|
Post by adongo23456 on Feb 16, 2012 18:02:55 GMT 3
Sincerely, we all have a right to defend our leaders, but it is terribly disturbing, when supposedly intelligent adults just blah blah in the name of defending their so called leaders (Ruto in this case). Surely, in that altercation (actually show down) between Ruto and Raila, only one person stood out as credible, believable, worthy and deserving of the title leader. that is Raila. Ruto, nothing but lies. Ruto, was just lying and lying and lying. A very desperate man. Isaac Ruto, even worse. Its like a kid denying having eaten the sugar, yet the sugar is smeared all over his mouth and face. And whether PM or not, a politician is a politician. African politics, more so Kenyan politicians are not judged by how and what you say in Public - leave that to America and Europe. Here in kenya, we like and cheer our leaders more when they play good game...show down. Cant wait for campaigns..akina Ruto will be floored. Anyways, Raila is allowed to politick wherever and whenever just like the Ocampo duo do. Thus, Raila did choose the right forum to expose Ruto's lies. We all heard it. Even the NTV clip was very clear..it replayed Ruto in 2009...exactly saying what he is now denying to have said. And in a forum like that of parliament, its a good chance to state your stand and have fellow MPs support or diss you. Moreover, because all Kenyan are watching, the electorate get to distinguish between liars (fake leaders) and sincere guys (true leaders) You know, when Ruto was lying, I saw Eugene Wamalwa, just stump lightly ....while he is Ruto's supporter, he was keen not to let his electorate see that he is condoning such lies gemagema,You are damn right. The liars do not have a chance in this debate. They have been spreading these lies unchallenged and they are now behaving like they already believe their own lies. Why did these cases end up at The Hague? We know the truth. Ruto knows the truth. Uhuru knows the truth but the truth is not favourable to their political narrative so they invent falsehoods to prop their false agenda for Kenya. The other lie is that Raila instigated the cases, then went to President Obama who then summoned Ocampo and ordered him to get Ruto and Uhuru fixed. That kind of village lies and falsehood may get you cheers in a rally but it is dangerous. It tells Kenyans those indicted are just victims of Raila and President Obama both working for Luo interests. Isn't that an incitement against the Luo community? What are the intended consequenses of such reckless lies? Don't we have Luo folks who are victims of murders and rapes that the 4 individuals are indicted for? Why should such lies go unchallenged? That is why I say it is time to tell the truth and those who are scared of the truth are the ones now crying. Then we have the convoluted idea that Raila should be praying for the victims and leave Ruto and Uhuru alone to pray for themselves. Really? You organize the mass murder and rape of Kenyans and then order others to pray for your victims as you lie all over the place that you are just being persecuted by so and so. The suspected killers cannot pray for their victims, we know that but they have no right nor credibility to tell Kenyans who should pray for whom. Like I said victims want justice. They want a resolution of their plight. They are not interested in people using them as political football. Interestingly it is the fear of justice for the victims, namely ICC trials that has triggered the "liefull" prayers. The suspects are actually praying that the victims should never get the justice they and the country deserves. And they want all of us to shut up about their treachery. No we won't. They know that already, don't they? nowayhaha & othersI don't know why some of you are busy forcing us to accept this or that version of the story from the two dailies as the gospel truth about what happened in parliament yesterday. We are failrly literate people. We are capable, without much help, of figuring out who is telling us the truth. Most Kenyans actually saw the debate live on TV. You might find it difficult to tell them when to open their eyes and when to close them when watching debates in parliament. They will figure out what the story is and in all fairness this is not that much of a complicated story where we need interpreters. It is pretty straight forward. Some prople have been lying and they got their lies exposed and had no defense. There is really nothing else to it.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 16, 2012 18:26:15 GMT 3
Nowayhaha,
Thank you for those excerpts, it clearly shows how desperately the PM was haplessly moving from one issue to another in an effort to run away from the issues of the day. That is what happens when one thrives on lies.
The PM has over the years gotten away with propoganda and lies but now he has people who can stand to him and ask him to account for his utterances and actions. As Titchaz will tell you, ^^ akierevuka mwerevu yumashakani, that is why the PM was behaving like a deer in flood lights. As AO puts it, this is a good debate to have, and it should continue and let Kenyans be the judge.
|
|
|
Post by paulhomy on Feb 16, 2012 18:33:06 GMT 3
Watching the exchanges, my view is that the PM allowed himself to be dragged into cess pit and made the mistake of losing his cool. Now that is bad for anyone pretending/aspiring to be a leader. He joined in the juvenile arguments of the Rutos and at one time I could not tell the difference. Luckily the speaker saw the wisdom of helping the PM by urging him to stick to the questions asked. Raila needs to know when he is seen as PM and when he is supposed to be Raila the politician. He would have performed very well responding to the Rutos at Joseph Kangethe but he should know his position in the House where he is seen as the PM of Kenya. This has to be the most humorous statements on this thread, you seam to be concerned with raila's sense of decorum as PM and yet you don't question parliament's sense of decorum. In your opinion Raila's losing his cool is more calamitous than the integrity of the house hosting alleged Hague suspects. It must be a tongue in cheek moment
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 16, 2012 18:34:12 GMT 3
For those that want to follow the charade in the house...here goes:
The hon. Member for Eldoret North wanted to know whether those who voted No during the referendum or those who were waving the red card are going to be allowed to exercise their democratic rights. He wants to know whether this is a Government policy or not. I am on record as having said that there are some people who were flashing red cards who said that this new Constitution was worse than the old Constitution. They said that if this Constitution was passed then people would lose their land. They also said that if this Constitution was passed then women would be aborting at will and that every hospital would be having an abortion ward. They said that if this Constitution was passed, homosexuality would be legalized and it would be the order of the day. I have been saying that all that was just propaganda to try and win the votes. These people clearly said that they had no confidence in this new Constitution. That is why I asked, “If you believe in this Constitution, how do you expect someone who opposed it to implement it?” That is all I have been saying. So, I have been telling the people not to vote for the people who opposed the Constitution because we want this Constitution to be implemented. It can only be implemented by those who believe truly in it. Mr. Samoei: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. The Prime Minister needs to tell the country whether the rhetoric that he is involved in is campaign propaganda he is 26 Wednesday, 15th, February, 2012(P) distributing for his own campaign’s sake or whether it is Government policy. The Constitution--- Mr. Speaker: Order, Member for Eldoret North! Let me just guide you. I am not stopping you. Just listen to me first. Please, resume your seat for a moment. Hon. William Ruto, you have stood on a point of order. So, you really must prosecute your concern such that it falls within the ambit of a point of order as provided for in the Standing Orders. Please, just do that! If the Prime Minister has not responded to your clarification or he is doing it wrongly, then say so. You have a lot of experience in this House – this is your third term now. Prosecute the point of order! Mr. Samoei: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Is the Prime Minister in order to run away from answering directly the question that I put to him whether his position that he has been propagating around the country that people who voted No during the referendum should not be voted for is a Government policy or his own propaganda? He needs to answer