Post by adongo12345 on Apr 10, 2007 4:42:43 GMT 3
By Adongo Ogony
Finally we got the constitutional talks started. Predictably there are problems galore, most of which are solvable if the government and the ODM K team are serious.
www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143967154
www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=1&newsid=95615
One important thing about these talks is that they are NOT just about minimum or essential constitutional reforms, but rather the whole package as they will also provide the road map for comprehensive constitutional reforms which may be realized as soon as 2008. That should be good news for Kenyans.
The one sideshow we can do without is the demand by the Biwott team to be included in the talks. The trouble for these guys is that I don't think even they know which party they want to represent at the constitutional talks.
As far as we know, Biwott and his team bolted from Kanu after loosing the elections to the Uhuru/Ruto team. Biwott and company formed their own Kanu offspring, New Kanu which was registered with the help of the Kibaki government even as many questions surrounded their legitimacy. That was supposed to be the end of the story. Not quite.
A few months later as the Kanu entered structured negotiations with the LDP to formally join the ODM as a political party to further the interests they championed at the historical Constitutional Referendum, the Biwotts and their new found allies, namely former president Moi and Kibaki sprung a surprise.
President Kibaki met Moi at State House, just one day before Biwott led some alleged Kanu Branch representatives in ousting Uhuru as the officially elected chairman of Kanu and replacing him with Biwott. Also ousted was William Ruto who was replaced with Josephine Ojiambo as the new Secretary General. Interestingly, the letter written to the V.P Moody Awori to include Biwott and company in the talks was not from Ojiambo, the SG, but rather from Nick Salat.
Just for the records, after Biwott "successfully" took Kanu from Uhuru and Ruto, he was given a thunderous applause from the government side when he majestically walked into the National Assembly, presumably as the anointed "leader" of the official opposition. This marked the first time in our country that the official opposition party "representatives" and "leaders" became the darlings of a sitting government. Of course stranger things have happened during the Kibaki regime, but this was quite something.
All that said, there are a few questions that Kenyans may need answers for from the Biwott team.
One, which political party do they (Biwott and co.) want to represent at the constitutional talks ? Is it their old "New Kanu" or the Kanu they are trying to snatch from Uhuru and Ruto? The matter by the way is before the courts and may take a while to resolve.
As far as we know, Moody Awori, wrote to Uhuru Kenyatta in his official capacity as the leader of the opposition to nominate reps from the other side. Obviously, Biwott and crew bit more than they could chew on this matter. If Biwott is in the opposition, he need not worry because the opposition is already well represented in the talks. If on the other hand Biwott is with the GNU, the same applies. He should ask Kibaki and Moody to give him and his crew a few spots in the GNU team at the talks. Otherwise he has no case, period.
And just one more thing regarding Biwott and his group(s). Where have they been when the constitutional debates and battles have been raging in the country? Did they just hear yesterday that Kenyans are fighting for a new constitution? I don't think so.
The more important debate to me is the issue of representation from civil society groups. Even as the ODM K and the Kibaki team were meeting, civil society groups held their own meeting at City Hall and made no bones about the fact that they are going to be a big part of the equation. I support them whole-heartedly. Without civil society groups and the sacrifices they have made we would not even be discussing constitutional reforms in Kenya today.
The civil society was there in 1997 under the leadership of the NCEC pushing for a people driven constitution. They were there at Bomas pulling on all sides, but that is their right too. They have been there, reluctantly of course, in the minimum/essential reform debate. They richly deserve a place at the negotiating table and Kenyans know that and they will support them.
Two questions, though for my comrades from the civil society.
One, you have told the nation, you have 24 representatives. Is it too much to ask how you determined who those representatives should be? Was the system of "electing" or "selecting" those reps democratic and transparent? I know some would say, "why don't you ask the same of parliamentary reps"? That is besides the point. You know why? Because parliamentary reps as revolting as some of them may be, were actually elected by the Kenyan electorate in 2002 General Elections. Not so with the civil society reps and hence my persistent question of asking for transparency in civil society representation. I am sorry if this upsets some people, but I think it is a legitimate question.
