INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY; EVEN DEYA

[miguna]

EVERYONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY; THAT INCLUDES DEYA
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - © 15 March 2007

There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. This is true to some extent; that is: if what the picture represents is accurately described or understood.

Without context, a picture could be misleading. Taken out of context, a picture could be entirely worthless. It is very possible for a thousand people to have one thousand or even one million different interpretations of the same picture.

A picture showing a disheveled Nelson Mandela in handcuffs following his conviction for terrorism related charges in Rivonia in 1953 was taken as a vindication of the apartheid system by white supremacists and their supporters worldwide. To them, Mandela was a violent terrorist that had to be severely punished, partly as general deterrence against further terrorism against the South African state. To apartheid advocates, the conviction and long sentence handed out to Mandela was justice. To them, Mandela was just another criminal.

However, to members of the African National Congress (ANC), those who were fighting against apartheid and their supporters or sympathizers, Mandela’s conviction and lengthy incarceration only proved the injustice they were fighting to overthrow. The opponents of apartheid viewed Mandela’s conviction as vindication of their struggle; proof that the apartheid system was irredeemably unjust, inhumane and repressive to be reformed. Rather than weaken their resolve, Mandela’s disheveled picture steeled them. What the apartheid forces and their sympathizers saw as criminal activities the anti-apartheid forces considered as liberation struggle.

Ironically, when Mandela was released from twenty-seven years of incarceration in 1990, almost everyone who could be heard, hailed him as a legendary freedom fighter; a global hero and statesman. Mandela later led the peaceful negotiations that saw apartheid buried. He had lived to see apartheid defeated. He is forever vindicated.

The same thing happened with the indictment of Jomo Kenyatta by the British colonial authorities in 1952. Kenyatta was charged, tried and convicted for “organizing the Mau Mau.” When Kenyatta was convicted of those charges on April 8, 1953, the colonial government and its sympathizers hailed the result of the criminal proceedings as proof that Kenyatta, Mau Mau and all their supporters were violent criminals that had to be punished severely.

On the other hand, those engaged in the struggle against British colonialism considered Kenyatta’s arrest, trial and conviction as proof of British colonial barbarism that had to be violently resisted and removed.

Notwithstanding historical records questioning Kenyatta’s involvement in the Mau Mau movement, the fact is that Kenyatta’s conviction and incarceration meant different things to different people.

Dedan Kimathi’s case is even more dramatic. The picture showing him lying in a hospital bed at the Nyeri General Hospital, injured, with heavily dreadlocked mane and piercing eyes in 1956, means different things to different people. Kimathi was tried, sentenced to death and execution on February 8, 1957.

To the British colonialists, that picture showed a caged, humiliated and defeated Kimathi. One can even postulate that to the British, that picture symbolized the total defeat of the Mau Mau, and with it, African pride, resistance and confidence.

Yet, to ordinary Kenyans throughout history, those piercing Kimathi eyes and the gangly dreadlocks – and his defiant words during the trial – represented African courage, confidence and the justness of their struggles against colonialism and all forms of oppression. Kimathi’s trial and conviction opened the British justice system to ridicule and opposition. Hence, that famous Kimathi’s picture had distinctly different meanings to different people.

When recently president Kibaki inaugurated Kimathi’s statute on Kimathi Street in Nairobi, not a soul was heard; not a sentence was written; no sound bite was played, condemning Kimathi as a terrorist.

By this time, readers must be asking: Why remind us of all these now? What is your point?

I have read a lot recently about an alleged connection between Bishop Gilbert Deya and the brouhaha surrounding the ODM-K trip to London. In fact, I have received some pictures that purportedly show Deya with Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka, Mwai Kibaki, Wamalwa Kijana and a horde of other people. The pictures are undated.

Apparently, these pictures are being distributed in order to further discredit the ODM-K. Somehow, those frenziedly posting these pictures in the Internet would like us to believe that Deya has some close relationship with some ODM-K luminaries, and that because of that, ODM-K is “tainted.”

Of course, we have not forgotten the selective condemnation of Deya from many quarters following the ODM-K-London debacle.

I am, however, very concerned about the knee-jerk reaction from many Kenyan personalities who have condemned Deya as if he is a criminal. I would like to know when Deya was tried and convicted of the charges he is facing and allegations that have been made against him. The last time I checked, Kenya was a country that ought to be governed by the rule of law, which requires that no one should be condemned unheard.

Why is the Kenyan lynch-mob baying for Deya’s blood yet no court has convicted him? Deya is an accused person and must be presumed innocent.

I am particularly disappointed by some ODM-K presidential candidates who are shouting the loudest about Deya’s purported connection to the ODM-K London office, yet they are the same people who cancelled their trip to London, allegedly in solidarity with William Ruto who is reported to have been denied a visa due to serious criminal charges he is facing in Kenya.

The question is: If both Deya and Ruto are facing criminal charges in Kenyan courts, why is Deya being condemned unheard while protective rings are being built around Ruto? In any event, what is wrong with Deya being seen in the company of another Kenyan even if that Kenyan happens to be a prominent ODM-K leader?

I have seen many pictures of the Vice-President Moody Awori in the company of convicted criminals, even violent murderers serving lengthy jail terms. In fact, even president Kibaki has pardoned many notorious criminals, released them from jail and taken pictures with them. Would anyone be justified to claim that both Kibaki and Awori are bad people because they have been in the company of known criminals? The answer is a resounding “NO.” All depends on the context and circumstances of the meetings.

As I write, Lord Conrad Black of Crossharbour – a British tycoon (previously a Canadian) – is being tried in Chicago, with three other former executives of Hollinger International Inc. for allegedly defrauding the Chicago-based company of more than $80 million (U.S.) Yet, witnesses lined up to testify in defense of Lord Black include a former Canadian cabinet minister and former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, Alan Rock and the world-famous developer, Donald Trump.

Former Canadian Prime Minster, Brian Mulroney, among other famous people, have rallied to Black’s side. This does not mean Black is innocent or guilty; it simply shows that unlike Kenya where an arrest, a charge, an accusation, an allegation or a mere picture is taken as proof of guilt, in many countries where the rule of law is dominant, there seems to be real understanding of what a presumption of innocence means.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Nonetheless, let us restrain our over exuberance and refrain from blanket condemnations of those accused of wrongdoing. Without proper context, pictures mean either nothing or very little. Let’s contextualize the pictures we are presented with before passing premature and unfair judgments.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That includes Deya.
______________________________________________________________________

*The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada
[e-mail]

[miguna]

East African Standard, March 18, 2007

Raila’s take for ODM-Kenya
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Dennis Onyango


QUESTION: There are those who think ODM-Kenya is made of people whose political backgrounds and ideological leanings are so different that they cannot work.

