PEELING BACK MIGUNA'S OWN MASK

[roughrider]

Jul 23, 2012 17:26:17 GMT 3 podp said:

einstein,

At last I have also finished reading MM's original Peeling Back the Mask.

MM is definitely a bold guy, he isn’t afraid of the challenges he may face in future so when you have that great idea, run baby run it so that you can challenge those behind you to come baby come. There are few lessons all entrepreneurs, start ups and Kenyans especially the Generation Y could learn from MM. This guy is stylish, gifted and understands the rules of the game. MM has strategy and he has so far executed his idea well better still the guy is set for anything that may come out of his explosive expose, from cash to higher office and ultimately fame.

How I wish more time was not spent dwelling on the relative merits of the main players than on the substance of the allegations involved. By focusing on individuals we go back to pre-2007 election time where we were merely hardening divisions and even forgetting in elections you try encouraging anyone and everyone to switch their support to someone else. Much of the talk has been vitriol, with most of it directed at MM himself. Like good propaganda machine the ODM is, it’s taking the form of a smear campaign against MM the “bloviating ignoramus”, as one partisan commentator described him. Look at the number of threads on Jukwaa turning against the messenger and relegating the message to the back burner?

The lesson for us is we need not trust guys who say they are reformers (RAO) or will bring us development (Uhuruto, Kalonzo) or are true performers (Peter Kenneth and Martha Karua). Always be on the lookout for surprises. If there is a lesson for politicians in this somewhere, it’s that people like MM are better kept inside the house pissing out, than outside pissing in. Kamalet says avoid activists in government high offices but my pals says its itchy- itchy that makes top guys surround themselves with such characters.

His eight books I could have reduced to three namely; the more controlled story of his youth and triumph; the political story of his hero RAO and ODM; and the third book on Big Man syndrome with emphasis on RAO as villain in chief. Githongo helped us cast Kibaki and Co aside and hence this last book should be the gem that demolishes the deity, RAO, many here are unhappy to discard.

Peeling Back the Mask is like an onion, with many layers that as you peel them off, you find many surprising revelations or questions which when you attempt to answer require you to peel off more facades.

I liked the story of MM’s life. It is the best bit of it, although unfortunately, it was not given more pages and it appears it will not get attention like the political pages. MM rose from adversity, a terrible fathers’ brother who although well off, scarred MM; to greatness when he ended up writing Peeling Back the Mask after a stint in OPM and as a successful lawyer in Canada after colorfully graduating three times!

I liked the emphasis on need for individual liberties/rights being a precursor to societal rights. His fanaticism with being on the side of justice and not being content as many thought he had ‘arrived’ to make himself comfortable, keep his mouth, hands and pockets full. No wonder my siblings made me buy his book and consider him a hero. He surely is right when he says that majority of voters are aged between 18 and 35, are 65% of the electorate and more important they are fairly educated, sophisticated and filthy poor.

MM offers some specifics on involvement of OPM in some corruption cases, especially to do with a maize importation scam; kazi kwa vijana; NSSF; he insinuates that the results of the 2007 elections were fixed, and that RAO’s party – apparent victims of the fixing – may have knowingly turned a blind eye; and, most damagingly, he claims that RAO’s party deliberately stoked up ethnic tensions in the run-up to those elections, in the 41 versus 1 propaganda ploy.

The politicians are portrayed as venal and self-serving, looking out for their own interests rather than their constituency’s, while the grand coalition government, which has been in charge Kenya since the post-election violence of 2008, is cast as lumbering and ineffective, and always at the mercy of the power struggle between RAO and President Mwai Kibaki.

To me it’s like MM developed some kind of father-son complex with RAO, and did not want to totally burn him and cast away his ashes until the very last meeting, at Serena hotel, to have him re-instated when scales peeled off his eyes or is it when the mask peeled off RAO? Otherwise again and again as a masochist-sadist relation he kept forgiving Jakom! I too could not help feeling sorry for MM.

MM will survive though, so too will RAO and hence no need to forget the bigger struggle i.e. dealing with impunity and merchants/peddlers of impunity who rely on corruption, nepotism and related negatives to sit on us. We need to keep reminding RAO, Uhuruto, Martha, Kenneth etc. that we need transparency, accountability and values enshrined in the Constitution not political conmen, master manupulators and deception advocates.

Podp;

The drip drip drip of comments as you read the book which I followed here essentially because you seemed to be a real time observer; attending the launch, getting a personal signature and what-not, have culminated in this; which I appreciate.

Some very general comments:

Unfortunately, I noticed that you are quite the uncritical consumer of info in this instance, contrary to previous observations on other subjects we have discussed on this board. You and I know that half baked theories, rumours and allegations cannot be used in any serious enquiries. Ultimately whoever is making allegations must provide specific, actionable material. Perhaps it was the initial excitement that has allowed the snake-oil salesman to fool you somewhat.

You talk about 'lessons' in a rather unspecific way. What lessons deriving from what facts or experiences that Miguna has demonstrated in his book? Corruption? Nepotism? Has something been said that Kenyans did not already know? Sleeping with multiple women? What somebody told me that somebody saw?

Have you carefully interrogated both sides of these issues?

Please Podp. We have been reading the rag Citizen Weekly for years. The mere fact of it now being book-length should not add weight to its ludicrous content. We still have wait for men and women to write important political books. This cannot be the standard for such books.

In your view, we should have all ignored Miguna's character completely. We should have dismissed the anger and destructive emotional turmoil that drove him to write. We should have completely accepted him as an objective messenger even when his entire book does not find a single redeemable quality in his object of derision? Even the Holy Bible acknowledges the Satan's qualities.

Really? Should we believe that Raila Odinga rose to be PM, surviving decades of the most consuming political tactics, strategic moves, electoral contests, detention and exile without at least some intelligence? managerial acumen? cunning? knowledge? fortitude? charisma? This is what Miguna would have us believe and what you uncritically consume.

It is like ignoring Nelson Mandela's achievements because he may have allowed some of his lieutenants to go to far with 'B.E.E' or he that wandered from Winnie now and then.

As Miguna's real; character emerges and as people begin to debunk his tales one after the other, many commentators will start to realise that, especially the last sections of this book, are really tabloid stuff.

Anyhow, thanks for your perspectives.

[Omwenga]

Jul 27, 2012 10:42:29 GMT 3 mzee said:

Jul 27, 2012 3:19:57 GMT 3 Omwenga said:

Omwenga,
You did it again.
You put it so clear even Big Loud Mig will understand.
What a beating Miguna is getting.
Migunas friends should keep a close look at him for the man is going nuts. Mara Raila is Caroli, Oh Raila must answer me, oh! Oh!
I still insist that Miguna will be pulped with his own book and its going on as I speak.

Thanks Mzee. You would think some things are so obvious as not to be said but they must even repeatedly in the hopes they sink where they need to for the sake of good.