The second question Kenyans need to ask the civil society groups is this; what exactly is the agenda you want to bring on behalf of Kenyans to the constitutional talks. Can that agenda, if it exists be publicly discussed within the the very vibrant civil society and human rights movement, both in and outside the country? When is that consultation and debate going to take place?
Finally something really astonishing came our way today on the very first day of constitutional talks. Simeon Nyachae had this to say to his shocked constituents in Gusii land.
"And elsewhere, Cabinet minister Simeon Nyachae conceded that the Wako Draft constitution that was conceived at a meeting he chaired in Kilifi was faulty.
Nyachae said the Draft, rejected by Kenyans during the November referendum contained clauses that could not be implemented and he stunned a crowd in Nyaribari Chache with revelations that he only campaigned for the Draft because he was a Cabinet minister.
“I campaigned for that Draft because of the virtue of being a Cabinet minister and in the spirit of collective responsibility. . Otherwise, that thing was faulty and bad for the country, “ said the minister who was addressing a meeting after presenting drugs to health centres in Nyaribari Chache at Keumbu divisional headquarters .
The Wako Draft, Nyachae disclosed, was hurriedly put together and would have ruined the country had it been passed. The Nyaribari Chache MP called for a deliberate, well constituted representation and sobriety on the review talks.
“At the referendum, people voted against the Draft because it was flawed . I knew and still feel it was bad on the issues of Provincial Administration and land,” said Nyachae."
www.timesnews.co.ke/10april07/nwsstory/topstry.html
Basically Nyachae, the Minister for Roads who was appointed specifically to replace Raila Odinga, who was considered a menace in the Kibaki regime over the constitutional battle confessed to lying to the country and to his constituents. Very sad indeed, but not surprising in the least.
The one thing that baffles me is this; if Nyachae and I don't know who else in Kibaki's cabinet could lie to Kenyans on something as crucial as a new constitution because they had to please President Kibaki, what else are they lying to Kenyans about now?
Also what conscience do these people have to actually run the country when they tell us they will lie anytime to keep Kibaki happy and in power.?
How long must this go on?
The writer is a human rights activist.
Finally we got the constitutional talks started. Predictably there are problems galore, most of which are solvable if the government and the ODM K team are serious.
www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143967154
www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=1&newsid=95615
One important thing about these talks is that they are NOT just about minimum or essential constitutional reforms, but rather the whole package as they will also provide the road map for comprehensive constitutional reforms which may be realized as soon as 2008. That should be good news for Kenyans.
The one sideshow we can do without is the demand by the Biwott team to be included in the talks. The trouble for these guys is that I don't think even they know which party they want to represent at the constitutional talks.
As far as we know, Biwott and his team bolted from Kanu after loosing the elections to the Uhuru/Ruto team. Biwott and company formed their own Kanu offspring, New Kanu which was registered with the help of the Kibaki government even as many questions surrounded their legitimacy. That was supposed to be the end of the story. Not quite.
A few months later as the Kanu entered structured negotiations with the LDP to formally join the ODM as a political party to further the interests they championed at the historical Constitutional Referendum, the Biwotts and their new found allies, namely former president Moi and Kibaki sprung a surprise.
President Kibaki met Moi at State House, just one day before Biwott led some alleged Kanu Branch representatives in ousting Uhuru as the officially elected chairman of Kanu and replacing him with Biwott. Also ousted was William Ruto who was replaced with Josephine Ojiambo as the new Secretary General. Interestingly, the letter written to the V.P Moody Awori to include Biwott and company in the talks was not from Ojiambo, the SG, but rather from Nick Salat.
Just for the records, after Biwott "successfully" took Kanu from Uhuru and Ruto, he was given a thunderous applause from the government side when he majestically walked into the National Assembly, presumably as the anointed "leader" of the official opposition. This marked the first time in our country that the official opposition party "representatives" and "leaders" became the darlings of a sitting government. Of course stranger things have happened during the Kibaki regime, but this was quite something.
All that said, there are a few questions that Kenyans may need answers for from the Biwott team.
