Kibaki's Tyranny Will Cost Everybody Dearly

[adongo12345]

By Adongo Ogony



President Mwai Kibaki pulled a fast one on Kenyans the other day. Defying all protests from political parties, faith groups and civil society organizations the president decided to piss on the IPPG deal he himself negotiated with Moi in 1997 and unilaterally appointed new commissioners to ECK. The president himself has not bothered to explain his action to Kenyans but his supporters have been busy lecturing us on why the president does not need to consult anybody. They say the president acted according to the law. They also tell us the appointees reflect regional balance.



The trouble with all this is that when Kibaki and the likes of Murungi negotiated the IPPG deal, the same law existed and Kenyans were concerned it was open to abuse and hence the so-called gentleman’s agreement which Moi to his credit adhered to. What we all forgot is that it takes a gentleman to keep a gentleman’s agreement. Remember the MOU? We should have learnt from that. The nonsense about regional balance does not wash. The President can pick his friends from anywhere in the country.

The real tragedy of all these is that the same day Kibaki made the announcements, it was reported the A.G had just published Draft Bills for the constitutional review process. For this review process to work, Kenyans will require our politicians and MP’s in particular to work in a collaborative manner and bury their partisan interests while focusing on what is good for the country.

The president and his noisy supporters like Kivutha Kibwana, Beth Mugo, Martha Karua etc are going to need all those opposition M.P’s and leaders they keep insulting and ignoring to help them pass some of these critical bills in parliament. We are heading to the last session of parliament and constitutional bills are going to need two-thirds majority to pass in parliament. If the president thinks the only person he needs to consult before acting is his former boss, Daniel Arap Moi, he is in for some real problems.

Kibaki should be calling opposition leaders like Uhuru Kenyatta, Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka, William Ruto and others to talk to them on matters of national interest. That is how it is done all over the world. Even George Bush has to meet with Nancy Palosi, the Speaker of US Congress even though they are sworn political foes. President Kibaki does not have the numbers to bulldoze anything in parliament and behaving like a passive bully is not very good for him.

Secondly, the ECK issue is bigger than what the law says and Kibaki himself said exactly the same while in opposition. Acting as if he has a hidden agenda to have government friendly commissioners is unfair, first to the commissioners themselves who are being frowned upon by Kenyans and to the whole nation, which is getting more and more jittery about the possibility that Kibaki is planning to rig the elections. It could be a problem for him even if he was to win elections genuinely and the consequences might be dire for the nation.

The attitude by Kibaki and his people reminds me of the bully kids who would snatch the others mango and walk away with it asking them what they are going to do about it. The president is basically telling Kenyans, I have done it, now meza wembe. That is a dangerous attitude in politics, particularly after the people humiliated the president by throwing out his Katiba. He needs to bembereza us, talk to us and convince us he has our best interests at heart so we can rally around him on matters of national importance. He is the president for the whole country; he is not just the president of Narc Kenya supporters. We don’t need people like Beth Mugo and Mungatana yelling at us in their arrogant ways of explaining Kibaki’s actions. The president should speak for himself.

The other thing Kibaki did not factor in his action is that it has provided excellent reasons why we must push even harder for minimum reforms, particularly electoral reforms to ensure that we are not robbed on Election Day. I think Kenyans should rally around Muite’s Bill which was already listed in parliament agenda.

We have two ways to go about this business. Kibaki can continue his high handedness and Martha Karua can continue following the Kiraitu Murungi’s failed footsteps on the constitutional review process, which says I will consult you but I do not have to make any compromises. In other words you give and I take. The end result will be an inevitable confrontation with the opposition and the general public. The constitutional project is already in danger of falling off the radar because Madam Karua trashed the recommendations and even agreements made with opposition parties particularly on the minimum reforms which seem to really terrify Kibaki and his people for obvious reasons as we can see from the ECK appointments.