I am still shaking my head in disbelief about what we are witnessing.

[phil]

Isi toshe!

Permanent Secretary wannabe BigMig now demands round the clock state security for himself and his family when he returns to Kenya on 16th August 2012!!

www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000062774&story_title=Miguna-asks-police-for-round-the-clock-state-security

[phil]

Now let's go to the ground in Langata Constituency in Kibera which is represented by Raila Odinga in parliament and here what the people say about Peeling back the Mask!

Kibera Reaction to Miguna Miguna's Book

[job]

PART II


Lying by omission is a tactic applied abundantly in this memoir. The question is – was it deliberate or done sub-consciously through dissociation. Having combed through this book, I find enough reason to suggest both. Miguna deliberately omits to qualify certain riders in this memoir.





While angrily lamenting how much he spent on Raila’s trip (& delegation) to Canada in October 2006 (which he claims is $ 47,800), he is definitely omitting a couple of details. The most significant omission is that Miguna was investing into his relocation plan to Kenya through Raila Odinga. He was not handing some charity contribution to Raila Odinga’s campaign. He was very likely angling himself for either of two opportunities – to be shoe-ed into Nyando’s Parliamentary seat (by Raila); or whichever of the Attorney General (AG) or Solicitor General (SG) positions. Miguna himself inadvertently hinted at all this.



His Nyando bid failed miserably. Don't know the grounds upon which the Majestic People of Nyando rejected his bid - whether it had to do with his political acumen, inter-personal skills, or other factors. Miguna eventually viewed his landed position (Senior Advisor to PM), as a temporary ladder through which he was being propped into a bigger perch (AG or SG).

In his own words:

But his ‘plans’ (if he indeed did have them) for me to be the Solicitor General fell through. Moreover, it was obvious that Caroli and Isahakia didn’t want me and other members of the Pentagon technical team to work near or around the Prime Minister. Caroli seemed jealous and insecure of any competent lawyer with integrity being close to Raila. It wasn’t just me. He behaved the same way towards Mutakha Kangu and Otiende Amolo.

By extrapolation, it is clear Miguna had discussed with Raila plans to be appointed Solicitor General and/or Attorney General. This blatant job-canvassing and self lobbying by Miguna, and discussions about the morality behind them, is conveniently and deliberately overlooked in this memoir. There's not just this one lying by omission (or concealment) but more.




The author comes out as a restless guy - impatient he wasn’t ascending the career ladder fast enough (as apparently promised). But before he could come to terms with the disappointment, he was abruptly suspended. Then hell broke loose. The mask covering Miguna’s super-ambition – even into positions I now frankly believe he doesn't possess the right temperament for – was duly peeled in this memoir. All Kenyans must not forget that both the AG and SG positions are important positions in the country. Even temperament alone, should be a factor to consider when vetting applicants seeking these positions.




Miguna seems to have also misrepresented certain things sub-consciously. I guess the author's memory auto-deletes all good and positive interactions with people at the mere click of a button. Just where is the balance? This extreme one-sidedness may signal psychological splitting (by dissociation). This involves completely blocking out (erasing from memory) any positive thing someone ever did. I also involves hyping the good you did to them. I suspect that the more folks try to suppress free interrogation of the author's thinking - the more attention will be directed just there.




Careful reading between the lines exposes that in Miguna’s world, truth seems terribly skewed. He seems to only recollect bad things folks did to him. It is unbelievable that one can coexist and tolerate only people who do terrible things towards them. I mean, how can you coexist for so long around the evil squad of Raila, Lone, Caroli, Isahakhia, Orengo, Nyong’o, Elderkin et al?




Thus, Miguna was entitled to get chaperoned into a top government post by evil Raila. Miguna was entitled to be taken-in by his evil uncle Aoyi. Miguna chose to hang out almost daily with the evil wimps Orengo and Nyong’o. Prof. Ngugi wa Thiong’o was revered by Miguna until he demanded to be paid his honorarium – that evil and greedy leech! Despite honoring Miguna’s invitation and travelling thousands of miles across the border into Canada (leaving behind all assignments and possible earning opportunities) Prof. Ngugi turned evil by merely asking for a small honorarium promised by Miguna. Holly Molly! The author needed to come to terms with reality.




Ironically, this same pattern is replicated for virtually all friends touted by Miguna (Prof. Oyugi, Sarah Elderkin, Oduor Ong’wen, Adongo Ogony etc.) save for Onyango Oloo. Does anyone notice the unusually high turn-over of friendships-cum-fallouts? Under circumstances that don’t square with reality! The memoir makes it very clear – “it’s all, their fault!” To punctuate the fault-finding and blame-pinning, Miguna colourfully juxtaposes a comparative contrast between all these folks (on one hand) and himself (on another). He drums it in the memoir that all these folks aren’t his match – they can’t rival his ‘super-man’ abilities, gifts, and gazillion skills.




So folks, if you were only expecting a tongue lashing of Raila Odinga, brace to read Miguna’s fury and slanderous jabs towards many others including: his own brother Eric (whom he charges for negligence in his sister’s death); his late uncle Aoyi; friends and colleagues like Sarah Elderkin, Salim Lone, Oduor Ong’wen, Wafula Buke, Prof. Edward Oyugi, Nduma Nderi, James Orengo, Prof. Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Prof. Anyang’ Nyong’o et al. I guess he believes this memoir is peeling back very many masks. I frankly conclude that the biggest mask being peeled here is Miguna’s own!





It's also embarrassing when one stumbles on obvious misrepresentations bordering on lies. Here is what Miguna says about one Obel Nyanja:

Obel Nyanja was for many years a one-man Raila ‘diplomat’. From his New Jersey base he spent millions on Raila’s numerous US tours. Then, after more than 20 years in the US, he decided to relocate to Kenya. Obel came with a well developed business plan to manufacture medicine. He wanted land and finance in order to construct a factory. He had lined up US companies he could collaborate with. Raila, who by then was Prime Minister, expressed interest and offered to assist him. But once Obel had arrived in the country, he couldn’t secure an appointment with Raila. Thrice, I helped him meet Raila, who in turn handed him over to Caroli. Caroli met Obel once, but then never answered his calls again. After eight months of Obel struggling to track down Caroli and Raila, his savingshad run out and he had to abandon his planned project and look for a job. He moved to Kisumu. Luckily, he eventually found gainful employment with a private company in Nairobi. He forgot about his dreams for a factory – at least for a while. It is alleged that in the meantime, however, Raila had his sisters registered as directors in Obel’s company and as of the time of going to press, credible rumours which I have not yet been able to substantiate have it that he has approached some Italian investors and is proceeding with the plans of starting the factory without Obel’s knowledge or involvement.

Fact: I have personally known Obel Nyanja for many years. I speak with him regularly.

