, Netherlands. The report provides that if a the process of setting up a special tribunal is not set up by February 18, 2009, the envelope containing names of suspects would be handed over to the prosecutor of the ICC who would take over the cases and prosecute the suspects.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 2, 2008 11:56:05 GMT 3
I do not understand why people on Jukwaa tend to believe nearly everything they read from Kenya's press. Take the latest goings on in ODM as an example.
This thread alone has numerous stories copy pasted from The Standard and the Kenya Times. It would be prudent to ask ourselves who owns these two media groups in Kenya and whether it is in their interests for ODM to remain united particular in the face of the Kriegler and Waki reports. I would prefer a situation where wana Jukwaa provide us with links to online stories but give us what they themselves think about the thread/stories.
As it is, there is no independent media in Kenya. ALL major media houses; Nation, Royal Media/Citizen, Standard/KTN, Kenya Times Media Trust, Capital Group, Radio Africa (Kiss FM/Nairobi Star), etc etc are all owned by individuals who are very close to the the current and former government. Maybe Nation can claim to be 'independent' because the Aga Khan is the principal shareholder, but we all know on whose side they stood during the 2005 referendum and the 2007 general elections. It would therefore be a little naive to believe everything they publish in their editorials and the half-baked Sunday analysis by the Mutahi Ngunyis, in reality hired political mercenaries, of this world.
Take the story posted by okhunyanye above, from the Kenya Times. Who does not know that William S. Ruto is the principal shareholder at KTMT and that he is the one who 'inherited' former President Moi's shares in very dubious circumstances while he was serving as KANU Secretary General? The writer of the story - Moses Koech - is known to have a 'relationship' with Ruto himself.
And looking at the Kenya someTimes story that is largely a self-laudatory fable; what did Ruto aim to gain by resigning from Government? Nothing at all. Infact he had more to lose than to gain. There are many more ODM MPs who are qualified to serve as Agricultural minister. Would he gain immunity from possible prosecution arising from the Waki report? No he wouldn't! This is a man who is using his third rate newspaper to play political games to discredit his own party leader who held his hand when Moi was misusing KANU officials like Kindergarten children.
We've been around for a long time. We've seen politicians come and go. We shall wait and see how far the CIPEV warlords will survive in ODM.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Nov 3, 2008 7:45:20 GMT 3
Its surprising how much we could get to know from the shaken politicians even before any date at The Hague.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 3, 2008 17:43:16 GMT 3
An interesting view on the WAKI REPORT from the Institute for Security StudiesKenyan Commission Recommends an International Crimes Tribunal The Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence (CIPEV) established to investigate the violence witnessed after the 27 December 2007 elections in Kenya officially presented its much-anticipated report to President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga on 15 October 2008. The CIPEV, or Waki Commission, was vested with a mandate to ‘investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the violence, the conduct of state security agencies in their handling of it, and to make recommendations concerning these and other matters.’A key recommendation of the Waki Commission is that those responsible for committing the most heinous crimes during the post election period should be prosecuted. In this regard, the Commission has recommended the creation of a Special Tribunal for Kenya (STK) to ensure an objective and apolitical justice process. This recommendation has caused a major stir in Kenya, both within and outside political circles. Many people are truly concerned that pursuing justice at this time might unhinge Kenya’s tenuous peace process. Others are worried that failure to end impunity will fuel revenge, and possibly reignite the conflict. However, at over 500 pages, the report is not easy to digest for most Kenyans. And considering the vital importance of its contents, commentators and analysts are working hard to distil the key recommendations into an accessible format. Looking at the implications of the report in relation to the establishment of the STK, it is important to understand the following key points. First, the recommendations relating to the STK are to be implemented under the auspices of the Panel of Eminent African Personalities (PEAP) who mediated the creation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in consultation with the president and the prime minister (the Principals). While the role of the PEAP, and former UN secretary general Kofi Annan in particular, may keep the two principals focused on its implementation, their view will in no doubt be coloured by the politics of the GNU. There is already a bitter debate on whether prosecutions should be conducted. The president’s political party, PNU, which originally advocated for prosecutions without reservation (while the prime minister’s ODM called for amnesty), has since changed position. Some high-ranking members of PNU have allegedly been named by the Waki Commission. While the views within the president’s party are not unanimous, the president himself has called for forgiveness, sending an early message that he would not support prosecutions. Within the prime minister’s party, some, while perhaps sensing an opportunity to ‘fix’ their named opponents within the party, have begun advocating for prosecutions. It is therefore clear that there remains the risk that the STK may be manipulated to target individuals within and across party lines. Second, the STK, which will sit in Kenya, will prosecute ‘persons bearing the greatest responsibility for crimes, particularly crimes against humanity.’ The STK shall apply Kenyan law and the new International Crimes Bill (which is meant to incorporate the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) into Kenyan law). In what appears perhaps the weakest element of the recommendations regarding the STK, the Commission made no attempt to explore what is meant by ‘crimes against humanity’, except for its rather cursory intimation that some of the attacks were ‘systematic.’ By failing to engage this issue, which lies at the core of its recommendations, the report opens itself up to legitimate concerns about its vagueness on key issues, which could in turn lead to implementation challenges.The Commission itself warns that the evidence collected may indeed not meet the standard of crimes against humanity. If these views are correct, then the Commission’s recommendation for prosecuting crimes against humanity, and indeed the very establishment of the STK – and possible involvement by the ICC – could be problematic. The Commission has recommended that the ICC should be engaged to prosecute should the STK fail to do so. It is notable the ICC Bill under which these crimes are to be charged is not yet law. When that happens and it is applied to the STK, it will meet constitutional attacks for retroactivity. In terms of the Kenyan constitution - and indeed international law – one cannot be tried for acts that do not constitute crimes (under national law in this case) at the time they were committed.Third, the CIPEV attempts to remedy the inertia likely to be brought about by political considerations such as those mentioned above by imposing a ‘roadmap’ to be followed from the time the report is handed to the Principals to the establishment of the STK. The report states that the Principals are to sign an accord agreeing to establish the STK within 60 days of receiving the report. A statute for the STK should be enacted within 45 days of that signature. The president is to assent to the statute within 30 days of the relevant Bill being passed by parliament. If the recommendations stand, the tribunal should be in place on 28 February 2009. The clock started ticking on 15 October, and most commentators seem unsure whether the government will be able to get everything in place on time. Fourth, the Commission recommends that should the government fail to establish the tribunal and implement the prosecution-related elements of the report, that the ICC should handle the prosecution of the listed individuals. This is understandably one of the most contentious aspects of the report. Moreover, there seems to be a general lack of understanding about how the ICC works among politicians and commentators. The Waki Commission itself, by suggesting in its recommendations that ICC involvement would be automatic if the STK fails to take off or is subverted midway, demonstrates this lack of understanding. One clear misunderstanding relates to the jurisdictional triggers of the ICC, namely government referral, UN Security Council referral or ICC Prosecutor initiated investigations. None of these seem likely considering the current political climate in Kenya, the UN Security Council’s position, and the record of the ICC Prosecutor on self-referrals. The Commission’s suggestion that the PEAP hand over the sealed envelope and evidence to the ICC if the STK fails would not amount to a government referral either, and would simply be a source of information for the Prosecutor on the basis of which he may commence investigations. Fifth, the Commission recommends that while applying Kenyan law, the STK should have an international component – marked by the presence of non-Kenyans on the senior investigations and prosecution staff. Further recommendations are made with respect to appointment of judges, division of chambers and independence of the tribunal. Sixth, the Commission did not make public the names of senior politicians (both from the president and prime minister’s party) and businessmen implicated in crimes. The sealed envelope, which also contains evidence, has been entrusted to the custody of the PEAP pending the establishment of the STK. The names and evidence will be handed over to the ICC Prosecutor if the STK fails to proceed to operate as stipulated or is subverted.Whether the Waki Commission’s recommendations on the STK will be implemented remains to be seen. However, initial indications are that the fragile GNU faces complex challenges in trying to comply with the recommendations. The stakes of failure are high, especially if one considers the risks that a lack of justice can pose for durable peace in a fragile process like Kenya’s. Ending impunity in Kenya is perhaps more important now than ever before. Godfrey M Musila, Senior Researcher, International Crime in Africa Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)www.issafrica.org/index.php?link_id=14&slink_id=6751&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Nov 3, 2008 18:59:20 GMT 3
Phil
Mr. Musila piece above is one of the more sensible material I have seen on the Waki thing. I myself refused to comment on the report before I read it. It took me almost a week. My sense is that most of the politicians going gaga over the report have not read it. They have read newspaper reports and may be sections that they think apply to them.