If the president and his arrogant ministers continue on the same path that we have seen with ECK appointments, the fiasco of EALA selection which is now in court and the endless constitutional stalemate, they might as well just call the elections now because we are going to give them hell in and out of parliament. Kenyans are not going to sit around and watch Kibaki take us back to the Dark Ages. We are going to knock down the migumo tree once again even if we have to do it with tiny razor blades.

The other option is for Kibaki to take a deep breath and start working with opposition leaders, not just with the sheep in the so-called GNU.



Let Kibaki sort out the ECK appointments and listen to the complaints from the opposition. Let Martha Karua enter real negotiations with the opposition M.P’s, rewrite the Draft Bills in a way acceptable to the majority, put in place the minimum reforms get the review bills passed and let us take the country to the General Elections is a spirit of fair competition and putting the country a head of petty partisan interests. Kenya will still be standing the day after the elections. Let it stand in peace, not in pieces. Our people deserve nothing less.

The writer is a human rights activist.

[kamalet]

the IPPG deal of 1997 did not top Moi from rigging the elections.

Look at the thread I started on the appointment of commissioners where I am still convinced the appointing "opposition commissioners" will not ensure free and fair elections

What the likes of Raila and Mutula should be doing is urge parliament to make laws that ensure a free and fair elections such as transparent ballot boxes, actual legislation on use of government resources during elections and enabling as many Kenyans to vote in elections in a system where registration of voters is a process of simple notification of where one intends to vote and use of ID or Passport as the only requirement to vote. What we need are amendments to the law that allowed for vote counting at polling stations

This noise we are hearing is nothing more than silly politicking that will not level the elections.

[roughrider]

kamalet said:

What the likes of Raila and Mutula should be doing is urge parliament to make laws that ensure a free and fair elections such as transparent ballot boxes, actual legislation on use of government resources during elections and enabling as many Kenyans to vote in elections in a system where registration of voters is a process of simple notification of where one intends to vote and use of ID or Passport as the only requirement to vote. What we need are amendments to the law that allowed for vote counting at polling stations

I agree with Kamale that Kibaki is not planning on free and fair elections: he is planning to rig. As I said in the other post, electoral commisioners are not zombies, they will make decisions impacting on the elections.

If the experience with by-elections in Northern Kenyan is to go by, the massive public resources will be used wantonly to campaign for Kibaki.

But Kamale, the advice to lobby for changes will not help because the government side has already rejected these. They (govt) know that incumbency favours them to rig. Please advice on what strategies Kenyans who want genuine democracy must follow to ensure their votes for Kibaki or Raila or anybody else count for what they are worth exactly; no more, no less.

[adongo12345]

Kamale

Apparently in Kisauni by election, the ECK Commissioner(s) in charge of the process, simply changed the numbers and they started it by for example doing small things instead of 85 votes for candidate X they would just add 4 at the beginning and make it 485. The final tally according to affidavits were altered to give Mwaboza the win. And this is in a slightly meaningless by-election. My point here is that the Commissioners can rig elections.

The bigger issue is the role of commissioners in raising alarm bells, something Kivuiti and other commissioners did very well during last year's by election. Remember the calls for Kivuiti to be fired when he challenged Kibaki's abuse of public resources to get his people elected. That is really what Kibaki wants to avoid. He needs compliant commissioners like Muturi Kigano (your anointed next chair) who are already indebted to the president (he is Kibaki's appointee elsewhere) and who will keep quiet or even better be chiding the opposition so Kibaki can rob the elections in peace.

I agree with you though that the ECK commissioners is small potatoes. Like Kamotho said to Moi, "Even rigging has limits". My issue with the ECK has always been that they have no powers to punish electoral frauds. The fiasco in the by elections proved that. For all the complaints well documented and even video taped by groups like KNCHR the ECK was toothless to punish the culprits who were instead declared victors. The real issue is to give real powers to the ECK. Even Muite's proposal does not address that issue. All these means Kenyans themselves will supervise the elections with their patented street justice. It worked in 2002 and worked at the referendum. Electoral frauds will have to face instant justice from the masses and so they should.