Fact: Obel never spent millions on Raila’s numerous US tours. He in fact says he has never had such kind of money. He takes credit for largely coordinating diaspora fund-raisers alongside many other Kenyans.

Fact: Obel confirms he has always enjoyed access to Raila (& still does) – without requiring Caroli’s assistance.

Fact: Obel makes it certainly clear he has never been employed with any private company in Nairobi since his return to Kenya. He is currently employed as a Director in a public (government) parastatal.

Fact: Obel confirms he is in fact the one who has met a number of foreign (including Italian) investors regarding his business plans. The plans are very much alive - into the future/ not currently.

Fact: Obel suspects Miguna is trying to drive a wedge between him and the family of Raila Odinga. He promises to tackle the issue of these ‘baseless’ rumours directly with Miguna himself.

Fact: Obel promises to address all these lies, in his words, "at the right forum" and "at the right time".

You need a keen eye and sometimes happenstance to stumble upon and peel out such misrepresentations. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that (out of sheer vindictiveness), Miguna may have randomly picked up names of persons known to Raila, then concocted spicy propagandist tales based on baseless rumours and unsubstantiated gossip. He then probably went ahead to dupe the public he would publish a ‘volcanic’ tell-all exposing Raila Odinga. Combing the book only yields a street tabloid set out in a bitter and angry tone.


To be continued.

[enigma]

‘Please use your common sense’ and other gems from Miguna




In Summary
Newly unearthed correspondence between the former Raila adviser and his workmates reveal a man who would take nothing but perfection, sometimes with a twist of tragi-comedy


A glimpse into Miguna Miguna’s files during his tenure as the Prime Minister’s adviser returns a picture of a flamboyant, if exceedingly self-assured, man with an appetite for fine things — from the office space, car and even phones.

So specific was Miguna with his personal effects that one would easily think he was petty. He was strict on what he wanted to use, the brands and the price tag.

In May 2010, for instance, Miguna requested a mobile phone for official use. A decision had been arrived at to buy him a Blackberry Curve 8900 worth Sh30,000. Apparently, this was what he was entitled to, according to the procurement rules procedures in the office. Well, the good man rejected the phone, which was delivered to him by a Mr Evance Nyachio.

In a terse letter on May 27, 2010 to the then acting PS Andrew Mondo (now at Special Programmes), Miguna made it clear that he wanted nothing other than a Blackberry Storm 9500, worth Sh60,000.

He accused Nyachio of failure to find the sophisticated phone, terming the Blackberry Curve 8900 model as “five grades lower in quality”.

To further justify his demand, he said he had known of officers in Job Group T and below who had been bought the Storm, and that he would not accept any discriminatory treatment from him (Mr Nyachio) or anybody else in government.

To end the mobile phone war, Mondo asked Miguna to provide names of businesses where the model could be found.

“I sent you a text message on May 26, at 1:44pm and disclosed genuine Blackberry Storm 9500 phones are available at Aurellio Safaricom Shop at Sarit Centre,” Miguna replied.

To hasten the purchase of a genuine Storm, Miguna furnished the PS with the names and mobile numbers of outlets where it could be purchased. And, with the letter, he enclosed the Blackberry Curve which had been delivered to him... with a strong caution.

“Please note I need a genuine Blackberry Storm 950 which is what I requisitioned. I am returning that phone as Mr Nyachio bought it irregularly. Please advise him (that) I do not want to deal with him.”

For peace’s sake, Mondoh directed the procurement department to buy Miguna the phone.

“The matter must be brought to conclusion. Buy him the 9500 phone,” he ordered.

But that was not the only matter troubling Miguna. He was also uncomfortable with the car he had been allocated, which, he said, had “numerous problems”.

In a memo on May 18, 2010, he reminded Mondoh that he needed a Toyota Prado “which Dr Mohammed (Isahakia) had already undertaken to purchase this financial year”. Dr Isahakia is the PS in the Prime Minister’s office.

It did help that Prof Kivuta Kibwana, president Kibaki’s adviser on constitutional affairs and whom Miguna considered his counterpart, had been allocated better cars. This underlined the urgency of the purchase.

“My counterpart (Prof Kivutha Kibwana) at the Office of the President has been allocated two brand new vehicles,” he noted.

One of the notes on the letter by a senior ministry official two weeks later seemed to further delay implementation of his demand.

“Next FY” (Financial Year),” it curtly noted.

Then there was the small matter of rank. Dr Isahakia, in particular, never got along with Miguna. According to Miguna, the PS was his equal, if not his junior.

Miguna’s letter of appointment on March 6, 2009 by President Kibaki did not indicate that he was a PS, but the ebullient lawyer acted and behaved as one. In fact, some of his letters and internal memos were signed ‘PM’s Adviser, Coalition Affairs/PS’.

Confusion also arose because, as it turned out in his case seeking re-instatement after he was sacked, Miguna was not a civil servant but a political appointee. High Court Judge Mohammed Warsame noted his position was only tenable as long as his employer wanted him.

Miguna had never signed any employment letters dictating that the terms of service were the same as those of Prof Kibwana, a former Cabinet minister. Thus his world only revolved around him and the Prime Minister.

There is no better demonstration of Miguna’s taste for class and high life than his specifications for the office space he was to be assigned on the Third Floor of the Prime Minister’s office on Harambee Avenue, Nairobi.

This time, it was the director of administration, a Mr Hadao, who was on the receiving end. On September 15, 2010, a letter marked “Top Priority & Strictly Confidential” landed on Hadao’s table. It had 17 specifications on Mr Miguna’s future office.

First, he requested “adequate space” that would be home to an executive chair, a couch, two side chairs and a book shelf. He also asked for a water dispenser, a fridge, a bathroom with toilet, sink and shower, a fire resistant cabinet and electronic air conditioning.

“The reception should be separated from the waiting area, which must have a television set, cable TV and Internet, fax and telephone lines,” he instructed.

Keen on keeping tabs on everything that was going on, he demanded general and direct telephone lines with extensions to the Prime Minister, the PS, the private secretary administration, the human resource manager and the procurement department.

He further asked for three access keys for himself, as well as two keys for the VIP elevators; and directed that “the entire office space (my office, reception, bathroom and waiting area) should be tiled; not carpeted”. For clarity, Miguna attached a hand-drawn sketch of how his office had to look like.

Three months after occupying an office with skeleton staff, he set tough conditions for workers, most of them secretaries, bodyguards, drivers and messengers. The rules, as outlined in a June 9, 2009 office memo, had to be followed to the strictest of detail.

He was categorical that they should never get instructions from more than two people as long as they worked in his office.

“The only person who can instruct or direct you contrary to myself is the Prime Minister,” he wrote in the internal memo.

The long memo contained instructions on the basic office etiquette expected of the staff, including a requirement to inform him, in person, 24 hours before being absent from office.

“For the drivers and bodyguards, they have to work at all times based on “my working hours and in accordance with strict instructions from me,” he instructed.