What do you think?


RAILA: There is ideological cohesion and there is ideological co-existence. The two are different. There are people with whom you share ideological thinking and those with whom you can share broad-based alliances for purposes of creating a popular mass movement for popular democratic change.

In that kind of alliance, you have people of different ideological inclinations working together. They jointly develop an acceptable programme and plan of action. That is what happens in mature democracies. Coalitions are not restricted to people and parties that share ideologies.


Q: How then do you work together in the same government when you are so different?

A: In such a coalition, and even in some non-coalition parties, you find the liberals, extreme rightists and the leftists. You move towards the middle ground called the centre. There will be people to the right or left of centre. These considerations are not limited to coalitions. Even in the US, the Democrats are worried about those they consider too liberal. The Republicans are talking of the right wings among them. I see ODM-Kenya as a centre-left movement. It leans towards change.


Q: Who, among the presidential aspirants would you say you agree with ideologically?

A: I don’t want to disown or own any of my colleagues. We are launching our manifestos or plans of action. Three of my colleagues have launched theirs. I am launching mine soon. From those manifestos, the public should tell who thinks like, who depending on our proposals on various issues.


Q: How is your relationship with Kalonzo Musyoka? It comes out as adversarial, almost bordering on hatred?

A: I don’t feel any discomfort with Kalonzo. I don’t see any tension when we meet. I don’t expect Kalonzo to agree with me on everything I say or do. I don’t think he expects me to agree with him on everything he says or does. That does not mean we hate each other. We are in competition within ODM-Kenya and with the other parties. My hope is that we run a healthy and disciplined competition.


Q: Where do you agree or differ ideologically or in terms of how Kenya ought to be governed.

A: The public and party supporters will study our manifestos or blue prints and decide where the two of us agree or differ. The public will also judge who has a better plan than the other. That is why we are launching them. Kalonzo has launched his. I am launching mine soon.


Q: Corruption within ODM-Kenya ranks is becoming an issue. You confessed facing it in London and you are likely to face it during campaigns. How does the party plan to deal with it?

A: Our party has a plan for dealing with corruption; which would be truth, justice and restitution. It means those perceived to have been involved would be given an opportunity to own up and return what they stole. Kibaki has followed the adversarial route and it is not yielding fruits.

In ODM-Kenya, there are people who have been mentioned and have cases. But the law requires that the accused be treated as innocent until proved guilty. It is not our mistake that the cases have not been concluded.


Q: Has the controversy over the London trip been resolved after your Wednesday meeting?

A: The London trip is no longer an issue. It is finished and buried. We wanted an explanation for the last- minute cancellation. Those of us who went also explained what transpired.


Q: Your vice-chairman, Mr Mutula Kilonzo has raised concern that the campaigns are turning into personality attacks and character assassination. Is that the case?

A: I agree there have been personality attacks, but I think they will be toned down. There are people saying some of us like myself, Musalia Mudavadi and Uhuru Kenyatta are children of the rich and famous and therefore do not understand the poor. That is in bad taste. Nyayo was from a humble background.

What did he do for the poor? Uhuru’s father, Jomo Kenyatta was a water metre reader with the City Council. What did he do for the poor? He has even been accused of disowning Mau Mau fighters he fought with. What has President Kibaki done for the poor? He was from a humble background. Others say some of us have tainted past. We should focus on issues and why we are better than our rivals. Personality attacks is unbecoming behaviour.


Q: How do you want it dealt with?

A: The starting point is for us to know that we are supposed to sell our policies, not tarnish one another. We have to know that Labour Party in the UK used to lose elections due to personality attacks. Those vying for the party’s ticket used to insult each other so much that after nominations, supporters of the losers would decide to vote for the Conservatives. The Party developed a code of conduct for campaigns. Labour does not allow you to get personal during campaigns. I think we are likely to discuss personality attacks during our next meeting.


Q: There is this persistent murmur of ending one-man show trend in the party. Who is running a one-man show?

A: That talk is unfounded and baseless. I am running my campaign in a way I think will make me win. My colleagues are doing the same. I have never talked about my opponents during my campaigns. I have never come up and said the party cannot meet because I am not there. I have never said a certain position cannot be taken because it does not favour me.

I rarely miss ODM-Kenya meetings because I see myself as a member of the team. I do not think I have ever missed them. Wherever I go, I talk about ODM-Kenya. I cannot be running a one-man show and I can not accuse my rivals of running a one-man show. I appreciate that they are campaigning the best way they can.


Q: Some of your colleagues have complained that the campaign is becoming a Raila-Kalonzo affair. How did it come to that yet there are eight aspirants?

A: Nobody believes this is an affair between Raila and Kalonzo. The people saying that must be seeking to boost their lot. It is their method of campaigning. They want a situation to arise where the party can say Raila and Kalonzo step aside so that we pick from the remaining lot. That will not happen and it cannot work. Even if Raila and Kalonzo stepped aside, the rest of the aspirants will continue struggling for the one slot. So let us go all the way to the polls. Let us face the voters and ask them to make a decision through the ballot. If they think Raila and Kalonzo are the problem, they will vote accordingly.

[bkichwa]

miguna said:

Apparently, these pictures are being distributed in order to further discredit the ODM-K. Somehow, those frenziedly posting these pictures in the Internet would like us to believe that Deya has some close relationship with some ODM-K luminaries, and that because of that, ODM-K is “tainted.”

sigh.....didn't Raila just say that Deya is his cousin? Did you not see the pic of Raila breaking bread with Deya and his family in a private lunch/dinner session at a restaurant during a past London trip by the former? Even without this damaging Deya saga, your ODM-K crew does consist of many tainted individuals (they may be innocent until proven guilty, but nonetheless still tainted). Try to keep in mind that we are not all in std 3.


It is true what your critics say about you - you are indeed a Raila lapdog.

Your Deya apologist piece is desperate. But since you're at it, why not as well pen a sanitizing piece for Pattni, Murungaru, Biwott (Ouko), and the rest of "innocents"?

Ndugu, the self-inflicted (read Raila's) damage from this saga is already done...just let it go....all the spin in the world won't change some glaring and unchangeable events and facts.

[miguna]

WHO IS PAYING FOR CHRIS MURUNGARU’S WOES?
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - 3 December 2005

There is something uncanny, even suspicious, about the pugnacious MP for Kieni, Dr. Christopher Murungaru. In the face of salacious but serious accusations of corruption from a plethora of his domestic critics and two key international Kenyan allies, the humongous man from Kieni froths and fumes, with tomato-sized pearls of sweat pouring down his brow, rather than reflectively, coherently and intelligently addressing the charges pointed in his direction, with facts and evidence. Crying fowl, followed by a crescendo of choruses from choreographed political bosom-mates, will not salvage our MP for Kieni. Not in a long short this time.