I think the bigger issues like ensuring that those who are eligible to vote actually get a chance to vote will define some of the battles for minimum reforms which is going to rage unabated in the next few months. We are up for interesting times.

Adongo.

[kamalet]

Adongo,

A few corrections. It was not the commissioner being accused but the returning officer. A commissioner has no legal role in a polling station and would not involve himself in the counting of votes.

Secondly, it was Kibaki and not Kamotho who told Moi that "even rigging requires some intelligence"! Kamotho was a victim of botched rigging intended to favour him!

But back to the story, I still think we are looking up the wrong areas if we are truly for free and fair elections. This we can all achieve through appropriate legislation and not through the appointment of political commissioners who owe their allegiance to the party that took them to ECK!

[adongo12345]

Kamale

Who supervises the Returning Officer and the entire electoral process? Shouldn't it be the ECK? In the Kisauni case, shouldn't the ECK have looked into some of the blatant allegations and seek remedy instead of waiting for petitions which take about three years to sort out? That is the issue I am raising. That the ECK should have teeth to order recounts with tight supervision where obvious frauds are manifest.

As for Kamotho and Kibaki I think you have the wrong period. There is no way Moi would have tried to rig Kamotho in 2002 when Kamotho was with Narc and that is when Kamotho told him Uhuru had no chance in hell. Anyhow that is besides the point.

The big issue in my piece is really about Kibaki not only laying the foundation for his rigging plans, but also inadvertently setting up the terrain for intense fights and street battles with the opposition which in my view completely kills any hopes for him to achieve anything significant in his lagislative agenda. It is going to be a bloody fight and I am not so sure Kibaki will be still standing at the end of it all. I could be wrong, but I like the chances Kibaki is giving us. We will take them and take the battle to his doorsteps. It is all good.

Adongo.

[politicalmaniac]

kamalet said:

the IPPG deal of 1997 did not top Moi from rigging the elections.

Look at the thread I started on the appointment of commissioners where I am still convinced the appointing "opposition commissioners" will not ensure free and fair elections

What the likes of Raila and Mutula should be doing is urge parliament to make laws that ensure a free and fair elections such as transparent ballot boxes, actual legislation on use of government resources during elections and enabling as many Kenyans to vote in elections in a system where registration of voters is a process of simple notification of where one intends to vote and use of ID or Passport as the only requirement to vote. What we need are amendments to the law that allowed for vote counting at polling stations

This noise we are hearing is nothing more than silly politicking that will not level the elections.

So did Moi rig the 2002 elections? He rigged himself out? Moi won in 1997 mainly due to fractured opposition, and NOT mainly due to rigging. Did rigging occur? Hell Yes! but that wasnt the MAJOR reason for his victory. The percentage of votes he won was maybe 30 something AT BEST 40percent.

And why should R and the rest do the "leading" for electoral reform? Why can't the "leader" lead? ama he is not leading and is sitting of the fence as usual? The ONUS IS ON THE CLOWN pretending to be the president TO LEAD!

Is the baboons job to act as obstructionist in chief? to scuttle reform? Is that WHY he was elected?

BE RATIONAL!

[adongo12345]

Interesting take from Robert Shaw

www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=25&newsid=89767

COMMENTARY

ECK appointments were not made in good faith

Story by ROBERT SHAW
Publication Date: 1/18/2007


BY THE STROKE OF A PEN, President Kibaki has inadvertently advanced the argument for urgent minimum reforms.

One of the key proposals of the Constitution of Kenya Amendment Bill tabled in Parliament by Mr Kenneth Marende and awaiting debate when the House reopens is a more accountable system for appointing commissioners of the Electoral Commission.

The proposal has three main thrusts: appointment of professional commissioners vetted by Parliament; the design and size of the Electoral Commission; and the independence of the Commission, including funding from the Consolidated Fund.