Miguna concluded the long memo with critical advice: “Please use common sense”.

Well, 11 months into these new trappings of power, the Higher Education Loans Board came calling. Having spent most of his time in Canada, Miguna had not repaid the loan advanced to him during his student days at the University of Nairobi in the ‘80s, the Helb claimed.

Ms A Ayonga wrote to Dr Isahakia from Helb on February 24, 2010, breaking down Miguna’s repayment schedule, which was supposed to be effected the following month. Dr Isahakia immediately advised the Human Resource department to effect the deductions... and opened another war front.

Four months into the deductions, Miguna penned a protest letter to Dr Isahakia on August 3, 2010. It was marked “Urgent and Without Prejudice”.

“This is to firstly object strongly to the irregular, un-procedural and unlawful deductions you have authorised, without my knowledge and consent as required by law, on my salary purportedly on a letter dated 24 February 2010,” he began, and went on to demand that the PS makes available to him copies of documents that would justify the deductions.

He did not owe Helb any money, he said, and demanded a copy of the loan contract he signed with Helb.

“It should indicate the type of loan, the date the loan was signed, the amounts given, the duration the loan was provided, the applicable interest and the reason for the loan.”

Further, Miguna demanded that the PS produces court proceedings and correspondence between Helb and himself regarding the matter, and a court order authorising the deductions and proof that Miguna was served with such an order.

He claimed Helb had not produced the contract and the purpose for which he was given the loan, and therefore demanded that Dr Isahakia should produce Helb’s appraisal of whether the purpose for which the loan was given was achieved. If not, he wrote, then Helb should produce a document explaining why that purpose was not achieved.

Miguna signed off the letter to Dr Isahakia by advising him to “govern yourself accordingly”.

[tnk]

hehehe i like they way these guys say m'guna comically deflating the meee part of the meeeguna narrative (see maddo last weekend)

Jul 27, 2012 19:28:25 GMT 3 phil said:

Now let's go to the ground in Langata Constituency in Kibera which is represented by Raila Odinga in parliament and here what the people say about Peeling back the Mask!

Kibera Reaction to Miguna Miguna's Book

[job]

PART III


Ineffectiveness or Delusion?


I paid a lot of attention to Book Five which the author particularly titled “Standing Tall in the Corridors of Power” – whose time span starts shortly after Miguna was appointed by Raila into government. After blaming Raila, Orengo, Caroli and Isahakhia for extremely “poor negotiation skills” that led to ODM’s short-changing (and continued frustration) in the coalition government, the hard-working Miguna had a fantastic opportunity to now showcase how negotiations should be done. He details in the memoir how he came in to rescue the Prime Minister. Miguna writes about one of his initial priorities in government – defining the terms under which they were going to work in the Permanent Committee on the management of the coalition. This committee was co-chaired by Kibaki and Raila, who had now agreed to have Kibwana and Miguna serve as joint secretaries. At its very crucial first meeting, here is what happens in Miguna’s own words:

I drove in Raila’s official limousine to the President’s office at Harambee House that morning. The meeting was on the third floor of the same building. When we arrived, we could see the presidential motorcade and a beehive of security swarming around. The President was clearly in. As soon as we approached the President’s boardroom adjacent to his office, Muthaura emerged and requested that the Prime Minister should go into the President’s office. Caroli, Isahakia, Orengo and I entered the conference room and waited. Within minutes other members of the Permanent Committee also arrived and joined us.

There were only two things on the agenda: introductions and agreeing on the terms of reference and modes of working. When Raila, his nominees to the committee and I arrived, we found that Muthaura and his group had arranged the President’s conference room, with Kibaki’s chair sitting right at the head of the table with all the other seats lined on both sides. As soon as the ODM team entered, they sat on the seats presignated by Muthaura. I was aghast.

First, I placed my documents on the spot I had been reserved. Then I moved back to where the Prime Minister and the President were seated, positioning myself between them. I cleared my voice and announced that the joint secretaries needed time to “arrange the room”. Muthaura said everything was in order.

Orengo glanced at me and smiled slyly. That day Isahakia and Caroli had accompanied us even though they weren’t members of the Permanent Committee. “Excuse me sir, I hate to do this but the table hasn’t been properly arranged. We would require just five minutes to put everything in order before the meeting commences,” I addressed the President, while fixing Raila with my gaze, trying to tell him not to say anything.

The President stood, followed by Raila, then everybody else. As soon as the President’s chair was vacant, I got hold of it and carried it to the middle of the table on the side that the PNU were seated. I moved the other chairs sideways and created space for the President’s chair as Raila, Uhuru, Saitoti and Wetangula followed Kibaki into his office. I then created space for Raila’s chair across from where Kibaki’s chair was as I moved the other chairs around in the same manner I had done on the opposite side.

The other members of the committee were speechless. Isahakia and Caroli slithered away quietly. They knew that I was ready for war – both intellectually and otherwise. Nobody dared mess with me on such occasions. Muthaura, who had run off after the President, returned and started protesting that I had no authority to rearrange the seats.

“With all due respect Ambassador, I am a joint secretary to this committee; you are not even a member; so, you shouldn’t even be in this room, let alone dictating to me how seats should be arranged. Secondly, Sir, this is the Permanent Committee on the Management of the Grand Coalition Affairs. Both President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga are co-chairs of this committee; they are also the two Principals in this Governmnent. Unless you want to suggest, Sir, that you don’t recognise the Accord and the Constitution which put this government together…” That shut him up. I continued to shuffle chairs around as I spoke. After three minutes, I was done and said to Muthaura: “Please you may invite them back in.” I had set the tone for the meeting.

Consequently, the ensuing discussions were civil and productive, resulting in the ratification of the “Terms of reference and working modalities of the Permanent Committee on the Management of the Grand Coalition Affairs.” It gave the Permanent Committee responsibility for resolving disputes within the coalition and any other matter referred to it by the two principals. The Committee confirmed that all its meetings would be co-chaired by the President and the Prime Minister and that its membership would be limited and restricted to “nominees from each grand coalition partner appointed by the two principals”… neither party could impose its will on the other. Equality in form and substance was reaffirmed… the Committee would hold monthly meetings…the Committee was authorised to appoint task forces to deal with any specific grand coalition issue…decisions of the Permanent Committee would be by consensus…the budget of the Permanent Committee was to be sourced from the Exchequer.

Depending on how one views the above, some people could easily conclude that Miguna had a blitz of a great start. That’s until they read more to found out what Miguna’s approach eventually yielded. The truth that can’t be sugarcoated even by the author himself is that his intervention backfired terribly. His gang-ho tactics proved to be worse for ODM and the PM. If Raila, Orengo and Caroli’s earlier negotiations gave ODM a short end of the stick, Miguna’s yielded a shut door on ODM’s face.