Dr. Murungaru holds three unenviable records. He is the first Kenyan Cabinet Minister to be banned from visiting or passing through the United Kingdom. Second, he is the first serving member of the Kenyan government banned from ever stepping onto the United States of America. And third, he is the first Minister in Kenya’s history to remain in cabinet even after being publicly accused of serious wrongdoing by both Kenyans and foreign governments. He only lost his seat in the Kibaki cabinet as a result of his boss’ sweeping firing of all members of the cabinet. Kenyans hope that president Kibaki will not reappoint Murungaru or his side kicks to his new cabinet. But Murungaru may also hold a fourth record: that of taking legal action against two sovereign states in two separate jurisdictions for executive fiats. He has no reasonable chance of success on either score.

As a public official (being a cabinet minister then, still an MP and reportedly a close confidante of the president), Dr. Murungaru was always expected to conduct both his personal and official affairs without even a whiff of suspicion from anyone. An occupier of any public office is supposed to be possessed with the highest level of integrity and professionalism. Each and every duty or responsibility executed by a public servant must be transparent and accountable. Public trust is the essential requirement in public service. The slightest amount of ethical question, suspicion or moral issue, however innocuous, credibly raised against a holder of a public office, normally results in a blight on the office holder, and dents the credibility of public service. It also invariably undermines any good policies, practices or intentions of the government for which such an official works.

Once the public goodwill and trust has been eroded by dint of such suspicious acts, a public servant loses the ability to conduct routine affairs and ultimately - directly or indirectly - sabotages the very objectives of the government they serve and the promises that government might have made to its citizens. When all is said and done, it is the public that foots the bill for all public servant infractions.

Because serious and credible questions have been raised about Dr. Murungaru’s “character, conduct and associates” by the UK Government, leading to the unprecedented step of canceling his visa and the extraordinary direction to all airlines flying to the UK not to allow him to board all planes destined for that country, no reasonable and responsible person can dismiss such actions as simply vexatious and aimed only at protesting against lost contracts, like prominent members of this Kibaki government have done.

It is most unlikely that both the UK and US governments would accuse Murungaru of corrupt practices merely because of personal differences between Murungaru and Sir Edward Clay or, as Murungaru asserted the other day, as a conspiracy against the Kibaki Government; part of a scheme of actions, in concert with his political enemies in Kenya, aimed at changing regimes in Kenya.

Murungaru, Mwakwere and Co. may be seeing ghosts and boogey men in every corner of Kenya, Britain and America. However, the bellicose MP for Kieni might be too fast with the truth to his detriment.

Under both international and domestic laws of various countries, sovereign states have absolute control of their borders; whether by road, air or water. Any foreign visitor, even to Kenya, must, before being admitted into the country, apply, qualify and obtain an entry permit or visa, mostly after paying the appropriate fee. Such visas or permits are generally restricted and issued at the sole discretion of the admitting country. The visas always specify the date, length and purpose of entry. There is no carte blanche.

Whenever any country has a reasonable suspicion or belief that a visa applicant or holder has committed, will or may commit a crime, or engages in any activity incompatible with the welfare, laws or interests of that country, it reserves the right to deny or restrict entry. A country is also legally allowed to terminate or cancel the visas or permits it might have issued to foreign nationals. Again, the threshold test is either “reasonable suspicion” or “reasonable belief.”

Reasonable suspicions may arise due to some inconsistency of the information provided by the applicant or his or her appearance. This requirement is less onerous than in cases where “reasonable belief” is the applicable test. With respect to the latter, the decision maker is required to base his or her determination on things observed, heard and suspected. A multiplicity of these things observed or heard form part of the “reasonable belief”. One need not have tangible physical evidence. If one had, then, presumably Murungaru would have been arrested, charged and prosecuted by the countries involved. This is not to say that these countries lack tangible or physical evidence. In many cases, because of Murungaru’s current position, it is the Kenyan authorities that are required to investigate and take action against him. Obviously, this has not, and may not, happen. Also, Murungaru could still be charged upon presenting himself to these countries (either before or after the cancellation of his travel visas).

In a statement published by the local Kenyan press a few weeks ago, Dr. Murungaru argued that the American Government had purportedly joined the British Government to deny him a visa “to lend credibility to the decision they made without any shred of evidence…” [Emphasis in the original.] He accused both countries of “playing partisan politics and [to] have teamed up with a section of political class [sic] in this country.” Dr. Murungaru went ahead to call upon both the UK and US Governments to make public the reasons, and presumably, the evidence upon which their decisions were based. At the end of his opinion piece, Murungaru attempted to sound patriotic and warned that Kenya “must refuse to continue being subservient to the West.” He forgot that this was all about him, not Kenya or Kenyans.

Dr. Murungaru misses the point completely. I am surprised that his high-powered lawyers have missed the point as well. The issue is not the availability or lack of evidence or explanation. Neither the UK nor the US Government is required to furnish him with such evidence when denying or canceling his visa. Legally, the only explanation Murungaru is entitled to get from any foreign government is simple – “We have reasonable suspicion or belief that you have engaged in criminal or suspicious activities or may engage in the same if allowed to enter or remain in our country…” Period.

Similarly, the reasons so far given will suffice. It is not up to Murungaru to dictate to the country denying him entry what “sufficient evidence or explanation” should be used as a rationale for denying him entry or canceling his visa. They may do this if Murungaru was their national. However, under the circumstances, to do what Murungaru is asking for would mean that Murungaru has a right to dictate to either country how to manage their borders and domestic affairs. Kenya routinely does the same to foreign nationals.

The last issue I wish to raise concerns the real possibility that the Kenyan tax payers have been footing the bill for Murungaru’s woes. We would like to be informed about who may be paying for his lawyers’ fees and disbursements. Kenyans also need to know how much it has cost them in lost productivity, time and resources. How much of the public resources, including time, for instance, has Murungaru expended when responding to or dealing with this fiasco? Is it really fair for poor Kenyans to be saddled with huge bills of Murungaru’s personal problems?
-------------------------------------
NB: Deya occupies no public office and has never occupied a public office!

_________________________________________________

*The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada

[miguna]

CORRUPTION TRAILS END AT STATE HOUSE DOOR STEPS
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - © 22 January 2006

WE now know – thanks to the spectacular public disclosure by the Sunday Nation (and previously by John Githongo and Sir Edward Clay) - that the multi-billion shillings grand corruption trails in the Kibaki government that have been rumoured both locally and internationally lead directly to the doorsteps of president Kibaki’s State House. With the naming of the president’s private/personal secretary, Alfred Getonga, as the primary ubiquitous coordinating money-man at the end of all the murky trails, the unmistakable smoke of evidence that has been swirling around the corridors of power has slowly settled atop the seat of our chief executive. It has become virtually impossible for the thick smoke to clear without the entire house of government being hung up to air and dry – publicly, through criminal trials. The stench of corruption, fraud and despicable criminal looting must be dealt with openly, legally and swiftly. But the prosecutions cannot be conducted or supervised by the same culprits that have been accused of this spectacular looting spree.