However I disagree with Musila's article in a few areas.
One is his assertion that since any law to establish the Special Tribunal of Kenya (STK) is yet to be passed it will be difficult to prosecute people for crimes committed before such a law was passed. We only need to look at Rwanda next door. They established their tribunals after the fact and it was not a problem at all. The problem can easily be solved by providing for a retroactive framework within the bill establishing the STK itself. That is exactly what the Waki team has recommended. The real issue here is that it is all up to the politicians. If they wanted to do this thing they would do it in a second. So it is obvious to me that retroactivity is not an issue. The problem is wanasiasa.
Second Mr. Musila insinuates that the other problem with the report is that it could be used by some leaders to "fix" others. Everybody knows this is what led to outbursts from William Ruto after Raila initially supported the recommendations.
Ruto exploded arguing specifically against Raila and his message was that Raila was using the Waki report to finish him so that Raila can inherit his Kalenjin supporters. Well he didn't exactly use those words but what he meant was obvious. Since then all the Rift Valley M.Ps some with their own agenda against Raila have taken that as a cue to launch a full fledged attack on Raila even after the ODM as a party has now rejected the report.
I bring this up because it is a key part why the Waki report is being attacked by this particular group. It is the flimsy excuse that the report will be used to finish others. To the best of my knowledge Raila had no part in preparing the report. Even Kibaki whatever we may say against him let the commission do their job even though he refused to be interviewed. Neither Raila nor Kibaki will determine who gets to appear before the STK if it were formed. It is the STK prosecutor who will do that. All that is required to have a prosecutor with integrity and who is not a political hack.
I personally think Ruto's outbursts were unfortunate. The idea that someone wants to hijack Kalenjin voters after messing up Ruto is just outrightly silly. Voters are not sheep or goat to be inherited. They are people and they will choose their leaders as they see fit. Basically my argument is that the notion that specific political leaders want to use the Waki report to "fix" others is far fetched. To me it is just politicians using the report and its aftermath to settle their own internal party problems. In the process they are making a whole mess for themselves.
Usually politicians like to open their mouths and think later. That can be a dangerous habit. That is why I was stunned the other day when some Rift Valley M.P's declared that Raila is responsible for the violence because he is the one who asked for mass action. This is almost a confession from these M.P's. Yes, Raila and other leaders asked Kenyans to hold mass action to protest the stolen election. I don't recall Raila telling anybody to burn houses, to throw kids into a burning church or to rape and kill people.
Mass action in Kenya is legal political protest and there was a lot of that in every part of the country. In most cases it is the cops who attacked peaceful demonstrators and turned whole cities into war zones where many Kenyans were shot and killed by the police. Are these M.P's actually saying Raila asked them to mobilize people to commit crimes. If that is the case they should turn themselves in and tell the country what Raila asked them to do so Raila can be immediately arrested and they can be witnesses and be given lesser sentences. Anyway I digress.
Incidentally the PNU side of the alleged killers are saying the same thing about mass action and also claiming the attacks in Naivasha and Nakuru were in self defense. These folks are actually telling the world that locking up a family of nine including children in a house and burning them to ashes as happened in Naivasha by State House sponsored Mungiki militia is an act of self defense. That is how delusional these fellas are. The Naivasha massacre is the one driving Uhuru Kenyatta, Kabando wa Kabando and other top notch folks who raised money to organize it very nervous.
Anyhow the third part where I have issues with Musila's piece is where he says passing the matter to ICC will be hard because the first two options of either the government itself taking up the matter to ICC or the Security Council are not workable in our case. That is true but the Kenya case is pretty good for the third option which is investigations instituted by the ICC prosecutor. The Kenyan case was very dramatic. The pictures are very vivid. There is tons and tons of video and print evidence. The whole world camped at our doors for months.