Immediately after that first encounter, head of civil service Francis Muthaura stone-walled the funding of the Committee’s secretariat – the one loftily negotiated through Miguna’s input. Miguna was to later realize he fared no better (in negotiations), if not worse. In his own words:

Even though the document stated that funds were to be “sourced” from the Exchequer, the mechanism of doing that wasn’t spelled out. Neither Professor Kibwana nor myself had authority to incur expenditure and the instrument granted none.

[/b] This meant that to perform any of the duties itemised above, the joint secretaries had to rely on the head of the civil service and President Kibaki’s permanent secretary, Francis Muthaura. More than anything else, this onerous task given to us – and not to the cabinet office where Muthaura held sway – would soon put us on a collision course with the senior bureaucrat[/i][/blockquote].



The negotiated document under Miguna's starting blitz fell short. Besides, he had literally stepped on the toes of both the President, & head of civil service (in terms of protocol). This was to be the same Remember this is the same Muthaura who was to later participate (cooperate) in the mischievous suspension of Miguna. After all, Miguna had literally showed him insubordination on day 1 of the Permanent Committee’s meeting. This incidentally is also the same Muthaura who had earlier signed Miguna’s employment letter – the same Muthaura who had earlier asked Kibwana to share his pay-slip with Miguna to give the latter a clue how much he was to earn.





In my view, Miguna deluded himself he had a fantastic start in government. His assessment was far off the mark. He had actually shot himself in the foot – leading to the eventual stonewalling and ultimate death of that Permanent Committee. To evaluate effectiveness of any intervention, one has to look at results. The results speak for themselves. Miguna himself laments about the state of the coalition right after his ceremonious entrance:

The persistent wrangles, the parochial disputes, the constant sabotage of rival parties and the confusion and lethargy that engulfed the government could and would have been avoided. Ultimately, with Raila’s position strengthened, there would have been an effective check and balance at the executive level.

Chaos and should'a, could'a, would'a(s)...In other words, Miguna clearly admits that the position of the person he was advising (PM) was weakened; besides the perennial disputes, sabotage and overall ineffectiveness of government. What is again almost unbelievable is that despite these developments, the author still goes ahead to blame the Prime Minister for “not insisting on providing autonomy to the joint secretaries”. Wasn't it supposed to be Miguna, the superior negotiator - to chime in new (negotiation) expertise that Raila, Orengo and Caroli lacked? Ama? Didn’t Miguna tout himself as Raila’s supposed savior - who would strengthen his position? Wasn’t Miguna the one to tactfully and effectively “stand tall in the corridors of power”?





Yes, Miguna literally stood tall in front of Francis Muthaura – who eventually participated in the author’s (frankly callous) cut-down. Folks can sometimes delude or shoot themselves in the foot without even realizing. I am not in any way trying to claim Miguna got what he deserves. I still insist to this date that his so called suspension was not only malicious, but totally cruel and inhumane. However - thanks to Miguna’s own account of his style of interactions within the corridors of power - I doubt whether his interventions would have produced positive results not just for ODM but for the country. Yes, a lot of “intellectual and other wars” may have been waged – some through the press; a lot of memos were drafted - then soundly ignored; a lot of midnight-oil was burnt in ‘strategy’ sessions; but what did it all achieve in the end? Stalemate and confusion!





If you though Miguna was only derisive and hostile to the PNU coalition partners, you were wrong. He spared no contempt and barbs for his ODM side. There are a couple of instances to illustrate this, but here (below) is an example of how he described ODM Minister Mohammed Elmi:

Any perceptive person who has worked closely with Elmi knows that he is generally clueless. He tends to ramble over everything. He is incoherent, confused and shallow. Above all, he is desperate to be liked and appreciated. Elmi didn’t care about PNU’s repeated infractions.

Is Miguna really a team player who appreciates the various roles each individual brings to any group? Was Miguna really a good fit for what he calls ‘corridors of power’? Probably a more quiet and diplomatic study may have picked up tangible evidences of corruption for future action. That would have been one heck of a contribution towards real reform.





Coldness or over-sight?


Coming back to my earlier reference to a preponderance of bar room and street rumours in the memoir... I suspect in a dash to release the book prior to (Kenya’s next) campaign season, the author did not take time to reflect on consequences of many of his scandalous conjectures. It is fair to state that Miguna treats the many subjects of his sensational allegations rather cold-heartedly.





There is absolutely no sensitivity for instance to the family of Nduma Nderi whom he colorfully portrays as a fright-freak, stage-urinating, & state-imposed student leader (in the 80s) - a characterization already in dispute (see Wafula Buke’s Face-Book response). Whereas such talk may have easily been concocted campus tittle-tattle of the student campaign season, Miguna flamboyantly expresses it as a (disturbing) fact. Then there’s the other unsubstantiated depiction of Mrs. Rachel Wambui Shebesh as a treacherously adulterous woman running concurrent extra-marital affairs with more than one politician. I suspect there was not a thought of what such careless hearsay might have of the Shebesh household – which has both young and grown (university-level) offsprings. What of Mrs Odhiambo Mabona and Anne Kariuki’s families? Even to Dr. Sally Kosgei whom he regards as a friend, Miguna portrays her as a chronic originator of gossip and rumours – such as the Caroli-bought-Heron-Court-Hotel myth. She is quoted quite a bit in such matters.





There was also another bizarre accusation by the author regarding Odhiambo Mbai’s death. He pitilessly accuses Raila of shedding crocodile tears when the latter rushed to Nairobi Hospital and found Mbai dead. His reason – because Raila (whom he eloquently derides for having no power over the police) has so far done nothing to find Mbai’s killers! Good gracious! For someone (Raila) he describes as an emotional weakling, I find this not only contradictory but also cold. The fact is – Miguna controlled no monopoly over friendship to Mbai. The latter was in fact Raila’s trusted advisor on devolution matters. There’s a trend of casual heartlessness by the author – even towards his family. A brother is blamed for a sister’s death and an uncle’s death is callously celebrated.





This is just an observation – there seems to be very little sensitivity while peddling these tales many of which are obviously (mere) rumours. It seems the allure to cash-baiting (but unemotional) sensationalism was a big factor in penning this memoir. One lesson that political parties (and aspiring female politicians) must take from this memoir is that party decisions to redress gender parity in representation could be terribly mistaken (or misrepresented). It seems many folks give credence to spicy rumours of amorous relationships between party leaders and (most) women nominated to parliament – something quite unfortunate.




My final verdict: What was set out to be a thrilling memoir (judging from its beginning) ended up a train-wreck - following the suspension saga. Rage and fury took over - reflected more towards the later portion of the book. Street gossip (bad-mouthing erstwhile office rivals and the employer) found its way into, and eventually clogged the memoir. A rushed finishing (with no researched collection of substantive or actionable evidence) was executed - probably to beat the publisher's and electoral deadlines. All these diminished the book's cumulative value. The author came out as bitter, angry, unforgiving, and incapable of controlling emotions when severely tested. I wish him (and his family) well though!