Obviously such a proposal, along with the other proposals in the Bill, need to be thought through and structured meticulously. But, they would be fairer, better and for the good of the country as a whole than President Kibaki’s hasty, unilateral appointments of last week.

Justice minister Martha Karua’s argument that the President was within his prerogative to make such appointments just does not wash in this day and age. Many of us, Ms Karua included, fought relentlessly in the 1990s, especially against the excessive and unbridled powers of the Executive.

The Inter-party Parliamentary Group (IPPG) pact was part of that process, albeit a flawed one.

Whichever way one looks at it, Kenyans are yearning for, and demanding a society that is more equitable and a political system that will lead to better and more accountable government.

The latter includes more checks and balances on the powers of the Executive and the clipping of the excessive powers that our successive presidents have usurped or entrenched over the years.

President Kibaki has proved to be no different. He took little time to use the trappings of power to reward his supporters and cronies with a slate of public service jobs. He even tried to ignore and override a law passed in the early days of his government, namely the Economic Crimes Act. The powers are vested in an Advisory Board whose makeup is clearly laid out in the Act.

The board followed the laid-down procedures and presented its proposals for a director and deputy directors to the relevant parliamentary committee for scrutiny. After that was done, it went to the President for his assent. President Kibaki objected to Dr Julius Rotich being appointed as a deputy director in spite of the fact that the relevant authority had already cleared him.

The way he has approached the Electoral Commissioners’ appointments shows clearly that he intends to continue to take advantage of his excessive powers. Indeed his misuse of them could not only lead to an uneven playing field, but fuel seeds of future discord.

Kenyans are not going to have a new constitutional framework in place by the next election. We therefore run the risk of not only having this government misusing its excessive powers during the rest of its tenure, but also of the next government doing the same.

Yes, the purists who argue for nothing short of a comprehensive constitutional overhaul have a point. But we don’t have the luxury of time for this at this critical moment. What we do have is an opportunity to rectify and curb some of the worst excesses of power now with the proposed minimum reforms.

Among the proposals laid out in the Bill are more structured and professional processes for appointing and vetting people to key statutory and public offices, including the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Justice and judges. Others are the Controller and Auditor-General, permanent secretaries, the Governor of the Central Bank, the Commissioner-General of the Kenya Revenue Authority, heads of parastatals, and so on.

The Constitution of Kenya Amendment Bill is not a substitute for a new constitution. But it could reduce some of the worst elements of bad governance.

Mr Shaw is a Nairobi businessman.

[adongo12345]

This looks like the way to go. Kibaki probably never figured that his bonehead move to flood the ECK with his cronies and government friendly Commissioners will be the fire needed to propel the minimum reform debate into the centre stage of political battles for the election year. He is helping to unite a wide section of Kenyans and M.P's around a very crucial agenda. Cheers to him.

www.timesnews.co.ke/19jan07/nwsstory/topstry.html

www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143963827

www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=1&newsid=89860

Yap, Bring it on Emilio.

[politicalmaniac]

AO
I couldnt agree more
Blunder after blunder, lurching from crises to crises is the baboons hallmark.

[adongo12345]

The electoral fraud goes directly to the ECK

Vote recount exposes anomalies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Willis Oketch

The recount of Kisauni by-election votes at two polling stations showed that MP Mr Ananiah Mwaboza garnered less votes than those declared.

The vote recount at the Mombasa High Court showed that 200 votes were recorded for Mwaboza from Maweni and Frere polling stations while he actually got eight.

This emerged on Monday as petitioner Mr Hassan Joho continued leading with 4,144 votes against Mwaboza’s 3,439 votes from 51 ballot boxes opened out of 104.

Justice David Maraga ordered the vote recount following a petition filed by Joho, who wants Mwaboza’s election nullified on the grounds that there were irregularities.