that. Mr. Speaker: Very well. That now fits. The Minister of State for National Heritage and Culture (Mr. ole Ntimama): On a point of information, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Mr. Speaker: Order, Mr. ole Ntimama! The person who has addressed the House last is the Member for Eldoret North. Do you want give information to the Member for Eldoret North? The Minister of State for National Heritage and Culture (Mr. ole Ntimama): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to give general information on the main question--- Mr. Speaker: Order, Mr. ole Ntimama! You know even if you are going to give information, you must do so within the letter and spirit of the Standing Orders. I am afraid that up to where you are, you have not satisfied me that you are living within the letter and spirit of the Standing Orders. I am afraid I will have to decline. Proceed, Prime Minister. The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I truly believe in democracy that every Kenyan had a right at that time to say Yes or No. I have not talked against those who voted No. All I have been talking about is those who were spreading propaganda. I have not been addressing Government functions when I have spoken on this matter. I have been addressing political party--- Mr. Samoei: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. The Prime Minister is an experienced Member of this House. I have asked him a direct question. He cannot keep on running away. He is always the Prime Minister whether he is in Mombasa or in this place or that place. So, could he tell this House whether what he has been saying is Government policy or his own propaganda? He needs to be categorical! Mrs. Odhiambo-Mabona: But he has responded! Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. Millie Odhiambo! The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Mr. Speaker, Sir, unless the hon. Member of Eldoret North wants to answer the question himself. He should allow me to conclude. Mr. Speaker, Sir, all I have been saying is that at times, I address members of Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) like I was addressing delegates of ODM. Yes, I am a Prime Minister, but I am also a Party Leader. However, to answer his question, it is not a Government policy; it is a statement of fact which I have been making that it was propaganda. I have been saying that the 27 Wednesday, 15th, February, 2012(P) people who did not believe in this Constitution cannot be trusted to implement it when they are in power. Mr. Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, let me say this--- Mr. G. Nyamweya: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. George Nyamweya! I have seen and heard you. Just hold your horse for a short while; perhaps, for one more minute. The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Mr. Speaker, Sir--- (Mr. Samoei stood up in his place) (Laughter) Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! Rt. Hon. Prime Minister, please, proceed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Mr. Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, let me say this: It is on record when we were debating in this House to introduce a Bill to establish an independent tribunal to try the perpetrators of post-election violence, I spoke stood before this House and said that we should set a local tribunal and I voted for it. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Members of the House who are gallivanting the country running around saying it is hon. Raila who is taking people to Hague, hon. Issack Ruto coined and said: “Do no be vague, say Hague”. (Mr. Ruto stood up in his place) The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Order, the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister, I would want to take the point of order by hon. George Nyamweya! Mr. G. Nyamweya: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. This is the most weighty matter that this country can face. When the country was being asked: Do you accept the new Constitution as drafted or not? We were given a straight choice: “Yes” or “No.” Then, it ought to have said that if you vote “no”, it means you have no Constitution, you are not a Kenyan and you could not enjoy the benefits of that Constitution. Therefore, is it in order for the Prime Minister to stand here and tell the country that those who exercised their democratic right, who did not agree with the Constitution as drafted cannot enjoy the benefits of that Constitution, cannot have the protection of that Constitution. Is that what we are being asked to believe and understand from him? Mr. Speaker, Sir, is it in order for him, not to be guided by the oath he took, the oath all of us took to defend and protect this Constitution? Whether you voted “yes” or “no”, you are now bound by that Constitution. It is our Constitution now. Surely, it cannot be right for--- Mr. Speaker: Very well! Your point is made hon. George Nyamweya. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister, do you want to respond to that point of order? (Mr. ole Ntimama stood up in his place) Order, hon. Ole Ntimama! I have seen you. But let the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister responds to that point of order first. 28 Wednesday, 15th, February, 2012(P) The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have said very clearly that every Kenyan whether they voted “yes” or “no” are protected by the Constitution. I believe on the dictum that I may not agree with you have to say, but I shall defend unto death the right to say it. That is the reason why we tolerated everybody. The “no camp” was given full protection during the campaign. They had the full force of the law behind them when they were campaigning. They were gentlemen and gentle ladies, after they were defeated, they conceded defeat. So, they are Kenyans. Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is politics. As some would go and say that they are united in one thing that one person will not be the President of this country. That person has also the right to say do not trust the people who opposed the same Constitution because they will not implement it. Mr. Speaker, Sir, all I want to say is that let preach and drink what we say. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Chepalungu coined the phrase here: “Do not be vague, say Hague” Mr. Ruto: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Is the hon. Prime Minister in order to use his time to spread propaganda? I would like him to substantiate and prove by producing the HANSARD Report in which I coined such a statement. It is clear that before the House at that time was the choice whether to establish a local tribunal or not. It was not a choice between a local tribunal and The Hague. This is misinformation. It is the same misinformation that he would like to use his time to spread. He has just mentioned that he was in Switzerland attending a meeting of Heads of State and Governments. What was he doing in Switzerland, and yet he is not even a Head of State neither is he a President? Was he not simply wasting public funds? (Several hon. Members stood up in their places) Order, hon. Members! Order, hon. Wavinya Ndeti! Rt. Hon. Prime Minister, you may respond to the first part of the point of order by the hon. Ruto. The second part breaches the rule of relevance. The Prime Minister (Mr. Ruto): Mr. Speaker, Sir, the first point was about “do not be vague, say Hague”. That did not go on the HANSARD. It was sung when the HANSARD was off, when there was a division! (Laughter) It did not go on record. It was clear, in fact, it was inferred in the Waki Report--- Mr. Ruto: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Mr. Speaker: What is Member for Chepalungu? Please, it must be within the Standing Orders. Mr. Ruto: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will not digress. Now that the Prime Minister has conceded that it was not in the HANSARD and that it was never said here, could he then withdraw and apologise for bring matters that are outside the House which he cannot substantiate? Mr. Speaker: Order! I did not hear the Prime Minister say that you said on record. If the Prime Minister said so, then perhaps, I want to be informed. Did you say, he said it on record? 