[raiswakesho]

... Prof. Mutua has graded the book, guys it's a D !I can't wait for Miguna's rebuttal
www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Dont+write+cheap+books+to+settle+political+scores/-/440808/1465714/-/item/1/-/roa0ht/-/index.html

[tnk]

Job thanks for taking time to write this up

allow me to highlight an excerpt

As soon as the President’s chair was vacant, I got hold of it and carried it to the middle of the table on the side that the PNU were seated. I moved the other chairs sideways and created space for the President’s chair as Raila, Uhuru, Saitoti and Wetangula
followed Kibaki into his office. I then created space for Raila’s chair across from where Kibaki’s chair was as I moved the other chairs around in the same manner I had done on the opposite side.

The other members of the committee were speechless. Isahakia and Caroli slithered away quietly. They knew that I was ready for war – both intellectually and otherwise. Nobody dared mess with me on such occasions. Muthaura, who had run off after the President, returned and started protesting that I had no
authority to rearrange the seats.

“With all due respect Ambassador, I am a joint secretary to this committee; you are not even a member; so, you shouldn’t even be in this room, let alone dictating to me how seats should be arranged. Secondly, Sir, this is the Permanent Committee on the Management of the Grand Coalition Affairs. Both President
Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga are co-chairs of this committee; they are also the two Principals in this Governmnent. Unless you want to suggest, Sir, that you don’t recognise the Accord and the Constitution which put this government together…” That shut him up. I continued to shuffle chairs around as I spoke. After three minutes, I was done and said to Muthaura: “Please you may invite them back in.” I had set the tone for the meeting.

i want to say here that this one of the the high's in miguna's tenure at the OPM.

here he kicked the collective PNU butt real good and put things in perspective in terms of a 50/50 govt structure - very good optics and for this i was glad that someone had the guts to face up to those PNU guys then

on that count even though i agree that it may have led to the stonewalling by muthaura and his cohorts, i.e two more wrongs from PNU never made it right anyway etc. the fact of the matter is that it had to be done. and if i was in miguna's shoes then, i'd have done the same thing. these PNU guys were continuously short changing ODM in the big and small issues.

in this episode what was lacking was support for miguna by way of those knowing his brash methods, smoothing the rough edges through diplomacy, but as you can see, he stood alone while the others whistled, looking the other way

==

i think its useful to add here my perspective on this

a) on the practical and actionable items to be done

under the circumstances i stand with miguna on that issue. if the orengos, caroli's and sally kosgei's of that day had stood firm, the confrontation would have been avoided. there are times when only a radical and in fact semi-lunatic approach to an issue will cause intransigence to give way.

b) looking at the bigger picture

as an advisor, miguna should not have also been "the doer" and instead should have firmly painted out in detail to the ODM side the consequences of backpedaling and then laid out comprehensive and long term strategy to dismantle the PNU schemes. piecemeal and gradual approach has better long term end results than, spontaneous reaction.

generally speaking spontaneous action achieve a lot for the individual but very little for the cause whereas gradual process make tremendous achievements in the long run for a cause but sadly pays little recognition for the key movers.

[podp]

Jul 27, 2012 18:44:04 GMT 3 @roughrider said:

Jul 23, 2012 17:26:17 GMT 3 podp said:

einstein,

At last I have also finished reading MM's original Peeling Back the Mask.

MM is definitely a bold guy, he isn’t afraid of the challenges he may face in future so when you have that great idea, run baby run it so that you can challenge those behind you to come baby come. There are few lessons all entrepreneurs, start ups and Kenyans especially the Generation Y could learn from MM. This guy is stylish, gifted and understands the rules of the game. MM has strategy and he has so far executed his idea well better still the guy is set for anything that may come out of his explosive expose, from cash to higher office and ultimately fame.

How I wish more time was not spent dwelling on the relative merits of the main players than on the substance of the allegations involved. By focusing on individuals we go back to pre-2007 election time where we were merely hardening divisions and even forgetting in elections you try encouraging anyone and everyone to switch their support to someone else. Much of the talk has been vitriol, with most of it directed at MM himself. Like good propaganda machine the ODM is, it’s taking the form of a smear campaign against MM the “bloviating ignoramus”, as one partisan commentator described him. Look at the number of threads on Jukwaa turning against the messenger and relegating the message to the back burner?

The lesson for us is we need not trust guys who say they are reformers (RAO) or will bring us development (Uhuruto, Kalonzo) or are true performers (Peter Kenneth and Martha Karua). Always be on the lookout for surprises. If there is a lesson for politicians in this somewhere, it’s that people like MM are better kept inside the house pissing out, than outside pissing in. Kamalet says avoid activists in government high offices but my pals says its itchy- itchy that makes top guys surround themselves with such characters.

His eight books I could have reduced to three namely; the more controlled story of his youth and triumph; the political story of his hero RAO and ODM; and the third book on Big Man syndrome with emphasis on RAO as villain in chief. Githongo helped us cast Kibaki and Co aside and hence this last book should be the gem that demolishes the deity, RAO, many here are unhappy to discard.

Peeling Back the Mask is like an onion, with many layers that as you peel them off, you find many surprising revelations or questions which when you attempt to answer require you to peel off more facades.

I liked the story of MM’s life. It is the best bit of it, although unfortunately, it was not given more pages and it appears it will not get attention like the political pages. MM rose from adversity, a terrible fathers’ brother who although well off, scarred MM; to greatness when he ended up writing Peeling Back the Mask after a stint in OPM and as a successful lawyer in Canada after colorfully graduating three times!

I liked the emphasis on need for individual liberties/rights being a precursor to societal rights. His fanaticism with being on the side of justice and not being content as many thought he had ‘arrived’ to make himself comfortable, keep his mouth, hands and pockets full. No wonder my siblings made me buy his book and consider him a hero. He surely is right when he says that majority of voters are aged between 18 and 35, are 65% of the electorate and more important they are fairly educated, sophisticated and filthy poor.

MM offers some specifics on involvement of OPM in some corruption cases, especially to do with a maize importation scam; kazi kwa vijana; NSSF; he insinuates that the results of the 2007 elections were fixed, and that RAO’s party – apparent victims of the fixing – may have knowingly turned a blind eye; and, most damagingly, he claims that RAO’s party deliberately stoked up ethnic tensions in the run-up to those elections, in the 41 versus 1 propaganda ploy.

The politicians are portrayed as venal and self-serving, looking out for their own interests rather than their constituency’s, while the grand coalition government, which has been in charge Kenya since the post-election violence of 2008, is cast as lumbering and ineffective, and always at the mercy of the power struggle between RAO and President Mwai Kibaki.