According to the Sunday Nation, Getonga sat at the head of this corruption-blood-splattered table with David Mwiraria, Moody Awori, Kiraitu Murungi and Chris Murungaru. With Mwiraria heading the Ministry of Finance, Murungaru then the chief of Internal Security and Defence portfolios, Murungi taking care of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and Awori sitting as the “official” deputy of President Kibaki as well as being the Leader of Government Business in Parliament and the then Minister of Home Affairs, the government was involved in the corruption schemes from top to bottom. It was drenched into this thing up to its neck. But Getonga was holding brief for his Boss.

No one can reasonably or legitimately claim that Mr. Getonga was coordinating the shady acquisitions and disbursements of billions of shillings alone. No; Getonga could not have been acting solely out of his personal or private interests. After all, Mr. Getonga is not officially a government employee; he is president Kibaki’s personal secretary. He answers directly and only to president Kibaki. One wonders how a mere private secretary was coordinating senior Cabinet ministers. I guess money talks.

Mr. Getonga’s terms of employment are not known to the public. Neither are we aware of his remuneration. Although not publicly admitted, Mr. Getonga’s true job is to run financial errands for the president. In more developed democracies, President Kibaki’s financial affairs would be handled through an arms-length professionally run blind-trust. In such an arrangement, the president is not allowed to have any chummy relationship with the person responsible for managing the blind trust. Hence, in a functioning democracy like Canada, for example, Mr. Getonga cannot operate from State House, leave alone being able to act as the president’s “private secretary.” There are more than enough highly paid busy bodies at both State House and Harambee House to prepare the president’s correspondence, statements and organize his diary.

It is a bizarre arrangement like the one between Getonga and Kibaki that creates, encourages and perpetuates grand corruption in Kenya. Without true and accurate information on how Mr. Getonga was appointed to his job, what his functions are, where his office draws its budget and how he can be called to account for any real or perceived wrongdoings, it is almost impossible for the public to monitor and address any allegations of financial improprieties on the part of either the president or his private secretary. Kenyans need and deserve to know more.

In fact, it is not clear whether the Office of the Auditor General has any effective mandate and mechanism of supervising spending not just at the Office of the President (PO), but also of the president personally. Again, without an effective way of calling into account the OP and the president, it will be very difficult to adequately wrestle down the corruption ogre in Kenya.

Recently here in Ontario, a Provincial Minister, Frank Sorbara, had to resign from the Cabinet because he was alleged to have failed to disclose some financial land deals his private family business had executed before he was named a minister. He resigned even before investigations (which later cleared him) were called. The minister resigned immediately the whiff of suspicion of financial impropriety was raised. The financial disclosure rules in Canada for public officials are so comprehensive, wide-ranging and sweeping that one cannot get around them through some phony loopholes or technicalities. The minister could not protest that these were only mere allegations. He did not ask for evidence before resigning. And he has not been re-instated even after being cleared.

At the Canadian Federal level, the outgoing Finance Minister, Mr. Ralph Goodale, has faced stiff challenge over rumours that there were some leaks (from his ministry) over the government’s decision to lower taxes over Income Trusts. The rumours were generated by the unusual trading patterns and volumes just hours before the government announced the change in taxation over income trusts. Previously, it was widely expected that Mr. Goodale would either retain the tax levels or increase them. Because his decision to lower the taxes was unexpected, analysts questioned how those who had heavily traded in income trusts just before his announcement had learnt of the decision. Essentially, because some “fortuitous” investors appear to have reaped huge financial windfalls following the minister’s announcement, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Fraud Squad was called in to investigate. Although the RCMP investigation is ongoing, the force has released a preliminary report that suggests that Mr. Goodale was neither the source of the alleged leaks nor was he aware of them. The RCMP’s unusual disclosure was done in order to blunt the damage its involvement might have caused in the Liberal Party’s re-election fortunes in view of the fact that the Conservatives have been making mileage out of the rumours.

However, what is clear is that the RCMP started their independent investigations almost as soon as the first romour was off its mills. They did not seek or wait for the Prime Minister’s permission before acting (like our Aaron Ringera apparently did). In Canada, the government has no direct control over the police forces. Apart from the fact that the local police is governed by independent civilian municipal boards (each Canadian city or town has its own police force and Board), the RCMP (which is a federal police force), is not controlled by the government. As such, the police are mandated and have power to investigate and prosecute even government officials without any regard to the party in power. While not perfect, this independence of the police ensures that there are no sacred cows in society. That is the way it should be even in Kenya.

When this whole grand corruption brouhaha started in Kenya in July 2004, both President Kibaki and members of his kitchen cabinet smugly challenged the former British Ambassador to Kenya, Sir Edward Clay, and other Kenyans to “forward evidence” of the allegations to the government so that those allegations could be investigated. Not only was the government’s challenge outrageous, it was also tantamount to passing the buck to the complainants.

Firstly, the Kenya Police – and any other anti-corruption agency worth its salt - was supposed to have immediately launched thorough investigations over the allegations without regard to who the complainants were. Secondly, there is no requirement in law that a complainant must have “evidence” before making a complaint and requesting for a police investigation. All that the police require to initiate an investigation is a “reasonable belief” that a crime has been committed. The “reasonable belief” can be derived from “reasonable suspicions” or actual credible evidence that a crime has been committed. Thirdly, it is the police who are supposed to pursue leads and investigate allegations with a view to suing out evidence for purposes of possible prosecutions. Asking complainants to “produce evidence” is akin to stating that the complainants are also responsible for conducting investigations. In other words, it relieves the police of its statutory and mandated role. And fourthly, even if the complainants have evidence, they should not be asked or taunted by the government to produce the same. Lots of productive criminal investigations in the world have been conducted on the basis of tips from anonymous “informants” or complainants. Invariably, these tips constitute mere telephone calls and not written statements, as routinely unreasonably demanded by the Kenya Police.

To imagine that the government of Kenya has incestuously looted billions of public money in order to fund president Kibaki’s petty political projects such as the “countering of opposition at the Bomas Constitution Review process”, the Banana/Yes referendum campaign and the 2007 re-election – as well as for personal gain - is as close to a political lunacy as one can get. This government does not deserve to remain in power for even one more day. Kenyans cannot wait for 2007 to remove this government from power. For to wait that long might mean allowing the looters to steal more billions that Kenyans do not have. We have enough evidence to put these thieves in prison for the rest of their lives. We don’t need yet another useless judicial inquiry; for that will only be transformed into a government white-wash. These criminals do not qualify to be in any government. They cannot be trusted to take care of the people’s money the same way that hyenas cannot be trusted to look after sheep.