The Kisauni by-election followed the death of former Tourism minister Karisa Maitha in 2004.

On Monday, the recount showed that Mwaboza got four votes at Frere polling station as opposed to 121 recorded by the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK).

It also showed that Mwaboza got only four votes at Maweni polling station and not 69, which was recorded in form 16A then.

There were 751 missing votes from various polling stations.

The Deputy Registrar of High Court, Ms Hanah Ndung’u, is supervising the exercise.

After the recount at Frere town, Joho recorded 139 votes instead 121 votes. The exercise revealed that there were seven excess ballot papers that were introduced after the election.

The revelations have put the Electoral Commission of Kenya on the spot.

[adongo12345]

ECK Commissioner Habel Nyamu On ECK and "lies" Kibakispeak.

COMMENTARY

Kenyans must shun politics of lies and convenience

Story by HABEL NYAMU
Publication Date: 1/19/2007
Daily Nation

THE HEATED DEBATE OVER the appointment of Electoral Commission of Kenya commissioners reveals a lot of politics of convenience by interested parties. There is even some “naked” dishonesty about the whole saga.

Some of us who are already in the commission can prove this, especially as we are products of the 1997 IPPG pact.

Before 1997, this writer had been a direct presidential Kanu appointee (not nominee of a party). His exclusion from the commission in 1996 was a direct consequence of his daring disagreement with the way the then commission was being managed in readiness for the 1992 general elections.

The reader will recall that between 1990 and the 1997 general elections, the country developed some justified euphoria for constitutional reforms which did not go down well with the Government.

We recall with appreciation the courage and commitment of the National Convention Executive Council (NCEC) on this constitutional reform demand which led to Saba Saba and Nane Nane events of 7/7/90 and 8/8/91.

By 1996, this public demand for constitutional reform had reached “fever temperature” to the extent that the Government (read Moi) chose to meet the proponents of constitutional reforms half-way by offering an Inter-Party Parliamentary Group (IPPG) to look into the possibility of coming up with minimum reforms before the second multiparty general elections of 1997.

Subsequently, parliamentary parties won the right to nominate candidates for appointment to the ECK in 1997. This time round, the DP decided to re-nominate the writer for a second term.

One must speculate that this hitherto unknown political generosity must have taken parliamentary opposition parties by surprise. Before then, all Kenyans had experienced 18 years of extreme intolerance against democratic sentiments as demonstrated by the torture of nationalists in the infamous Nyayo Chambers.

Moi’s acceptance of the IPPG proposals appeared like ‘‘Manna from Heaven”, and it led to those IPPG parties forgetting to entrench the compromise into the Constitution altogether!

What baffles now is what a lot of politicians, including some who participated in the IPPG negotiations, want to claim as their right, as if the provisions existed in the Constitution.

Since the appointment of the 10 IPPG commissioners in 1997, several have died. Their replacement has been the sole constitutional responsibility of the President. No one raised a finger then. Why raise a finger now?

It is a matter of concern that some highly-intelligent leaders would wish to hoodwink everybody, especially the voters, that between 1997 and, say, 2005, no commissioners have been appointed without the involvement of parliamentary parties or anybody else.

THE LAW OF THE LAND IS constitutionally clear. The law of the jungle is not so clear. But if the opposition had politely and diplomatically approached the President requesting the revival, and a belated entrenchment, of the IPPG principles, one feels positive that the President could well have listened.

But with the departure from the old African tradition of demonstrating high respect for elders and persons in important positions, the chances of opposition leaders being listened to disappeared.

Besides death, replacement of those who have completed five- or 10-year tenures has happened without the President consulting anybody. Why? Because the law does not recognise formal consultations with anyone or any institution.

If the rule of law has been followed to the letter, who has any business suggesting that the President is being dictatorial or undemocratic? This is what we are calling politics of selfish and personalised convenience and they, indeed, are similar to those employed during the referendum when the public was led to believe that a erferendum win would automatically lead to the Orange side marching to State House.