To me it’s like MM developed some kind of father-son complex with RAO, and did not want to totally burn him and cast away his ashes until the very last meeting, at Serena hotel, to have him re-instated when scales peeled off his eyes or is it when the mask peeled off RAO? Otherwise again and again as a masochist-sadist relation he kept forgiving Jakom! I too could not help feeling sorry for MM.

MM will survive though, so too will RAO and hence no need to forget the bigger struggle i.e. dealing with impunity and merchants/peddlers of impunity who rely on corruption, nepotism and related negatives to sit on us. We need to keep reminding RAO, Uhuruto, Martha, Kenneth etc. that we need transparency, accountability and values enshrined in the Constitution not political conmen, master manupulators and deception advocates.

Podp;

The drip drip drip of comments as you read the book which I followed here essentially because you seemed to be a real time observer; attending the launch, getting a personal signature and what-not, have culminated in this; which I appreciate.

Some very general comments:

Unfortunately, I noticed that you are quite the uncritical consumer of info in this instance, contrary to previous observations on other subjects we have discussed on this board. You and I know that half baked theories, rumours and allegations cannot be used in any serious enquiries. Ultimately whoever is making allegations must provide specific, actionable material. Perhaps it was the initial excitement that has allowed the snake-oil salesman to fool you somewhat.

You talk about 'lessons' in a rather unspecific way. What lessons deriving from what facts or experiences that Miguna has demonstrated in his book? Corruption? Nepotism? Has something been said that Kenyans did not already know? Sleeping with multiple women? What somebody told me that somebody saw?

Have you carefully interrogated both sides of these issues?

Please Podp. We have been reading the rag Citizen Weekly for years. The mere fact of it now being book-length should not add weight to its ludicrous content. We still have wait for men and women to write important political books. This cannot be the standard for such books.

In your view, we should have all ignored Miguna's character completely. We should have dismissed the anger and destructive emotional turmoil that drove him to write. We should have completely accepted him as an objective messenger even when his entire book does not find a single redeemable quality in his object of derision? Even the Holy Bible acknowledges the Satan's qualities.

Really? Should we believe that Raila Odinga rose to be PM, surviving decades of the most consuming political tactics, strategic moves, electoral contests, detention and exile without at least some intelligence? managerial acumen? cunning? knowledge? fortitude? charisma? This is what Miguna would have us believe and what you uncritically consume.

It is like ignoring Nelson Mandela's achievements because he may have allowed some of his lieutenants to go to far with 'B.E.E' or he that wandered from Winnie now and then.

As Miguna's real; character emerges and as people begin to debunk his tales one after the other, many commentators will start to realise that, especially the last sections of this book, are really tabloid stuff.

Anyhow, thanks for your perspectives.

rr,

please find my rejoinder in what OO started as a thread on 'Pitfalls.....' This thread is somehow skirting cleverly from the subject that should be pre-occupying us i.e. the contents of Peeling Back the Mask not the author. Please migrate to the other thread from my rejoinder.

[job]

‘FALLACIOUS AND INVENTED': MORE ABOUT MIGUNA

Saturday, 28 July 2012 00:03 The Star BY SARAH ELDERKIN





Conventional wisdom says you should never review a book written by a person you know. However, in the case of Miguna Miguna’s book Peeling Back the Mask, I would say the opposite. Everyone who knows Miguna and is mentioned in the book should read it and review it and correct anything they know to be wrong – because there is much in this book that is fallacious and invented.





I am neither a liar nor a sycophant, and since I am frequently accused, particularly of the latter, I want to make that clear before I move on. Miguna himself declares in the book that he finds me honest (for what that is worth). My so-called sycophancy is non-existent. I don’t wrap up my views in pretty ribbons and I’m known to be blunt. The fact that I support Raila Odinga for president doesn’t mean I have lost my critical faculties – as has inadvertently been demonstrated by a private and sharply worded memo from me to Raila that Miguna has chosen to make public.





(Miguna had given me an undertaking of confidentiality on this. “My word is my bond,” he says several times in his book. No, Miguna, your word and your bond are worthless – just so much dross to be abandoned when it suits you. You can claim no honour there.)





There will be a lot of “I” in this article, for which I shall no doubt be lambasted. But it is because I feel I have a duty to challenge Miguna’s account in just a few of the very many areas where I know he has presented a false picture. I want to speak of that which I know. Miguna’s book is full of lies and exaggeration. Worse, he has repeatedly used a device where he takes a nugget of information that is true and then wraps it round with distortions, to achieve the desired effect – disparagement of Raila Odinga. The whole thing is a travesty of the ‘Honest John’ face Miguna purports to present to the world.





A small example occurs right after Miguna quotes in full my memo to the Prime Minister. Miguna takes that nugget of truth and goes on to say that “Sarah had observed over the years Raila becoming envious of people around him with talent. Apparently, Sarah felt that Raila was jealous of intelligent, disciplined and hard-working people with integrity.”





Such words have never passed my mouth, nor has such a concept ever grazed my mind. It is a complete and utter invention on Miguna’s part, a deliberate untruth, presented as fact to support his own ignominious crusade. Miguna again delves into the realms of fiction when describing the KICC launch of Raila’s presidential campaign on Sunday, May 6, 2007. He says Raila read his speech from a laptop, and that this was a last-minute solution to time constraints because Miguna was working on the speech from Toronto, along with Sarah Elderkin in Nairobi.





Total fiction. First, the laptop idea was one the launch team had chosen deliberately so that Raila would not be reading from pieces of paper. Though outdated now, it looked rather cutting-edge at the time. But second, and much more disturbing, is the fact that Miguna did not contribute one word to Raila’s launch speech. I know that because I wrote it myself from Raila’s handwritten notes, which remain on my file to this day. I had never met Miguna Miguna then, nor had I ever spoken to him. In fact, I never once spoke to Miguna Miguna while he was in Canada.





As always, Raila knew exactly what he wanted to say, and the idea of presenting himself as an applicant for a post that would soon become vacant (the presidency) was entirely his own. The speech still sits on my computer, with the chronology of its development. Miguna sent a memo to Raila on May 2, four days before the launch. A copy of that memo is also in my file. The covering note says, “The whole world – not just Kenya – is waiting for the big day. I have attached herewith some thoughts on some of the issues that might be glossed over as you and everyone else works tirelessly for the Big Day. I hope that you will find time to read, reflect and hopefully incorporate whatever is appropriate for the Big Day.”





The accompanying notes offer some pretty standard thoughts on tribalism, the economy, CDF, security, working in consultation with others and so on. Miguna advises Raila to BE PRESIDENTIAL. (These were all things we were somewhat unlikely to have “glossed over”.) The tone of the note from Miguna to Raila (“I hope that you will find time to read …”) clearly demonstrates that this was not from a man who was indispensable and who was writing Raila’s speech. Raila’s speech was done. But in his book, Miguna says, “Only that morning, Sarah Elderkin, operating from Nairobi, and I, doing the heavy lifting from Toronto … had made the final touches on the “application” … The speech was a tour de force, skilfully crafted … we only included what we believed Raila should be capable of fulfilling …”.