29 Wednesday, 15th, February, 2012(P) The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): No, Mr. Speaker, Sir. I only said that he coined a phrase which was being sung during the time when the division was ringing. Mr. Speaker: If that is what the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister said then it is a matter of public not rarity because the Press has also reported quoting the hon. Member. So, if he is referring to Press, that would be different. It is not even the concern of Mr. Speaker, what is reported in the Press I cannot vouch to its accuracy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Mr. Speaker, Sir, finally, it was actually inferred in the Waki Report that we did not set up a local tribunal, then the matter would go the Hague. That is the reason why he prepared an envelope which was sealed and handed over to Kofi Annan, not President Kibaki or Raila Odinga; that if the Government does not set a independent tribal to investigate and try the perpetrators of post-election violence then the envelope should be handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC). So, it is not Raila Odinga who took the envelop to ICC. It was this House at the instigation of the people who are known who took Kenyans to be tried at the ICC. We said we did not want Kenyans to be tried outside this country. We said that we want Kenyans to be tried here so that if they are found guilty we can forgive them, and say let us forgive, heal the wounds the way they did in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, Sir, so let no falsehoods be told about an innocent member of this House by those people who are seeking sympathy. We are praying, but nobody has gone in the public to pray for the victims of the post-election violence, the people who died. Mr. Samoei: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Mr. Speaker: What is it Member for Eldoret North? Mr. Samoei: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Is the Prime Minister in order to continue on a charade on matters that he has not been asked by anybody and to speak to the matters he has mentioned? While it is true that the local tribunal was brought to this House, it is the manner in which the local tribunal had been set up at that time. There was to be a court in Eldoret, Kisumu, Kericho and Nakuru, yet violence was in the whole country. Those were the matters that were prosecuted at that point in time. Mr. Speaker, Sir, a constitutional Bill that was brought to this House. The Prime Minister is on record, as late as today, castigating people who have prayed for the people who have been taken to the Hague. Who has stopped the Prime Minister from praying for other people? If he does not want to engage in the prayers he should just keep his peace instead of trying to castigate those people who are engaged in prayers for others; if he feels very passionate about praying for other people, nobody has stopped him from going ahead. So, I think the Prime Minister should be stopped from engaging this House in unnecessary charade of issues. In any case, let me speak to the Prime Minister directly. The Secretary General of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) wrote to the United Nations--- It is on record that the ODM said that they wanted those who had been taken to the Hague to be tried there, and that there was no court in Kenya that could try us. That letter is a matter of public record. Was that letter issued with the permission of the Prime Minister? Was it issued by the Secretary General with the permission of the Prime Minister, or with his knowledge or on his instructions? Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. Members! This matter really must come to an end. Hon. Samoei, you have made your point. I have allowed you latitude because I wanted you to similarly have an opportunity to ventilate. Right hon. Prime Minister, as you 30 Wednesday, 15th, February, 2012(P) respond to that point of order, can you please restrict yourself to what you must say? We must conclude this matter. The Minister of State for National Heritage and Culture (Mr. ole Ntimama): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Mr. Speaker: Order! You come from the Cabinet where the Prime Minister belongs! Do you want a point of order to correct something that the Right hon. Prime Minister has said? The Minister of State for National Heritage and Culture (Mr. ole Ntimama): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to give him some piece of information although I am in the Cabinet! Mr. Speaker: Order! Information to whom, Mr. ole Ntimama? The Minister of State for National Heritage and Culture (Mr. ole Ntimama): Mr. Speaker, Sir, to the Prime Minister himself! Mr. Speaker: To the Prime Minister? The Minister of State for National Heritage and Culture (Mr. ole Ntimama): Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir! Mr. Speaker: Order! The Right honourable Prime Minister, do you want information from honourable ole Ntimama? The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir! (Applause) Mr. Speaker: Very well! The Minister of State for National Heritage and Culture (Mr. ole Ntimama): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I just wanted to give the hon. Prime Minister some information. (Applause) Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. Ntimama! Mr. ole Ntimama, I have intimated earlier on as I spoke to hon. Samoei, hon. Ruto and even the Right hon. Prime Minister that when you catch the Speaker’s eye to contribute to any matter before the House, you must live within the ambit of the Standing Orders; I am afraid that although you caught the Speaker’s eye to give information to the Right hon. Prime Minister, you have not done so. Instead you have spoken to hon. Samoei. I rule that out of order and I direct that, that information, for whatever it is worth, be expunged in its entirety from the records of the House this afternoon. (The information given to the Prime Minister by Mr. ole Ntimama was expunged from the records of the House as ordered by Mr. speaker) Right hon. Prime Minister, give a response only to the extent that you must. The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Mr. Speaker, Sir, hon. Member has alleged that the reason why they disagreed with the Bill was because it categorized the country and came up with courts in a specific parts of the country. That was one Bill, but there was another Bill which was brought later by hon. Mutula Kilonzo, which has removed all those provisions. That Bill was also rejected. It also did not come to the Floor of the 31 Wednesday, 15th, February, 2012(P) House because it was rejected in the Cabinet and the hon. Member was also in the Cabinet, and led the forces against it. Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Mr. Speaker: Order, Dr. Khalwale! Right hon. Prime Minister, is that really helpful to the House? The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): No, Mr. Speaker, Sir. I am giving him information. Mr. Speaker: Why do you not restrict yourself to what you must do? The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Hon. Gitobu Imanyara brought a Bill before this House to set up a tribunal. That was also rejected. Mr. Speaker: Order, Right hon. Prime Minister! That is not accurate. The Bill by hon. Imanyara is still pending before this House, and it is not rejected. Be accurate, Right hon. Prime Minister? The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir, for jogging my memory. Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Mr. Speaker: Order, Dr. Khalwale! We really must conclude this matter. The Prime Minister (Mr. Raila): Mr. Speaker, Sir, it did not see the light of the day for reasons which are obvious. So, hon. Samoei is a good friend of mine, and I would be the last person to wish him harm. I talked to him because he was away when we resolved that we were going to support the local tribunal. When he arrived he addressed a Press conference at the airport and said he was against it, because he thought it would target just the small fish, and not the big fish who could not be tried here. He said we we could only get justice at the Hague. That was then. He found out much later that this had happened. All that I am saying is that this country needs reconciliation. This country has gone through trying times, but not worse than what South Africa went through. The South Africans had a bigger and wider vision and they were able to resolve their internal differences in a much more civilized manner, and they reconciled their society. We can also do it in this country, but we cannot do it when we try to condemn the innocent. So, let us face the facts. Let us trace our steps backwards and find out how we can find a solution that will ensure that this country remains united and peaceful, so that it is able to achieve what our founding wanted, which is contained in the Kenyan dream. I thank you. Mr. Speaker: Very well. Order, hon. Members! That then brings us to almost the end of statements.
|
|
|
Post by Mobimba on Feb 16, 2012 19:41:24 GMT 3
Wow. Anyone who ever hoped for live presidential candidates debates must forever forget that dream. Clearly, Ruto will never again engage Raila in a public face to face spat. Here, Ruto has been undressed, his arms bound to his back and thereafter hung by his feet… and still there was nothing to see.
It would do ODM good to continue exposing these characters.