When the victims start organising, when the families start coming together holding meeetings and seeking away out, when the victims of rape start working together and being visible and not just statistics on a piece of paper it is going to make it that much easier to take this thing to the next level. Not to mention the fact that the report is a product of a very prominent process chaired by non other than Kofi Annan. The report may have problems but it has sufficient evidence to draw the attention of Mr. Ocampo at the ICC. It is going to be a long and ardous journey but it is doable. Teh suspected killers have their sixty days to decide what they want.
I have said before that the way out of this is to form the STK and tie it up with TJRC which has already been passed in parliament but not operationalized. I think are going to be furious with a TJRC if the STL thing is rejected and we will just be back to square one.
Otherwise Mussila makes a lot of sense. I just wanted to bring the political context of the situation. I hope I have done that.
adongo
|
|
|
Post by job on Nov 3, 2008 21:31:33 GMT 3
The Kriegler & Waki reports are facing the obvious wrath of the 'lord of the Kenyan ring' - IMPUNITY.
Like several commissions coming before them, they both risk going down under the weight of IMPUNITY.
The PM must be resilient and do the right thing for the sake of the country.
All stakeholders in this NARA accord and power-sharing arrangement, including the majority of the Kenyan people, the AU panel of eminent persons, the UN, foreign partners (US, UK, Germany, France, Canada & others) plus all those concerned with protection of human rights will have the back of anyone with the WILL to go to the frontline and battle for the rights of helpless victims who have become targets of rogue cops and gangs each time a general election is called.
But most important, this will be the key to solving huge problems like corruption, electoral fraud, tribalism, extrajudicial police killings, land troubles, constitutional stalemate, rotten judicial system, and erosion of ethics in public service.
Kenya's perennial problem since independence is a rigid culture of IMPUNITY where accountability DOES NOT matter.
Three presidents have shown they don't have the spine and backbone rigid enough to end IMPUNITY. The PM is currently being armtwisted by forces of IMPUNITY residing in his own party. How can we end the land problem if IMPUNITY reigns over ACCOUNTABILITY?
How can we enact a people based, pro-equity, egalitarian & socially just constitution if IMPUNITY overrides ACCOUNTABILITY?
How can we end the culture of CORRUPTION if IMPUNITY rules over ACCOUNTABILITY?
How can we end the cancer of tribalism and nepotism if IMPUNITY stands above ACCOUNTABILITY?
How will we end the deficiencies in our terrible electoral system if IMPUNITY is chosen over ACCOUNTABILITY?
How will we reform our police and security apparatus if IMPUNITY rules over ACCOUNTABILITY?
How can we end election related MURDERS & RAPES (by gangs and police) if IMPUNITY rules over ACCOUNTABILITY?
How will we rebuild our justice and court system if IMPUNITY stands above ACCOUNTABILITY? How will we foster real PEACE & PROSPERITY if IMPUNITY knocks off ACCOUNTABILITY?
Rebuilding a culture of accountability will mean we start from somewhere and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH to IMPUNITY which has ruled Kenya since 1963.
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Nov 9, 2008 4:03:43 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by okhunyanye on Nov 23, 2008 9:07:50 GMT 3
It might be too early to read anything into the cozying up between these two personalities who have been for daggers drawn for almost a decade. The vocal opposition to the implementation of the Waki report by one of them, that almost mirrors that of ODM Rift Valley power barons, coupled with this meeting could however be a pointer to new alliances emerging in Kenya's political landscape. Only time will tell. www.kenyatimesonline.com/content.asp?catid=2&articleId=2333
|
|
|
Post by job on Dec 1, 2008 20:40:28 GMT 3
Someone has a question for Kofi Annan - ain't no laughing matter I have a question Mr Annan Well Kofi did his thing which led to power-sharing and reports such as this one below. The Waki report. And now we get to see whether or not impunity shall win again in Kenya. British politician Edmund Burke once said "All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing."
|
|