One, which political party do they (Biwott and co.) want to represent at the constitutional talks ? Is it their old "New Kanu" or the Kanu they are trying to snatch from Uhuru and Ruto? The matter by the way is before the courts and may take a while to resolve.
As far as we know, Moody Awori, wrote to Uhuru Kenyatta in his official capacity as the leader of the opposition to nominate reps from the other side. Obviously, Biwott and crew bit more than they could chew on this matter. If Biwott is in the opposition, he need not worry because the opposition is already well represented in the talks. If on the other hand Biwott is with the GNU, the same applies. He should ask Kibaki and Moody to give him and his crew a few spots in the GNU team at the talks. Otherwise he has no case, period.
And just one more thing regarding Biwott and his group(s). Where have they been when the constitutional debates and battles have been raging in the country? Did they just hear yesterday that Kenyans are fighting for a new constitution? I don't think so.
The more important debate to me is the issue of representation from civil society groups. Even as the ODM K and the Kibaki team were meeting, civil society groups held their own meeting at City Hall and made no bones about the fact that they are going to be a big part of the equation. I support them whole-heartedly. Without civil society groups and the sacrifices they have made we would not even be discussing constitutional reforms in Kenya today.
The civil society was there in 1997 under the leadership of the NCEC pushing for a people driven constitution. They were there at Bomas pulling on all sides, but that is their right too. They have been there, reluctantly of course, in the minimum/essential reform debate. They richly deserve a place at the negotiating table and Kenyans know that and they will support them.
Two questions, though for my comrades from the civil society.
One, you have told the nation, you have 24 representatives. Is it too much to ask how you determined who those representatives should be? Was the system of "electing" or "selecting" those reps democratic and transparent? I know some would say, "why don't you ask the same of parliamentary reps"? That is besides the point. You know why? Because parliamentary reps as revolting as some of them may be, were actually elected by the Kenyan electorate in 2002 General Elections. Not so with the civil society reps and hence my persistent question of asking for transparency in civil society representation. I am sorry if this upsets some people, but I think it is a legitimate question.
The second question Kenyans need to ask the civil society groups is this; what exactly is the agenda you want to bring on behalf of Kenyans to the constitutional talks. Can that agenda, if it exists be publicly discussed within the the very vibrant civil society and human rights movement, both in and outside the country? When is that consultation and debate going to take place?
Finally something really astonishing came our way today on the very first day of constitutional talks. Simeon Nyachae had this to say to his shocked constituents in Gusii land.
"And elsewhere, Cabinet minister Simeon Nyachae conceded that the Wako Draft constitution that was conceived at a meeting he chaired in Kilifi was faulty.
Nyachae said the Draft, rejected by Kenyans during the November referendum contained clauses that could not be implemented and he stunned a crowd in Nyaribari Chache with revelations that he only campaigned for the Draft because he was a Cabinet minister.
“I campaigned for that Draft because of the virtue of being a Cabinet minister and in the spirit of collective responsibility. . Otherwise, that thing was faulty and bad for the country, “ said the minister who was addressing a meeting after presenting drugs to health centres in Nyaribari Chache at Keumbu divisional headquarters .
The Wako Draft, Nyachae disclosed, was hurriedly put together and would have ruined the country had it been passed. The Nyaribari Chache MP called for a deliberate, well constituted representation and sobriety on the review talks.
“At the referendum, people voted against the Draft because it was flawed . I knew and still feel it was bad on the issues of Provincial Administration and land,” said Nyachae."
www.timesnews.co.ke/10april07/nwsstory/topstry.html
Basically Nyachae, the Minister for Roads who was appointed specifically to replace Raila Odinga, who was considered a menace in the Kibaki regime over the constitutional battle confessed to lying to the country and to his constituents. Very sad indeed, but not surprising in the least.
The one thing that baffles me is this; if Nyachae and I don't know who else in Kibaki's cabinet could lie to Kenyans on something as crucial as a new constitution because they had to please President Kibaki, what else are they lying to Kenyans about now?
Also what conscience do these people have to actually run the country when they tell us they will lie anytime to keep Kibaki happy and in power.?
How long must this go on?
The writer is a human rights activist.