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Feb 16, 2012 19:55:41 GMT 3
Nowayhaha,
Thank you for those excerpts, it clearly shows how desperately the PM was haplessly moving from one issue to another in an effort to run away from the issues of the day. That is what happens when one thrives on lies. The PM has over the years gotten away with propoganda and lies but now he has people who can stand to him and ask him to account for his utterances and actions. As Titchaz will tell you, ^^ akierevuka mwerevu yumashakani, that is why the PM was behaving like a deer in flood lights. As AO puts it, this is a good debate to have, and it should continue and let Kenyans be the judge. Welcome MwalimumuMkuu, The below extract really sums it up - True definition of "Kigeugeu" Queries now come up why the PM "supported " the local tribunal ? Was he in the WAKI List ? and when he realized Ocampo didnt mention him as Ocampo 6 Jumped ship for political mileage. As Adongo says people can "read btwn the lines " unfortunately Raila himself cant see the double standards "The Eldoret North MP, William Ruto, however, disputed that Mr Odinga supported the formation of a local tribunal, and challenged him to state whether a letter allegedly authored by ODM Secretary General Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o to the ICC calling for the prosecution of the ICC suspects had blessings."
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Feb 16, 2012 20:30:01 GMT 3
Nowayhaha,
Thank you for those excerpts, it clearly shows how desperately the PM was haplessly moving from one issue to another in an effort to run away from the issues of the day. That is what happens when one thrives on lies. The PM has over the years gotten away with propoganda and lies but now he has people who can stand to him and ask him to account for his utterances and actions. As Titchaz will tell you, ^^ akierevuka mwerevu yumashakani, that is why the PM was behaving like a deer in flood lights. As AO puts it, this is a good debate to have, and it should continue and let Kenyans be the judge. Welcome MwalimumuMkuu, The below extract really sums it up - True definition of "Kigeugeu" Queries now come up why the PM "supported " the local tribunal ? Was he in the WAKI List ? and when he realized Ocampo didnt mention him as Ocampo 6 Jumped ship for political mileage. As Adongo says people can "read btwn the lines " unfortunately Raila himself cant see the double standards "The Eldoret North MP, William Ruto, however, disputed that Mr Odinga supported the formation of a local tribunal, and challenged him to state whether a letter allegedly authored by ODM Secretary General Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o to the ICC calling for the prosecution of the ICC suspects had blessings." Nowayaha,The reason I say this debate is long overdue is because Kenyans are not fools. We know lies are being peddled left, right and centre and when we let the liars go scott free we encourage their lies. Take the stupid lie that Ayang' Nyong'o wrote a letter to the ICC to have the suspected mass murderers locked up. It is utter nonsense and Ruto knows it is a blantant lie. First of all the ICC does not base their actions on letters written by anybody to the ICC. We have seen the ICC process in action. ICC judges bases their verdicts on evidence presented to them in broad day light. They do not act on some letters written by politicians. ICC takes evidence from the prosecutor and the victims reps not from politicians. That is just a simple straight forward fact. What we know is that some political crooks working for the same Ruto and Uhuru and probably with the NSIS came up with a phony framed "letter" where they couldn't even spell Ayang's name correctly as if Ayang' does not know his own name. We saw that phony piece of garbage being peddled as evidence that ODM were trying to get the suspects locked up. It was posted here in Jukwaa by those who engage in that business. It was exactly the same phony nonsense we saw when an elleged M.O.U was being peddled by shaddy characters claiming Raila has signed an agreement with Kenyan Muslims to bring Sharia Law in Kenya. That too was peddled here in Jukwaa. We know the gangsters who engage in these treacherous activities. Eugene Wamalwa, the sad fool being used ruthlessly by these characters, was the one given the task of reading the fake letter from Ayang' at one of the rallies for the accused killers. He (Eugene) has actually faced accusations of spreading hate by reading that fake letter. When Ruto in parliament cites such phony rubbish as evidence with the full knowledge that he (Ruto) is lying, what credibility does he have left? When did Ayang' Nyong'o appear before the ICC to give evidence against those indicted for crimes against humanity in Kenya? He did not. The lies about Nyong'o is part of the overall axis of falsehood to allege that the ICC has its own secret plan going on behind the scenes involving ODM, Obama and Ocampo and what Kenyans see in public is not the real case. That is despicable nonsense and has to be exposed for what it is. They are lies of the desperate for the desperate and by the desperate. As the ICC cases proceeds and they will for years Kenyans and even the indicted individuals have to face the truth and it is ugly. We listened in horror as the charges and evidence against the indicted individuals were read. These are not jokes. I was horrified to hear the details for example on the case against Uhuru Kenyatta. It was obvious some people wanted to kill a lot of people and destroy the country with reckless abandon. Those facts are going to come out in minute details and they are harsh and bitter to Kenyans who faced the machettes and the rapes. Let's see how the liars will tell Kenyans it is just our fantasy or bad movies when we come face to face with the macabre details of the crimes that were committed. In the meantime Kenyans should not be treated as idiots with endless lies and propaganda from people who must face trial at The Hague. They are facing serious criminal charges and their attempts to manipulate those charges into political charges must be confronted with full force because it is through such incitement that our country can easily find its way right back into the mayhem as specific individuals and communities are blamed for crimes committed by those indicted. If you are innocent go to trial and fight your case. Why invent lies to cover up for your sins?
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Feb 17, 2012 11:24:58 GMT 3
Adongo here is a clip which aired yesterday on Nation TV
Truths,half-truths and falsehoods on ICC
|
|
|
Post by mangai on Feb 17, 2012 11:51:13 GMT 3
Adongo here is a clip which aired yesterday on Nation TV Truths,half-truths and falsehoods on ICC Facts cant be twisted and applied selectively. In Jan 2008, ODM called for ICC intervention because of the killings by the police that were allegedly targeted at ODM supporters. Somebody had to stop the government from killing its own people. The issue of ICC proper came months later on the recommendations of the Waki Commission, that if Kenya failed to set up a commission to try post election violence suspects, then ICC was to take over. It was at that time that Raila advocated for a local tribunal while Ruto and allies were for the Hague. That is not half truth or a lie, it is a fact. It is true ODM wrote to UN security council urging it to throw out the referral request that had been tabled by Kenya. No local mechanism had been put in place to try the suspects either. The horse had already bolted.
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Feb 17, 2012 12:02:19 GMT 3
Adongo here is a clip which aired yesterday on Nation TV Truths,half-truths and falsehoods on ICC Facts cant be twisted and applied selectively. In Jan 2008, ODM called for ICC intervention because of the killings by the police that were allegedly targeted at ODM supporters. Somebody had to stop the government from killing its own people. The issue of ICC proper came months later on the recommendations of the Waki Commission, that if Kenya failed to set up a commission to try post election violence suspects, then ICC was to take over. It was at that time that Raila advocated for a local tribunal while Ruto and allies were for the Hague. That is not half truth or a lie, it is a fact. It is true ODM wrote to UN security council urging it to throw out the referral request that had been tabled by Kenya. No local mechanism had been put in place to try the suspects either. The horse had already bolted. good call mangai some of these details somehow fade because people decide to move on, but every step of the way, there were some strong decisions made based on events as they unfolded. there were many occasions as Raila and ODM leadership made concessions, to accommodate peace, decisions that at the time were unpopular but necessary those were very trying moments in 2007/2008 and decisions had to be made to preserve life of every kenyan. otherwise it would have been very ugly later we came to learn that there were others who had planned violence all along. and these people IMHO are now at the hague
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Feb 17, 2012 13:51:58 GMT 3
Facts cant be twisted and applied selectively. In Jan 2008, ODM called for ICC intervention because of the killings by the police that were allegedly targeted at ODM supporters. Somebody had to stop the government from killing its own people. This is incorrect. ODM actually filed suit. That is, they wanted an investigation and prosecution, by the ICC, against those who had committed murder while in the government's control. Those prosecutions were not going to take place in Kenya.