The writer believes that the majority of Kenyans prefer respectable leaders who infallibly follow constitutional governance. It is, therefore, mind-boggling to watch individuals who desire to climb to the highest positions in the land throwing the true position of the law out of the window.

It would appear that some Kenyans simply wish to be selective over political issues so as to benefit only from those which favour them personally, and not necessarily their followers. It is immoral to lie to voters while at the same time clamouring for free and fair elections.

A party-nominated commissioner has absolutely no chance of influencing elections in favour of his or her nominating party because the entire electoral process, from voter registration to the polling booth, is directed by the law. Commissioners do not deliberate on electoral matters before they have taken an oath to follow those electoral laws in the interest of transparent, free and fair elections.

The oath is administered by the Chief Justice and every commissioner personally signs under his oath so that the law will catch him if he or she engages in electoral malpractices.

In my view, it would be more beneficial to Kenyans for present and future aspirants to top leadership slots to spend more energy and resources demonstrating visibly to the general public what they have accomplished in their constituencies since they became MPs.

As they plunge into an ambition to take charge of the development of 210 constituencies, let them show us what they have done for just one!

Mr Nyamu is a commissioner with the Electoral Commission of Kenya

[adongo12345]

Kabatesi Responds To Nyamu

ECK and intellectual dishonesty

Kenya Times Monday January 22, 2007

By KIBISU KABATESI

THE major flaw in the creation of ECK to replace the then office of the Supervisor of Elections is the failures to enable the voters participate fairly in an election. The ECK was always meant to secure political interests of – more so the incumbent - political parties in electoral contests. The unveiling of the IPPG in 1997 was a fraud on Kenyans perpetuated by political party leaders. The IPPG denied Kenyans an opportunity for comprehensive reforms and set the basis for the perennial gimmicks witnessed on the road to a new constitution.

Nonetheless, the IPPG consolidated the need to always counterbalance ruling party and opposition interests in the ECK. If the agreement on ECK did not find itself embedded in section 41 of the law, it has since found expression in practise to qualify as common law practice. To that extent, the appointment of commissioners to ECK was never about their qualifications, integrity and competence; but their being watchdogs for nominating political parties at ECK. Since 1997, the commissioners have operated as counter-agents at ECK with the sanction of the appointing parties. This has ensured that the commission is perceived not so much as independent as per the ECK Act, but as inclusive.

The composition of ECK has hence not been a matter of law, but that of convenient politics so as to give electoral contests a veneer of fairness since the commissioners remain partisan to the dictates of their appointing political parties.

What President Kibaki has done in the unilateral appointment of nine new commissioners is to heighten exclusive partisanship and reduce inclusive partisanship at ECK. In spite of the legality of his action, as long as he is a leader of a party, the appointments represent sympathies and interests of that party. That he seems conveniently party less does not matter for he has set in motion perceptions of a compromised ECK and doubts about free and fair elections 2007.

Commissioner Habel Nyamu, one of the longest serving commissioners (in an article last Friday January 19, 2007) symbolizes this exclusive partisanship make-over of ECK. In a display of hypocritical sycophancy and dishonest partisanship, Nyamu attempts to disown the IPPG “law of the Jungle” of which he remains a beneficiary at ECK but now preferring “the law of the land” of which he rarely spoke of during his long service at ECK.

Convulsively, Nyamu has the patronizing opinion that since former president Moi replaced commissioners after IPPG without consulting and none raised an outcry, Kenyans do not have “any business suggesting” to President Kibaki that he has lost his sense of statesmanship on this issue. Fact is that Moi upstages Kibaki on this one; after the IPPG and since appointees were political party nominees, Moi’s replacements were to fill vacancies left by Kanu nominees. It a matter of conjecture that between 1997 and 2002, any opposition vacancies occurred at ECK and Moi filled them without consulting the nominating political party.