______________________________________________________________________

*The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada

[software]

bkichwa indeed ,we're not std 3 kids. As much as some people are trying to tag Deya 'innocent' or lionize him in the same breath as Mandela, for most of us, it doesn't cut and it won't wash.

What Deya is alleged to have been involved in, was the lowest of the lowest-Trading innocent Kids out of greed - it's an unforgivable and evil act and anyone concerned or accused of such a heinous crime would, at the most available chance, seek the courts to clear his name.

But, interestingly, Deya diminished his own credibility and innocence in the eyes of the public when 1. He started fighting exradition moves to Kenya to face the rule of law, all the while maintaining his innocence. Is this not a good chance to clear his name to the alleged crime? 2. A British High court Judge ruled that, one of the miracle babies brought back into the UK was indeed the victim of traffickers motivated by greed.( never challanged this to clear his name. why?) 3. Since Deya was rumbled, and given he still maintains his faith to Jesus, he has been unable to perform a single miracle that would redeem him, as a real and genuine baby miracle worker. Is this by coincidence?




-----------------------------------------------


Pastor Deya has been a host to Raila Odinga in a visit to London and is an undenialbe fact! We expected prudency from Raila, knowing what Deya had been accused of, but wapi. Probably his arrogance wouldn't let him.

[miguna]

Simple questions:

1. What are the names of people whom Deya was supposed to have stolen and "traded" their children? Have we been told? If not, why believe the hogwash?

2. When and where did Deya steal the children?

3. Whom did Deya sell those children to?

4. How much was each child traded for and in what currency?

5. What was the location of the "trade?" That is, which country, town, city, village or "market?"
Until you can answer these questions, you have no basis for alleging that Deya stole or traded anybody's child. You don't prove an allegation by making more allegations. That will never work. Yes, the allegations are very serious. But they remain just that: allegations. Anybody can make an allegation. Doesn't require a lot of intelligence. [unedited]

MM

[politicalmaniac]

bkichwa said:

sigh.....didn't Raila just say that Deya is his cousin?

Did you not see the pic of Raila breaking bread with Deya and his family in a private lunch/dinner session at a restaurant during a past London trip by the former? Even without this damaging Deya saga, your ODM-K crew does consist of many tainted individuals (they may be innocent until proven guilty, but nonetheless still tainted). Try to keep in mind that we are not all in std 3.

So where is the criminality? breaking bread? being a cousin?

[bkichwa]

politicalmaniac said:

So where is the criminality? breaking bread? being a cousin?

There is no criminality in any of this. But the obvious perception of the close relationship between Deya and Raila from such as the above, is politically damaging to Raila...as we have clearly seen in the past few days (to the point that Raila folk are floundering and bordering on the ridiculous by attempting to sanitize a person like Deya, via posts like the leading one above). That's the point.

[kamalet]

When we want to settle political scores, "innocent till proven guilty" does not arise! Here is another example of the double standards we have to put up with in Jukwaa. In this case below, Miguna was wondering why Muite was still a practicing lawyer when all these allegations surrounded him. He actually wondered why LSK had not disbarred him like Kajwang who had STOLEN a measely 50,000 shilllings. Then it was not important to await the conclusion of the cases. But in the case of Deya......

____________________________________________________

PAUL MUITE & HIS GROUP OF THIEVES
« Thread Started on Jan 9, 2006, 5:54pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MUITE AND OUR IREDEEMABLE LAWYERS AND POLITICIANS
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - © 9 January 2006

AT LONG LAST, Paul Muite, the MP for Kabete and a senior counsel to boot, is truly and justly facing a conundrum. Thanks to the unrelentless journalistic diligent investigation by Otsieno Namwaya of the East African Standard, we now know of Mr. Muite’s intricate web of bad debts, bounced cheques, depleted trust accounts and unfulfilled professional undertakings.

Yet Muite is still practicing law, continuing to live the high life and representing Kabete Constituency in our Parliament. He is also still acting for clients; being entrusted with funds, even after credible evidence has demonstrated his proclivity towards theft, misappropriation and blatant fraud. Holly cow! Kenyans should be very worried.

One wonders why it has taken this long to unravel Muite’s unending misbehaviour. If Otieno Kajwan’g was disbarred for stealing about fifty thousand Kenya Shillings, why is Muite still on the Rolls of Advocates after what appears like unimpeachable reams of evidence of misappropriation and misallocation of hundreds of millions of shillings of other people’s money?

Do Kenyans still remember Muite’s public quarrel with one Kamlesh Pattni over some Sh10 million change? Are there two systems of justice in this country – one for the mighty like Muite - and the other for Jo Blows like Kajwan’g? If not, why is this man Muite still free?

Why is Muite still licensed to practice law in Kenya? Where is the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) in all of this? Frankly, what role does the LSK play in protecting the general public against such callous, unscrupulous and clearly greedy professional miscreants like Muite? Where have our journalists been? Why has Aaron Ringera not done anything on this one?

Otsieno Namwaya has redeemed the tattered image of Kenyan journalists and made us proud by taking his work as a journalist very seriously. By publicly and fearlessly revealing Muite’s retinue of bad debts, dishonoured cheques, purported sale of non-existent real estate (essentially real estate fraud), multiple and irregular security registrations, un-enforced and disregarded court orders as well as his defiled professional undertakings, Namwaya has deflated the cloak of armour that has for a very long time surrounded this man Muite.

But Namwaya has done more. By exposing Muite as a third-rate professional swindler who has disobeyed one court order after another, he has also exposed the scandalous silence, connivance and conspiracy of those in power; of the LSK that is supposed to be Mr. Muite’s professional regulator or governor; and of those that appointed Muite senior counsel when all these scandals were teaming and the evidence was openly available.

Based only on what Namwaya has revealed to the public, Muite owes at least Sh600 million to the National Bank of Kenya (NBK). Apparently, the NBK Managing Director, Reuben Marambi, has not been able to collect a dime from Muite due to political pressure from three cabinet ministers in the Kibaki government. Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Other creditors who have been lining up to auction Muite’s properties and assets include a group called Mwana Mwereri Rironi, Naivasha Farmers Company Limited, Mbagi Limited and Omega Credit Limited. These creditors have also been unable to squeeze anything from Muite because of some questionable legal technicalities and political pressure.