The issue of ICC proper came months later on the recommendations of the Waki Commission, that if Kenya failed to set up a commission to try post election violence suspects, then ICC was to take over. It was at that time that Raila advocated for a local tribunal while Ruto and allies were for the Hague. Again, this is false. As early as i/2008, it was clear that the ICC was to be involved in some way. When the Waki report was published, and it became clear that there was very good evidence of ODM's planning and participation in crimes against humanity, ODM released a statement rejecting the Waki report and its recommendations in totalAbabu Namwamba, in his capacity as the party's spokesman on the occasion, was very clear to stress this pointand promising that it would not allow any of its members to travel outside the country for the purposes of trail. The statement was released after a full meeting of the parliamentary party; it reflected, therefore, the party's will. Thereafter, the party embarked on a nationwide campaign to promote amnesty; it signed a secret deal to indemnify perpetrators of PEV; and it pushed for cases of PEV to be relegated, if they were to be tried at all, to the TJRC. The party went from demanding prosecutions in i/2008, to rejecting any and all prosecutions less than seven months later. One of my favourite episodes from this period is Salim Lone threatening renewed violence if any ODMers were convicted and not immediately pardoned.
|
|
|
Post by mangai on Feb 17, 2012 14:18:10 GMT 3
Facts cant be twisted and applied selectively. In Jan 2008, ODM called for ICC intervention because of the killings by the police that were allegedly targeted at ODM supporters. Somebody had to stop the government from killing its own people. This is incorrect. ODM actually filed suit. That is, they wanted an investigation and prosecution, by the ICC, against those who had committed murder while in the government's control. Those prosecutions were not going to take place in Kenya.
The issue of ICC proper came months later on the recommendations of the Waki Commission, that if Kenya failed to set up a commission to try post election violence suspects, then ICC was to take over. It was at that time that Raila advocated for a local tribunal while Ruto and allies were for the Hague. Again, this is false. As early as i/2008, it was clear that the ICC was to be involved in some way. When the Waki report was published, and it became clear that there was very good evidence of ODM's planning and participation in crimes against humanity, ODM released a statement rejecting the Waki report and its recommendations in totalAbabu Namwamba, in his capacity as the party's spokesman on the occasion, was very clear to stress this pointand promising that it would not allow any of its members to travel outside the country for the purposes of trail. The statement was released after a full meeting of the parliamentary party; it reflected, therefore, the party's will. Thereafter, the party embarked on a nationwide campaign to promote amnesty; it signed a secret deal to indemnify perpetrators of PEV; and it pushed for cases of PEV to be relegated, if they were to be tried at all, to the TJRC. The party went from demanding prosecutions in i/2008, to rejecting any and all prosecutions less than seven months later. One of my favourite episodes from this period is Salim Lone threatening renewed violence if any ODMers were convicted and not immediately pardoned. Danielwaweru, I was responding directly to the clip posted by nowayhaha. Care to listen and respond to the clip? No where in that BBC report you quote does it say that ODM filed a suit. In fact the report goes further to say.............."A spokeswoman for the ICC, based in The Hague, said she could not comment on whether the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) had filed a complaint over the government's handling of the protests". Further, I still cant understand what is incorrect in my statement. After the Waki Report had been adopted in parliament without any amendments, what was ODM supposed to do? They had to support the recommendations which included setting up the local tribunal. Please again don't distort facts. Nowhere in the Waki Report does it say ODM as a party planned the chaos, but rather some individuals within ODM. However, I found the following an interesting read from that BBC report, .......Government spokesman Alfred Mutua, however, told the AFP news agency that the authorities were planning to file a counter-suit. "The government is aware that some leaders of ODM planned and executed a mass genocide that we saw in the Rift Valley of this country." Doesn't it give you a strong hint on who took Ruto to ICC?
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Feb 17, 2012 15:23:54 GMT 3
No where in that BBC report you quote does it say that ODM filed a suit. In fact the report goes further to say.............."A spokeswoman for the ICC, based in The Hague, said she could not comment on whether the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) had filed a complaint over the government's handling of the protests". Further, I still cant understand what is incorrect in my statement. ODM did not just call for ICC intervention. The party initiated legal proceedings against GoKby passing a complaint to the Prosecutoron the grounds that GoK was involved in crimes that fell within the remit of the ICC. Those proceedings would have taken time to come to fruition, and were quite unlikely immediately to stop police violence. This is why it is not true to say that ODM sought ICC intervention to stop police killings. It did not seek intervention, but rather took legal action, and the remedies it sought weren't going to stop police violence. (You can spot the relevant difference by reading the Wikileaks cable which records the American response to ODM's request for help.)
That the ICC didn't comment on the complaint says nothing whatever about the existence of the complaint. In any case, Prof. Anyang' Nyong'o and others were perfectly happy to confirm that the party had filed it.
However, I should concede your point re the BBC report. Some of the other reports at the time said that ODM had filed suit, but the BBC doesn't make that claim.
After the Waki Report had been adopted in parliament without any amendments, what was ODM supposed to do? They had to support the recommendations which included setting up the local tribunal. Please again don't distort facts. Nowhere in the Waki Report does it say ODM as a party planned the chaos, but rather some individuals within ODM. ODM could have accepted the report with reservations, as PNU did. Or it could have sought, in parliament, to have the report overturned, or its provisions softened. Instead, the party came out, and explicitly rejected the Waki report in total, promised not to give up any of its members if they were indicted, opposed prosecutions, and sought amnesty for the perpetrators. It also repeatedly promised violence, both at the time, and well after the factlong after the report had been adopted, ODMers such as Salim Lone were promising violence if the report was implemented.
If a party defends the perpetrators and demands amnesty for them, while promising not to give them up to a competent courtall while promising violencethen we can expect that the party is responsible for the violence. In any case, the Waki report repeatedly mentions planning, funding and incitement of the violence in various places by ODM: for just one example, they have witnesses to the meeting of viii/2007 at which Raila, Balala and Ruto spoke, and at which residents of the Rift Valley were advised to remove the spots from their midst. But you didn't need this, because in ii/2008, Balala was going round telling journalists that if negotiations did not go the party's way, the party would complete the ethnic cleansing.