In any regime, there are to be found supporters whose modus operandi is to spin intellectual dishonesty in defence of the regime, in a game of survival. In 1996, Nyamu’s term at the commission was not “terminated” as indeed he concedes that he was merely “excluded” from re-nomination by Kanu. It was not so much because he dared “disagree” with the management of the 1992 elections otherwise he would not have served a full term up to 1996. His being “excluded” was due to his demonstrated sympathies that lay in DP and which he arrogantly serves to the public today under cover of the ruling Narc.

Nyamu was not “re-nominated” to ECK by DP as the previous nominee was Kanu. True Kanu did not “re-nominate” him in 1996 paving the way for DP to “nominate” its prodigal son following the IPPG in 1997. The genesis is that following IPPG, political parties nominated sympathisers to represent party interests in ECK. Kanu was, like other parties, right to off-load a DP mole.

Indeed, since being formally recognized as a DP representative at ECK, Nyamu has not disappointed; he has been consistent in articulating his party’s positions in published opinions. Now that the DP is actual government, it is his right to defend the government gerrymandering the ECK. Problem is, Nyamu remains a product of the IPPG “law of the Jungle” at ECK and not that of the “law of the land” he is now virulent about. One is at pains on whom between ODM-K and Nyamu’s ilk should be vilified for playing the “politics of selfish and personalized convenience”.

This begs the question; when a commissioner with the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) brazenly and publicly takes a partisan side and displays contempt and disdain for one of the parties in an election he is meant to referee at the end of this year, can the public believe this game of elections will be free and fair? Indeed, when the appointing authority continues to pack the outfit with new appointments of the same mien, albeit legally, isn’t the opposing side justified in crying foul?

At this time in an election year, President Kibaki need not act out of spite against his political competition. To preserve some statesman credentials, the president should exercise his prerogative in a manner that would preserve the integrity of the ECK. But sidekicks of the Kibaki regime are all over town justifying the recent appointments of nine new commissioners to ECK on the grounds that it is a constitutional prerogative of the president. When cornered that despite the existence of this prerogative, former President Moi acted responsibly allowing the opposition to nominate commissioners to the ECK, they counter that indeed Kibaki “consulted widely among communities where the commissioners come from”. This ridiculous contention from Martha Karua, the minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, presupposes the ECK Act has changed to allow membership representation by “communities”.

Karua is also of the opinion that the appointees pass the qualification, integrity and competence test required and given “their community” approvals, therefore, the opposition is acting “irresponsibly” by questioning the president’s prerogative. One need not remind Karua that the IPPG of which she was a key initiator did question this constitutional prerogative, unless of course it was a matter of double standards that we would question the former president for exercising it because it was Moi, but we now must not question the president because it is Kibaki.

Karua ought to be reminded that indeed, in any political system, appointments are less about merit than about political conveniences and cronyism. It is common practice that when appointments are due in public service, the president is “advised” on whom to appoint. Step one: Politicians, especially at cabinet level “consult”, read ask, each other to propose “their” people. Step two: The caveat is often that those proposed must appear to legally qualify, because you cannot miss qualified people in any community.

Those who get appointed may not come from one community and may indeed appear to represent diversity. Yet the common thread that runs through all and which Kibakism has perfected is the merit of cronyism to the sponsor aimed at securing loyalty to the appointing authority, who in Kenya’s case is the president. It should not be surprising that commissioners of the defunct CKRC who supported the Banana side in the referendum are finding themselves plum slots in the public service. You can bet that for each commissioner, the “community” that was consulted may mean a government bigwig from that region.

Enter Kibe Mungai, lawyer and former reform activist: The president should have no regrets for exercising the prerogative he was popularly mandated to carry by 3.5 million Kenyans in 2002. If the opposition this time want change, they should “pressurize” Kibaki the way the then opposition did Moi. Kibe told a TV talk show that Kibaki, having been overwhelmingly elected has no legal obligation, but a political one to consult incestuously within his government. What the opposition should do is go to the streets, suffer enough in blood and sweat. To Kibe the opposition now cannot bank on the goodwill and sweat of others, especially Kibaki. Let them bid their time for they have yet to suffer enough like the opposition before them. After all, didn’t the opposition (3.5 million) reject a good constitution in 2005?