It is reported that such “technicalities” have included some creditors’ inability to attach Muite’s property, firstly because the assets to be attached had also been dubiously but multiply tendered by Muite as collateral to third party creditors; secondly, the same creditors’ inability to have a new panel of judges assigned to hear the case and/or reissue another order for attachment; thirdly, Muite’s successful staying, through a constitutional reference before two “surgically excised” Justices Mbito and Hayanga, an earlier order by the High Court authorizing an auction of his assets; and fourthly, through lots of political pressure and meddling from three cabinet ministers.

In his recently published tome, The Great War for Civilization, Robert Fisk - the magnificent British war correspondent - has quoted the brilliant Israeli journalist, Amira Hass of the Ha’aretz newspaper, as saying that “a journalist’s job is to monitor the centres of power.” To Ms. Hass, a journalist’s role goes beyond mere “reporting;” it must include the interrogation, challenge and question of authority, especially those in or close to the “centres of power” like Paul Muite.

Journalists should not just try to be impartial witnesses to history and events. They should not be contented by simply reporting history as it happens; they ought to subject what they are observing to deliberate and relentless challenge. And that is what Namwaya has accomplished in his expose.

However, the group that is required to govern Muite’s conduct is the LSK. As a self-regulating professional group, lawyers’ conduct in Kenya is supposed to be kept in check by the LSK. The LSK’s primary role is to protect the public from rogue conduct by its members. It does this by ensuring that its members are properly trained and uphold the highest ethical standards in both private life and professional practice. Dishonourable or questionable conduct on the part of a lawyer in any situation (private or professional) reflects adversely upon the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice. If the conduct, whether within or outside the professional sphere, is such that knowledge of it would be likely to impair the client’s trust in the lawyer, the LSK should be justified in taking disciplinary action against the lawyer whose conduct is in question, including but not limited to disbarment.

The case of Mwana Mwereri Rironi and Naivasha Farmers Company Limited is a compelling case of real estate fraud against Muite that should be urgently addressed by the LSK, the Kenya Police and other anti-corruption agencies. According to Namwaya’s report, Muite, through his law firm, Muite Company Advocates received Sh24.1 million, in trust, from the two groups under the pretext that he would act as an Advocate for the owner, a company called Athi Holdings, in order to facilitate closing transactions.

Both Mwana Mwereri Rironi and Naivasha Farmers Company Limited paid Sh24.1 million to Muite, to hold in trust, pending the finalization of the purchase and sale transaction of a piece of land called Segera/Mukenya Ranch LR No. 9387. Although Muite had alleged that this piece of land was for sale and received Sh24.1 million from the purchasers precisely for that purpose, he later claimed that the land was subject of a civil dispute and that the purchasers should wait. However, the purchasers subsequently discovered that a company called Von Vile Enterprises had already sold the same piece of land to others and demanded a full refund of their money from Muite.

By this time, Muite had already committed both a serious criminal offense and an unethical conduct of trying to sell land that he either knew or ought to have known had already been sold. When Muite took Sh24.1 million from the two groups, he knew or ought to have known that the piece of land was no longer available for sale. His attempt to mislead both groups about the existence of land for sale when there was none means that Muite’s sole intention was to take possession of the funds given to him and irregularly convert it into his own. Clearly, he had no land for sale to offer the two groups and as such had no legitimate grounds for holding their money.

It is quite deplorable that Muite not only took possession of and withheld these two groups’ money (which he was not legally entitled to except through this devious scheme), but he has either failed or refused to return the money as well. Even scarier is the fact that in stead of being charged, convicted, sentenced, disbarred and forced to pay compensation to his innocent victims, Muite has been sheltered, protected and coddled by the powers that be – from the LSK to the government of Kenya – Muite has only received familiar smooches on the back.

There must be somewhere among the LSK rules one about a lawyer’s duty to safeguard, preserve and account for clients’ monies and other property as a careful and prudent owner would when dealing with like property, and to observe all relevant rules and law about preservation of clients’ property entrusted to a lawyer. Muite’s multiple issuance of bad cheques to both Mwana Mwereri and Naivasha Farmers Company is, prima facie, proof of misappropriation, breach of trust and fraud. Had Muite preserved the funds the way he was supposed to, all his cheques would not have been dishonoured. But even then, he would still have had a case to answer for trying to sell a non-existent land.

To think that this is the man that Kiraitu Murungi was haggling for and lobbying to be appointed a cabinet minister shows, beyond doubt, how irredeemable both our politicians and lawyers have become. Shame!
______________________________________________________________________

*The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada

« Last Edit: Jan 10, 2006, 7:49pm by miguna »

[miguna]

Kamau,

I'm on the road, so I'll be very brief.

As usual, you have not carefully read any of the pieces.

I have told you, and the article makes crystal clear, that ethical standards governing the practice of law (like medicine), are what my arguments were based on in the Muite article. My challenge was to the LSK. Tell me where I was wrong in that article.

I can give other articles where I have made vsimilsar arguments. Those will not conveniently change for any reasons.

Criminal procedure standards, are different. The latter applies on anyone CRIMINALLY ACCUSED OR CHARGED like Deya.

The last time I checked, Muite hadn't been CRIMINALLY ACCUSED OR CHARGED. Once he is CRIMINALLY ACCUSED OR CHARGED, the presumption applies on him as it does on Deya or anyone else.

What Muite was/is going through was/is A CIVIL DISPUTE.

Meanwhile, as a professional, his ethical responsibilities and obligations are always subject to the LSK rules. The LSK, like any other professional governing body ought to investigate and act on any alleged breach of professional conduct, and if or when any of the allegations are proed, ON A BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES - NOT THE CRIMINAL BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT - the Professional Regulatory Body can and is expected to act on such a breach or breaches.

That has nothing to do with guilt or innocence and it was what I was talking about.

Read what you purport to be responding to. Don't panick!
You think you can get away with it. You wont. [unedited]

MM
======================================
At 8:27 GMT

NB: Ooops! Kamau removed his CHALLENGE, after all. You see what I mean by shooting off your mouth without careful thought?

[kamalet]

Miguna,

There actually is a criminal case against Muite on one of the cases involving the selling of land. It is currently stalled due to a constitutional reference Muite has filed.

I would presume the rule of innocent till proven guilty would hold.

Assuming that it was still a civil suit, until the courts find against Muite, would we be right in asking LSK to instute action from an ethical point of view before determination of the suits (civil or criminal) against him?

......am I still shooting off my mouth? Someone is really angry today!!!1

[miguna]

Kamau,

Yes, you are still shooting off your mouth. Lawyers are self governed.

A Professional Regulatory Body for lawyers is not bound by any other legal process. A Tribunalo set up to investigate allegations against a lawyer or basked to determine whether or not a lawyer has breached a professional rule of conduct is not subject to civil or criminal proceedings.