However, I found the following an interesting read from that BBC report, .......Government spokesman Alfred Mutua, however, told the AFP news agency that the authorities were planning to file a counter-suit. "The government is aware that some leaders of ODM planned and executed a mass genocide that we saw in the Rift Valley of this country." Doesn't it give you a strong hint on who took Ruto to ICC? It's quite possible that the government's own evidence was used by the Prosecutor.
|
|
|
Post by nalinali on Feb 17, 2012 16:00:55 GMT 3
Why do folks who seem to support Uhuruto sound so stupid? And why, pray, should such low levels of discourse be sustained on this forum, considering that the clamor for reforms in Kenya was given impetus by the need to wean such narrow and stupid discourse from the national determination. OO, Isn't there away Nowayhaha, Danielwaweru, mwalimumkuu can be banished from this forum for persistently purveying the very values we want done away with, namely lies?
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Feb 17, 2012 16:57:11 GMT 3
Why do folks who seem to support Uhuruto sound so stupid? And why, pray, should such low levels of discourse be sustained on this forum, considering that the clamor for reforms in Kenya was given impetus by the need to wean such narrow and stupid discourse from the national determination. OO, Isn't there away Nowayhaha, Danielwaweru, mwalimumkuu can be banished from this forum for persistently purveying the very values we want done away with, namely lies? I can't speak for the restall of whom are, of course, well able to defend themselvesbut it would be nice if you could point to the specific claims, at least in my case, which you feel are lies. Since the matter is controversial, and you've made the accusation, you might want to begin by specifying what, exactly, counts as lyingthe better to ensure that we're all on the same page when the accusations are launched.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 17, 2012 17:02:33 GMT 3
Why do folks who seem to support Uhuruto sound so stupid? And why, pray, should such low levels of discourse be sustained on this forum, considering that the clamor for reforms in Kenya was given impetus by the need to wean such narrow and stupid discourse from the national determination. OO, Isn't there away Nowayhaha, Danielwaweru, mwalimumkuu can be banished from this forum for persistently purveying the very values we want done away with, namely lies? Heheheheeeeee!!! My friend, am told Muthama is out of a job, ask them to give you the whip.
|
|
|
Post by okolowaka on Feb 17, 2012 17:09:03 GMT 3
...I find it hard to comprehend why some people here still see that it is wrong for ODM to want the ICC to investigate and prefer charges on those who planned and carried out these serious crimes, yet we still have zero investigations, zero arrest, and zero prosecutions on any crime touching on the PEV.
Dear Ruto and Uhuru sympathizers of JUKWAA,
What to do want ODM to do...? Do you want ODM to weep at public prayer meetings and to seek forgiveness from Ruto and Uhuru...?
JUKWAA had some threads during and after the PEV that had horrific images of victims posted here by members like Dyeings, Tichaz, and they were prevailed upon by other members to stop posting such horrific pictures.
We all felt the pain, we all felt helpless as we saw many pictures of crimes in progress posted daily as they were captured. So helpless because those we needed to turn to for managing our country and protecting our lives and property were the ones committing these crimes, directly, by commission and by omission.
Stop for once and think about the victims...think about the people burned alive in Eldoret and Naivasha, hundreds hacked to death by criminals, hundreds shot to death by Kenya Police, hundreds maimed by pangas and other crude weapons, thousands of IDPs still languishing in tents....
For once think about how you would feel if you and members of your family were burned alive, hacked to death, stoned to death, physically maimed...if your home, farm, or business was looted and burned down, and you are now living in a polythene tent...
Think again....
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Feb 17, 2012 17:26:01 GMT 3
mangai & others,
The ICC process is no longer a myth or some hypothetical process. We don't need old BBC reports to tell us what the ICC process is or will be or even how we ended up with the perpetrators at the The Hague. Kenyans have seen the process live in their own TVs. The origins of the process is not that had to follow but very hard to invent based on fiction and personal biases and political fantasy.
President Kibaki and Raila as the PM tried to broker a local process under the auspices of the STK. This was after parliament itself unanimously approved the Waki Commission Report which among other things recommended that Kenya forms a Special Tribunal of Kenya and if it fails to do so then the PEV case be handed to the ICC. Those are basic facts.
Parliament rejected the STK inititaive and Kofi Annan handed the dreaded envelope to Ocampo the ICC prosecutor. Even then Kofi Annan and others still hoped and rooted for a local process. The M.Ps once again acting to protect the perpetrators who were themselves calling the shots once again rejected attempts by Mutula Kilonzo to institute an STK or any type of a local process to deal with the PEV.
In July 2009 Amos Wako, the A.G, Mutula Kilonzo, the minister of justice and constitutional affairs, James Orengo, lands minister, Miguna Miguna then an advisor to the PM met with Ocampo to strike an agreement regarding the PEV. They signed a deal that gave Kenya 9 months to commence the process of investigations and put in place a local process to deal with the PEV, failure of which the ICC takes over the process. Foolishly enough the perpetrators still blocked any attempts at a local process making one excuse after another. When the time was up, Ocampo took the cases and the rest is history.
It beats me why some people are so desperate to re-invent the process and insert ODM here and there. Kenyans know what has happened and we saw what happened in court. We heard the charges. We listened to the evidence. Kenyans followed the entire ICC hearing and they did not see Ayang' Nyong'o or Raila Odinga providing evidence against the people now indicted and charged with committing crimes against humanity in Kenya.
Those who have been indicted will have their day in court. They have tried the ODM card in court and the judges are not interested. They are going by the evidence provided to them. So those who want to play cheap politics with the ICC process are free to do so but they are not doing the indicted folks any favours. They have been charged with being responsible for mass murder, rapes and displacement of Kenyans. That is what they have to answer to. They have not been charged with being political rivals of ODM. How they wish the later was the case. It is what it is. There is really no wiggle room hard as some may try.
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Feb 17, 2012 17:42:08 GMT 3
And here we have the bogus NCIC claiming they will take action against hate speech by Uhuru and Ruto with their clumsy mob of speakers. Tell that to the birds. The hate mongers have been doing the same for years. Where has the NCIC been. If there is any action to be taken against using the ICC charges for incitement it wil have to come from the ICC itself and it may be time for the prosecutor and the victims reps to take note of what is going on including the NCIC investigations. Apparently even Ocampo has become a k.ihii according to speakers in Uhuru's rallies. They must have sent mmm inspectors there already. I don't know what they will do with Judge Trendifilova and her fellow female judge. Check if they have been FGMed or otherwise declare them tribal allies of Raila and the Luos ready to punish Uhuru and Ruto for their tribes? I have no idea. Here we go with the hate speech story. www.nation.co.ke/-/1148/1148/-/xvvu7uz/-/index.html
|
|
|
Post by mzee on Feb 17, 2012 17:45:14 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by job on Feb 17, 2012 17:49:41 GMT 3
Adongo et al.,
Yup! There are those bent on futile and desperate attempts at PEV revisionism. Give them the contempt card. Their biased and incredibly stretched tales won't wash in this Internet era. Even JUKWAA archives is replete with chronicles of the evolution of not just PEV, but the entire ICC process. I remember the thread covering Mutula Kilonzo's trip to the Hague, where the mutual agreement to trigger investigations in 9 months was signed. I recall Mutula warning these chaps to be prepared to board planes in Winter. The moment party names become the basis for arguments, the topic is reduced to petty and partisan politics as usual. ICC isn't charging any party - it's all about individuals bearing greatest responsibility - period!