A massive 3.5 million voted Kibaki into office in 2002 and in short order the same numerical number rejected a truncated draft constitution in the November 21, 2005 referendum. Will it be poetic justice that after December 2007 Nyamu, Karua and Mungai will return to the agitation industry over what they so loyally defend? and Nyamu’s ilk should be vilified for playing the “politics of selfish and personalized convenience”.

This begs the question; when a commissioner with the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) brazenly and publicly takes a partisan side and displays contempt and disdain for one of the parties in an election he is meant to referee at the end of this year, can the public believe this game of elections will be free and fair? Indeed, when the appointing authority continues to pack the outfit with new appointments of the same mien, albeit legally, isn’t the opposing side justified in crying foul?At this time in an election year, President Kibaki need not act out of spite against his political competition.

To preserve some statesman credentials, the president should exercise his prerogative in a manner that would preserve the integrity of the ECK. But sidekicks of the Kibaki regime are all over town justifying the recent appointments of nine new commissioners to ECK on the grounds that it is a constitutional prerogative of the president. When cornered that despite the existence of this prerogative, former President Moi acted responsibly allowing the opposition to nominate commissioners to the ECK, they counter that indeed Kibaki “consulted widely among communities where the commissioners come from”. This ridiculous contention from Martha Karua, the minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, presupposes the ECK Act has changed to allow membership representation by “communities”.

Karua is also of the opinion that the appointees pass the qualification, integrity and competence test required and given “their community” approvals, therefore, the opposition is acting “irresponsibly” by questioning the president’s prerogative. One need not remind Karua that the IPPG of which she was a key initiator did question this constitutional prerogative, unless of course it was a matter of double standards that we would question the former president for exercising it because it was Moi, but we now must not question the president because it is Kibaki.

Karua ought to be reminded that indeed, in any political system, appointments are less about merit than about political conveniences and cronyism. It is common practice that when appointments are due in public service, the president is “advised” on whom to appoint. Step one: Politicians, especially at cabinet level “consult”, read ask, each other to propose “their” people. Step two: The caveat is often that those proposed must appear to legally qualify, because you cannot miss qualified people in any community.

Those who get appointed may not come from one community and may indeed appear to represent diversity. Yet the common thread that runs through all and which Kibakism has perfected is the merit of cronyism to the sponsor aimed at securing loyalty to the appointing authority, who in Kenya’s case is the president. It should not be surprising that commissioners of the defunct CKRC who supported the Banana side in the referendum are finding themselves plum slots in the public service. You can bet that for each commissioner, the “community” that was consulted may mean a government bigwig from that region.

Enter Kibe Mungai, lawyer and former reform activist: The president should have no regrets for exercising the prerogative he was popularly mandated to carry by 3.5 million Kenyans in 2002. If the opposition this time want change, they should “pressurize” Kibaki the way the then opposition did Moi. Kibe told a TV talk show that Kibaki, having been overwhelmingly elected has no legal obligation, but a political one to consult incestuously within his government. What the opposition should do is go to the streets, suffer enough in blood and sweat. To Kibe the opposition now cannot bank on the goodwill and sweat of others, especially Kibaki. Let them bid their time for they have yet to suffer enough like the opposition before them. After all, didn’t the opposition (3.5 million) reject a good constitution in 2005?

A massive 3.5 million voted Kibaki into office in 2002 and in short order the same numerical number rejected a truncated draft constitution in the November 21, 2005 referendum.

Will it be poetic justice that after December 2007 Nyamu, Karua and Mungai will return to the agitation industry over what they so loyally defend?