So, it does not matter. The LSK is supposed to protect PUBLIC INTEREST. In a civil proceeding, a party is only responsible for his or her interests. And I hope that you know who the parties are in a criminal proceeding.

Lastly, please check to see whether my article was penned before or after the so-called crminal charges against Muite (although I don't remember when Muite was actually criminally charged.) It doesn't matter anyway.

Please don't argue about things you do not understand. [unedited]

MM
==========================================

[kamalet]

Your arrogance actually makes you a poor laywer. When you look down upon people you think you are wiser than, you refuse and also fail to see the points they make, and this may be a reflection of your success as a solicitor.

enuff sed!

[adongo12345]

Kamale & Company

My take on this Deya thing is that it refused to take off. It is really a none issue. Those who were hoping that Raila will be smothered in the media for having met Deya have to live with the disappointment that nobody a part from a handful of people here and there like those Narc Kenya losers in Sobukia cares.

To the best of my knowledge, and I am not privy to Raila's calender, Raila met Deya in some previous visit to London. The pictures have been plastered over the net for months now and a part from the usual crowd shopping for mud to dump on Raila nobody seem to be interested.

My position is that meeting Deya is bad optics. I do not want to convict Deya like some people have already done but I am sure a savvy politician like Raila has understood that even though we do not choose our relatives, being a public figure imposes a lot of restrictions on what we can do or who we can be with.

My advise to those who want to flog the Deya story to death is that if you need some rungu to hit Raila with, you are going to look elsewhere. This Deya thing is dead.

The more serious problem for ODM Kenya is the issue of so-called tainted leaders. The Ruto visa problems arose from that. Wherever Raila has gone even here in Toronto he is often asked what ODM will do to address the problem. His answer in that interview is very close to what he told us here in Toronto. The good news for ODM is that the Kibaki people have no foot to stand to make accusations as they are up to their eyeballs with ongoing corruption and scandals.

The real challenge is for ODM to convince us that one, they are willing to address allegations against some of the people in their leadership and two they have a plan and a strategy to fight corruption. In fact their plan should start with what they intend to do with KACC. I think KACC is good but we need to streamline it, get rid of people like Ringera who has been a disaster and ensure that we do not turn anti-corruption into an industry and a gravy train for people to eat.

Actually I like Raila's idea that we need to negotiate with these crooks. Those who are willing to be part of the program would be given a chance to return the property or monies involved and be left alone to move on with their lives. The trouble with Kenyan crooks who are also major political players and brokers is that they think they are very clever and unless they are caught red handed they are ready to use the court system which they tie up for decades.

My idea is that we should come up with carrot and a big stick and I mean the real stick not what some people may think. We tell the thieves, if you accept our plan we take what we can get and you go however if we have to chase you around, if we ever get you we will not only take the money and assets, we will take your ass* to jail. This will require some legislation with mandatory jail time for those convicted of corruption related offenses. Let's start with five year minimum sentence for them.

Some people may argue why are we treating mass robbers of public wealth with soft gloves and yet we are ready to lynch chicken thieves to death or put them in jail for years. They have a point. But my proposal of five year minimum sentence for corruption convictions is not exactly soft gloves. Besides the deal to return money and get free is a one time deal for those with outstanding cases. From there on we will walk around with sledge hammers (remember the big stick).

My point is we are waiting to hear the details of how the ODM government would fight corruption. The Kibaki regime fooled us and found a big market for his buddies like Ringera and Muysimi to hog on our money. We are coming after them big time.

Adongo

[miguna]

Adongo,

I agree with you on "optics." The only problem with the so-called critics is that they know that Deya has been pictured with Kalonzo, Kibaki, Wamalwa - with almost all Kenya's significant political players. I have received pictures showing ALL of them with Deya. I suspect that most of the pictures were taken before 2002 elections. So, if they want to throw up on R; they should do the same to ALL.

The second point I would like to make in response to your post is this: any serious political organization or individual cannot discuss his or their strategies in public. Those genuinely interested in working with the ODM-K in bringing about the Third Liberation must get actively involved in ODM-K.

Advicing ODM-K or any other political organization or player from the outside may only get one so far.

ODM-K's presidential candidates are unveiling their platforms and visions for the country as we speak. In those visions, they spell out how each one of them will address the issue of corruption and the enactnment of the Bomas Draft. I actually think that R's speech I recently posted here go deepere than any other pronouncement anyone would care to make. On top of it, he stated, just yesterday, that he will be seeking "Truth, Justice and Restitution."

Notice the fine difference with "Truth, Justice, Reconciliation."

Reconciliation is good; but one cannot achieve it without Restitution. Also, you cannot reconcile people by force or through edicts.

Enough said. [edited]

MM
=======================================================

[miguna]

Adongo,

I agree with you on "optics." The only problem with the so-called critics is that they know that Deya has been pictured with Kalonzo, Kibaki, Wamalwa - with almost all Kenya's significant political players. I have received pictures showing ALL of them with Deya. I suspect that most of the pictures were taken before 2002 elections. So, if they want to throw up on R; they should do the same to ALL.

The second point I would like to make in response to your post is this: any serious political organization or individual cannot discuss his or their strategies in public. Those genuinely interested in working with the ODM-K in bringing about the Third Liberation must get actively involved in ODM-K.

Advicing ODM-K or any other political organization or player from the outside may only get one so far.

ODM-K's presidential candidates are unveiling their platforms and visions for the country as we speak. In those visions, they spell out how each one of them will address the issue of corruption and the enactment of the Bomas Draft. I actually think that R's speech I recently posted here go deeper than any other pronouncement anyone would care to make. On top of it, he stated, just yesterday, that he will be seeking "Truth, Justice and Restitution."

ODM-K is a mass movement. In order for ODM-K's unity to be binding; it must allow a broad ideological spectrum of views. As time goes, and once a presidential candidate has been nominated; you will definitely see the crystallization of ODM-K's platform, vision and ideological take on all these issues....

Notice the fine difference with "Truth, Justice, Reconciliation."

Reconciliation is good; but one cannot achieve it without Restitution. Also, you cannot reconcile people by force or through edicts.

Let's remove Kibaki and his looting cabal!

Enough said. [edited]

MM
=======================================================

[kamalet]

I will agree that for political "savviness" Raila should not be seen in the company of Deya purely on the basis that he has been linked with child trafficking especially when he is supposed to be a man of the cloth.

Where I think we would disagree with Adongo is the proposal that deals be cut with the corrupt to return the wealth.

Unfortunately this is what the Kibaki government tried to do and am sure it is licking its wounds for the failure of the proposal. When Ruto returned the processional way plots, that was part of the deal making done to not prosecute the man. The deal was also to buy political souls and when this failed, Ngong forest was always on the cards. The story of Moi and the returned plots is not different. Now the Kibaki government is looking up to Moi for help politically.