Enough of the diversion! Back to this thread's topic. From the question-and-answer discourse between William Ruto and the Prime Minister, the most significant thing had to do with entrustment of leaders with the task of fully implementing the Constitution. Whereas it’s not this government’s policy, the PM made it clear the public (voters) understood the dangers of entrusting the implementation of the Constitution to its very opponents.
Whereas anyone can guess whether Kenya’s biggest land-holder Uhuru Kenyatta would either subvert or fully implement land reforms or devolution guaranteed by the Constitution, there is another matter. It’s got to do with our new Katiba’s mandate for the respect of our obligations to International Statues and Treaties that we ourselves ratified through our representatives in Parliament. This is a Constitution which makes those International Statutes part of it.
Therefore the Rome Statutes which created the ICC (Hague) is/are now fully entrenched into our Katiba. Fully Implementing the Constitution will mean executing obligations emanating from ICC decisions, for instance asset freezes, arrests and extradition obligations etc. In this regard, every Tom, Dick and Harry can guess what could happen, should say Uhuru or Ruto become President. The subversion of the Constitution would become automatic, and Kenya would automatically become another pariah State like al Bashir’s Sudan.
There may be no more emergency IMF loans to fill budget deficits and hire teachers. No more World Bank funds to fill in shortages in the free primary education (FPE) program. No more World Bank loans to fund AIDS, TB and Malaria treatment or Kazi Kwa Vijana programs. All we may have is an International pariah and fugitive President - Uhuru or Ruto - to look up to; akin to the dying days of the Moi era.[/b]
The flocking of who-is-who’s in the drug underworld from all parties (notably Narc-K and ODM) towards the ICC duo speaks volumes. Protection will be guaranteed in exchange of bankrolling of political campaigns. Amidst Western freeze on aid and donor funds, other sources of funds for such regimes would be Somalia (from Piracy and clan war-lords).
The Kenyan business class (comprising many Britons) has started fretting over such possibility of a blackout from donors and financial institutions in the West; and an upsurge of black-market mercantilism from drug Kingpins and pirates. The possibility of a future rogue Kenyan President looking towards Somalia’s pirates and clan lords for cash is also worrying the West.
Grapevine has it that British foreign Secretary, William Hague, stressed upon Mutula Kilonzo’s pet subject of vetting Presidential candidates under Kenya Constitution’s Chapter 6 (on Integrity) to Mwai Kibaki at State House on February 3rd. Needless to state, increasingly nervous Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto were terribly angered. The West is already fearing possibility of a rogue (fugitive) Kenyan Presidency, jeopardizing the entire Western-led counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operation in Somalia.
Therefore, when the PM tied Ruto’s Katiba implementation question to ICC, it touched a raw nerve fibre within Ruto’s cranium. The public was getting a chance to see the institution of the ICC as part of our Katiba. They were seeing possibility of Kenya’s future international isolation over the ICC issue should ICC fugitives become President &/or Deputy President. For that reason, an angry and emotional Ruto complained to the Speaker that the PM was veering off question.
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Feb 19, 2012 12:54:35 GMT 3
Even those who opposed constitution can lead There is a theory being propagated by certain politicians that those who voted ‘No’ in the constitutional referendum in 2010 cannot be trusted to manage the implementation of the new laws and, therefore, should not be elected to a leadership position. They argue that those who did not support the then proposed Constitution are ineligible because, by voting against it, they confirmed they had no confidence in the same and, as such, are unfit to lead under the new dispensation. Given a chance, the proponents of this unfortunate theory would ban all those who voted ‘No’ from participating in the coming elections. Obviously, such thinking belongs to a category of leaders who, in victory, would alienate, marginalise and persecute those who did not vote for or support them. This is a demonstration that an exercise of a simple democratic right to choose can, thus, land people in serious trouble with their leaders. For those who may not be aware, I was among the almost three million Kenyans who voted ‘No’ at the referendum and have no regrets whatsoever. The contest was between those in the Red camp who proposed that Kenyans “reject, amend then pass” the new laws while the Greens proposed that we “pass then amend later”. There was consensus that there were contentious issues in the document that needed to be addressed and the only difference was that the Reds wanted the issues dealt with before, while the Greens insisted the issues could be handled after the passage of the new laws. Share This Story 12Share The Greens won and, as democrats, we conceded defeat and embraced the new set of laws as any self-respecting Kenyan would do. Together Kenyans started the implementation process while hoping that the contentious issues would be sorted out in due course. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to be suffering from the hangover of the referendum contest and want to perpetuate it in an attempt to cloud the minds of Kenyans about the choice of leaders needed to take this great nation to the next level of development. These people need to be reminded of the cardinal principle of freedom of choice enshrined in our Constitution and embedded firmly in the holy books. It was as constitutional to vote ‘Yes’ as it was to vote ‘No’. In any case, the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ were choices given and guaranteed by the constitutional review framework as legitimate options carrying no punitive consequences when exercised. To now turn around and attempt to mete out some punishment by trying to disqualify others from leadership on this account speaks volumes of the democratic credentials and tolerance for alternative views of the proponents. To try to assign status to Kenyans on the basis of how they voted is as myopic as it is simplistic and tyrannical Those championing this unfortunate crusade should be told in no uncertain terms that the referendum is over and Kenya has a new Constitution for all irrespective of how they voted at the referendum. Whereas such people voted for the Constitution, they tend to overlook some of its salient points such as the robust Bill of Rights, including freedom of conscience, belief and expression, as well as of political choice. It is a pity that people with this attitude believe that they are entitled to lead and have arrogated themselves a pedestal from which they dictate to Kenyans who and who not to elect. The new contest in town is the contest for the leadership of Kenya. At the elections, Kenyans will be looking for men and women who will match what they say with what they do. People with demonstrated performance track records are needed to take charge of their affairs. This contest is going to be about ideas, programmes, and policies that will create new opportunities for millions of young people who have no jobs, no access to credit and no hope; eliminate the shame of millions who suffer and even die of hunger, and grow the economy by double digits so as to lift millions of people out of poverty. There is no room for cheap talk about how individuals voted in the referendum. The leadership of Kenya is serious business engaging serious minds on matters ideas. Wake up and smell the coffee. Welcome to the new Kenya. The writer is the Member of Parliament for Eldoret North. www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Even+those+who+opposed+constitution+can+lead+/-/440808/1330416/-/item/1/-/156sd6rz/-/index.html
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 19, 2012 14:02:05 GMT 3
Even those who opposed constitution can lead There is a theory being propagated by certain politicians that those who voted ‘No’ in the constitutional referendum in 2010 cannot be trusted to manage the implementation of the new laws and, therefore, should not be elected to a leadership position. They argue that those who did not support the then proposed Constitution are ineligible because, by voting against it, they confirmed they had no confidence in the same and, as such, are unfit to lead under the new dispensation. Given a chance, the proponents of this unfortunate theory would ban all those who voted ‘No’ from participating in the coming elections. Obviously, such thinking belongs to a category of leaders who, in victory, would alienate, marginalise and persecute those who did not vote for or support them.This is a demonstration that an exercise of a simple democratic right to choose can, thus, land people in serious trouble with their leaders. For those who may not be aware, I was among the almost three million Kenyans who voted ‘No’ at the referendum and have no regrets whatsoever. The contest was between those in the Red camp who proposed that Kenyans “reject, amend then pass” the new laws while the Greens proposed that we “pass then amend later”. There was consensus that there were contentious issues in the document that needed to be addressed and the only difference was that the Reds wanted the issues dealt with before, while the Greens insisted the issues could be handled after the passage of the new laws. Share This Story 12Share The Greens won and, as democrats, we conceded defeat and embraced the new set of laws as any self-respecting Kenyan would do. Together Kenyans started the implementation process while hoping that the contentious issues would be sorted out in due course. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to be suffering from the hangover of the referendum contest and want to perpetuate it in an attempt to cloud the minds of Kenyans about the choice of leaders needed to take this great nation to the next level of development. These people need to be reminded of the cardinal principle of freedom of choice enshrined in our Constitution and embedded firmly in the holy books. It was as constitutional to vote ‘Yes’ as it was to vote ‘No’. In any case, the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ were choices given and guaranteed by the constitutional review framework as legitimate options carrying no punitive consequences when exercised. To now turn around and attempt to mete out some punishment by trying to disqualify others from leadership on this account speaks volumes of the democratic credentials and tolerance for alternative views of the proponents. To try to assign status to Kenyans on the basis of how they voted is as myopic as it is simplistic and tyrannical Those championing this unfortunate crusade should be told in no uncertain terms that the referendum is over and Kenya has a new Constitution for all irrespective of how they voted at the referendum. Whereas such people voted for the Constitution, they tend to overlook some of its salient points such as the robust Bill of Rights, including freedom of conscience, belief and expression, as well as of political choice. It is a pity that people with this attitude believe that they are entitled to lead and have arrogated themselves a pedestal from which they dictate to Kenyans who and who not to elect. The new contest in town is the contest for the leadership of Kenya. At the elections, Kenyans will be looking for men and women who will match what they say with what they do. People with demonstrated performance track records are needed to take charge of their affairs. This contest is going to be about ideas, programmes, and policies that will create new opportunities for millions of young people who have no jobs, no access to credit and no hope; eliminate the shame of millions who suffer and even die of hunger, and grow the economy by double digits so as to lift millions of people out of poverty. There is no room for cheap talk about how individuals voted in the referendum. The leadership of Kenya is serious business engaging serious minds on matters ideas. Wake up and smell the coffee. Welcome to the new Kenya. The writer is the Member of Parliament for Eldoret North. www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Even+those+who+opposed+constitution+can+lead+/-/440808/1330416/-/item/1/-/156sd6rz/-/index.htmlSir William, You will have to eat back a lot of your words! I am ready to be counted among those who will allow even the most vile of thoughts to be expressed. Even hate speech, this is why I love the american stipulation most. If a redneck wants to preach in the open air that blacks are monkeys, he goes ahead. [But he cannot treat them as monkeys though]. You can think it, you can say it. But what I cannot stomach is befuddled thinking. You are a legislator, I am a teacher, but it is high time I took you back to my kindargarten class and whipped your butt swollen. I hope the new constitution allows this kind of child abuse. You are here the best example of a befuddled, confused mind. Everything you accuse others of, and say you abhor, you are guilty of. Ruto: You and Uhuru Kenyatta demanded of Kalonzo Musyoka that he discipline Kilonzo of the justice ministry for expressing the opinion you two are disqualified from holding high office, including the presidency! For you to accuse another of intolerance, in the light of the above, betrays a character flaw, an intellectual dishonesty, and a callous disregard for the ability of others to smoke you out. Remove the speck in your eyes before you.... Muthama too, lost his job as whip, for failing to play slave to the wishes of you and Uhuru. Could there be a better example of coercion, dictatorial tendency? Imagine how we imagine you treat MPs beholden to you, and more so if they have outstanding loans from one of UK's banks! Come on Ruto, you are just plain junk in the head becrying intolerance! Nobody in your entourage will tell you you are cutting the picture of a plane mental loco! A joke: Simplistic, tyrannical, and myopic! The same words you use on others! But a teacher like me will tell you! to help you be a better person, even a better propagandist, to serve your cause better. For this way you are dead meat. You say: Some tend to overlook salient tenets like the enshrined bill of rights... ..Waawu... And you in turn, tend to overlook a salient tenet, like the clause on intergrity! there is a powerful cartoon depicting you as handing it over to UK to use as toilet paper! how appropriate!Now, conseder you have been found red handed in possession of land grabbed from a PEV victim. That scandal, even before full investigations, is enough to raise enough doubt about your integrity, ... enough to disqualify you from your ambition in the NEW KENYA. Added to the plot case in Eldoret --which the judge threw out on a technicality, and your other controversies dating to your duo days with Jirongo, you have every reason, don't you? to ignore this integrity section. Therefore it is thinkable that should your type be president, self preservation will force him to tinker some more with the constitution, and therefore common sense makes it a safer bet not to trust a wolf with the hen! It is a logic worth consedering and responding to carefully. The new contest in town is the leadership. You are right. But there will always be a contest for leadership. Only this time, Sir William, there is a precondition: integrity is required for one, and a host of other caveats that do not augur well, if not outrule others like you. It is not a free for all! There is a standard to be met. I know this is the chief source of your bitterness. The inelligibility to run for the presidency. It is the trauma of a top athlete crippled by an accident days before the olympics!There is no room for cheap talk you say! And yet you go around the country talking cheap in the so called prayer rallies. Ever since this ICC thing you have been (..) nothing but cheap-talking. And before that, you were forever cheap with your Raila this, Raila that, and not even a single day talking economic policies, which you now correctly identify is the crucial thing in electioneering! I repeat what I told Somewhere. Stupidity is not a sin, but to make it a policy is disaster. Occasional hypocrisy can be amusing and be tolerated, permanent hypocrisy, however, reduces you to the herdsboy who cried wolf once too often. Nolonger to be taken serious. Also you remember how you stood next to Waititu saying an O can not be president! You did not stop him, nor condemn him, nor later dissociate yourself from his more than cheap talk. Ala? Wapi kichwa yako bwana? It is important for you to take yourself seriously, so that others too may contemplate taking you seriously. Gosh, man you are full of sh!t! You need a new propaganda team. At this rate you are being ripped off. I will be back to whip your butt everytime you sh!t in public! msheshimiwa!
|
|