That is why I think the Raila proposal is flawed. Unless he wants to make excuses for his association with Ruto, any deal making with the corrupt will only enslave the man. Someone said that corruption networks always hit back - Kibaki is one such victim!!!

Anyone intending to fight corruption will not make deals with the corrupt. It only perpetuates the vice as I will also steal on the basis that the next lot will do a deal with me. If we want to fight corruption, we have proven that the Kibaki model has not worked and neither will the Raila proposal work. Simple solution is zero tolerance and meeting the vice with the full force of the law!

[Deleted]

Oh my Kamalet,

here you sound so progressive. I'm confused. So different than the person who wants to hold fort for the cops!

"Unfortunately this is what the Kibaki government tried to do and am sure it is licking its wounds for the failure of the proposal."

Now Now, everybody knows that Kibaki hasn't tried to hold to account in any meaningful way, those who have engaged in the looting of public coffers. Truth be told, he and his partners in crime have expedited the theft of public funds and properties tremendously. Being that its their turn to eat ama?

Adongo,

what are the thieves giving back, some or all of what they've stolen? And really 5yrs when like you acknowledge the poor go to prison for ever for next to nada.

[adongo12345]

Miguna

Thanks for your comments. Of course I am aware that it is hard to influence policy directions from the outside looking in. The only advantage it gives me is I can say all sorts of things. Also I like writing and giving people hell, in a good way of course. But I get the point.

Kamale:

You know these thieves. You know how cunning they are. So far Kibaki hasn't recovered a single cent from Goldenberg for example and yet we have spent close to Kshs 500 million possibly a billion bucks. This is madness. We are pouring tons of good money chasing bad money. It is ridiculous. Raila idea of "Truth, Justice and Restitution" is a brilliant idea. we should not corrupt the idea by claiming Raila wants to justify his relationship with Ruto. Let's look at the idea on the basis of its merits and what it can deliver.

I don't know about you, but I would hate to spend my entire life time chasing the Mois, the Rutos, the Kenyattas, The Lucys, the Gitongas, the Kamanis. Someone like Pattni at one time offered to pay up, if I am not wrong. We laughed at him. Guess who is laughing now. He is free like a bird. We can't touch him after we let Saitoti off. The whole Goldenberg Inquiry has turned into a cruel and costly joke. Let's get real.

Kathure

How much do the thieves give back? I don't know, but we can't take everything away from them, can we? They would be broke. Besides the trick here is to give them incentives to come forward and save their asses* from possible jail time, hence the carrot and stick policy.

Personally I would like to organize a flogging rally for the thieves at Uhuru Park, but I am thinking another five years of endless court battles is going to drive everybody nuts.

Kibaki really screwed this thing up. The original idea of the Goldenberg Inquiry was brilliant and Kenyans supported it whole heartedly. And then Kibaki thieves came up with ANGLO SCAM and demoralized the whole country. The war on corruption became a gimmick. And then the Narc wars intensified and very soon both the Kibaki team and the LDP folks realized they both desperately needed Kanu to survive. If we had put the pedals down on both sides and squeezed the living hell out of the Kanu thieves we would be home free now. But then again a lot of those Kanu thieves like Saitoti were already prominently inthe Kibaki cabinet.

My point here is that when the D.P chauvinists hijacked the unbwogable Narc victory against Moi and Kanu and started their own looting spree we lost the country and now we have to take it back. The dynamics have changed beyond recognition and that is why I think we have to change the tactics, salvage what we can and move the nation forward.

As for my suggestion of five years, I called it a minimum sentence. Basically what I am saying here is that we push for a law which will guarantee that anyone convicted on corruption related charges will at least get a 5 year jail sentence. The maximum could be 20 or 100 years.

What I know is that the rich Kenyans fear jail like death. If they know that a conviction guarantees them a good amount of time in jail they are going to shape up and make deals. If they don't let's produce the evidence and lock them up. I also think such an idea can be acceptable to Kenyans, particularly when they know the biggies will end up in jail(hopefully not at Kenyatta Hospital) when convicted.

Interesting discussion though.

Adongo.

[miguna]

Adongo and Kamau,

I opposed the Goldenberg Inquiry because I long realized that inquiries are generally intended to get people off. If there is enough evidence to sustain a conviction, by all means we should all go the whole hog.

What R meant by "Truth, Justice and Restitution" is not at all less than giving JUSTiCE a chance. Notice that the word JUSTICE is the secord word in "Truth, JUSTICE and Restitution." How else does one get Truth, Justice and Restitution except by ensuring that due process and law are applied as they should?

There are two games at play here: One is called politics. The other is Law. Given R's background and record; why do you think Moi, Kibaki and the rest of them are running scared. Let's be patient and INTELLIGENT in our expectations at this point.

Any serious player who really, really desires positive, progressive changes ought to exercise prudent caution in our pronouncements..."Yie thowo ka ogik gowo." Translated: the ship capsizes just when it nears the shore! Let's reach the shore first. [unedited]

MM
==============================================

[wanyee]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3672838.stm

[miguna]

Mere allegations. Don't prove a thing.

Don't get me wrong: I don't know whether Deya is guilty or innocent since he has not been tried and convicted or acquitted. So, posting a 2004 newspaper report is nonsensical. We all read it when they were published. The Government must do more than publish allegations in newspapers....[unedited]

MM
=================================

[kamalet]

Miguna,

In more civilised societies, mere perception of association with anyone suspected of a crime of whatever nature is enough for an aspirant to cut off ties with such a person.

Deya even without a finding of guilt against him unfortunately belongs to that class of people that any aspiting leader of Kenya must avoid.

If you want to see Deya as a clean person even where guilt may have not been established, then you will be as guilty as the Wambui and jher association with the Arturs of attempting to subvert the course of justice.

Where do you want to be?

[aeichener]

miguna said:

Don't get me wrong: I don't know whether Deya is guilty or innocent since he has not been tried and convicted or acquitted.

Somebody can be convicted yet be innocent. That ever so often happens. Especially if one is black or poor of both.

Or somebody can be acquitted and yet be guilty. That happens also often.

So, if you would be convicted for theft, that does not mean that you would have to be guilty of it, would actually have stolen something. Somebody might just have fixed you, or justice might have been miscarried.

Or you would have been acquitted of sexual assault, yet that does not mean you did not do it. It only means that police and criminal register may not treat you as an offender, and that you could sue somebody for libel who calls you a rapist or molester.

Criminal procedure law is not about guilt or innocence. It's about standards of proof. As to the above examples, I would rather wish some criminals go free injustly, than innocents convicted injustly.

Alexander