Miguna had nothing whatsoever to do with the speech. His “anecdote” about it and about his working with me – a total flight of fantasy – is typical of the way Miguna lies his way through his book, trying to take credit for many things in which he played no part. The lies are so blatant that it’s hard to believe he thought he could get away with it. And anyone who swallows this stuff is simply buying into Miguna’s delusions.





Miguna also uses the launch – which was a glittering and ground-breaking event that others this very year have copied when launching their own presidential bids – to try and portray Raila and his team as disorganised. The launch had been planned for months by the team Miguna calls Raila’s strategy team. The team was not a political strategy team, as Miguna tries to portray them (while dismissing them as clueless) but a strategy team for the launch. I was there with Dick Ogolla, Caroli Omondi, Tony Cege, Francis Masinde, Tedd Josiah, Caesar Asiyo and Mike Njeru.





I have the final storyboard on file. It was produced by Caesar and covers the programme minute by minute. It lists all the personnel in charge of onstage events and their assistants, security co-ordinators, protocol, press and verification team, finance manager, ushers co-ordinator and master of ceremonies. It lists the broadcast arrangements, the sound and lights back-up, generator provision, the actors and musicians, photographers, projection screens, guest comforts, branding – flags, posters, bunting, T-shirts, balloons, plants, stage dressing, carpets, confetti and the way it would fall at the appropriate moment – press packs, TV crews liaison and runners, among many other details.





The event was supremely organised and a huge success. It was something that Miguna had absolutely nothing to do with – but into which he would now like to insert himself. The audacity of his lies is breathtaking. That is not the only lie about speeches Miguna is supposed to have written for the PM. Miguna also claims that Raila called him in Canada and asked him to write a speech that Raila was due to deliver at the University of Minnesota on February 22, 2007.





Miguna goes into much circumstantial detail about how his wife was annoyed that Raila was forcing him to do this at short notice and to travel at his own expense to Minnesota and so on. (Miguna appears to have total recall for conversations, to the extent that he can put them in direct quotes years later. Hmmm.) Miguna says he told his wife, “Sometimes we have to sacrifice for a higher cause.” Very noble. He calls it “Raila’s sudden act of madness” and portrays the whole episode as some kind of a burden he was forced to bear because of Raila’s cluelessness.





Perhaps that IS what he told his wife. Perhaps he needed an excuse to make the trip. Who knows? Whatever the case, it’s all untrue. Raila never asked him to go to Minnesota, nor asked him to write a speech. Miguna travelled to Minnesota because he wanted to. The speech, on the topic ‘The place of Africa in the 21st Century’, was provided by Adams Oloo, of the University of Nairobi.





In Nairobi, I received a copy of the speech by email from Raila’s secretary, Susan Kibathi, on February 16, 2007. I still have the original text. The speech was a massive 6,297 words long and was sent to me for editing and rewriting into Raila’s style. The accompanying note from Susan said: “I must apologise for the late submission of the draft but unfortunately Adams has not been well.”





Raila was about to leave, for Korea if I remember rightly, before going on to the US. I did a very hurried tidying-up of the speech, burnt the result on to a CD and sent it to Raila to take with him. He said he would get it printed out when he arrived. I told him the speech was far too long but time had not allowed proper rewriting, so I’d look at it again and be in touch. He went off.





When I looked at this unwieldy speech again, I realised to my horror that pages of it had been reproduced word for word from a speech given by the then South African president, Thabo Mbeki, in April the previous year. I was worried about what else might not be original and I didn’t know what brief Adams had been given by Raila.





I spent some frantic time trying to contact Adams, by phone and in every other way. Eventually, I got an email from him. I think he was in Indonesia. He said an assistant had provided material for the speech, which had been hurriedly put together. Adams was most apologetic and was relieved the error had been caught in time. It was now barely a day before this major speech was to be delivered.





By some miracle, I got hold of Raila on the phone in the US (it was not so easy in those days), where he had just arrived from Korea, and explained the problem. I remember Raila’s words, because they were such a relief to me at the time. He said, “Miguna Miguna is here. He can sort it out.” And that is how Miguna ended up “writing” the speech for Minnesota. I told Raila which parts must be omitted because they were plagiarised and Miguna reworked what remained. When Raila got back to Nairobi, he told me that what Miguna had produced was too long and convoluted, and although Raila had handed out hard copies of it, he hadn’t read it at the function and had ended up speaking off the cuff.





Once again, Miguna’s version of events comes from somewhere in a world the rest of us don’t inhabit. He has taken a nugget of truth and woven around it a massive and detailed lie in order to promote himself and belittle Raila Odinga. Later in the book, Miguna reworks another nugget of truth, that he met the Prime Minister late last year to discuss his suspension and that the PM at the end of the meeting left the hotel room without paying the bill. All true, but Miguna twists it to make the PM look arrogant and thoughtless. Miguna writes, “When the waiter came in with our bill and passed it over to Patrick [Quarcoo], I suddenly realised Raila had left us with an [sic] Sh11,000 debt.”





Quarcoo, the CEO of the Radio Africa Group (which publishes The Star), has since confirmed that he was the host of the meeting. The PM was simply an invited guest. The bill was never the PM’s to pay and the matter, Quarcoo says, was “none of Miguna’s business”. There is more. The meeting was the result of Quarcoo’s pleas to the PM on Miguna’s behalf. Miguna was desperate after his suspension and the PM “magnanimously” (as Quarcoo puts it) agreed to meet Miguna after Quarcoo had interceded, to try and resolve outstanding issues and find Miguna some kind of job. “The PM was being decent and loyal by listening,” Quarcoo said.





Miguna, however, makes out in his book that the PM was chasing him for a settlement. Miguna has since extended this lie, to declare publicly, shamelessly and completely falsely that the PM and his colleagues were actually desperately begging him to return to his job. Quarcoo has confirmed that the opposite was true. Salim Lone tells me he likewise has not escaped misrepresentation in the book. Concerning the occasion where Miguna describes the PM’s emotional response to the absolute intransigence he faced in every meeting with President Mwai Kibaki, Miguna has written, “Salim and I looked at each other and said … almost in unison, ‘Holy Moly! What the hell was that?’ We moved outside discreetly. ‘Can you believe that Miguna? He cried. Raila cried,’ said Salim, clearly agitated.”





Salim disputes the impression given here by Miguna. He tells me he was moved and touched by Raila’s humanity and by his willingness to let his colleagues see a softer side of him, a side that said they were all in this together and that he needed their help and support. Once again, Miguna has taken a nugget of truth and distorted it to present the picture he wants, while roping in someone else’s name to ‘endorse’ it.





And so it goes on, endlessly. I was not present at many of the situations Miguna describes in his book. I don’t need to have been. From the many occasions where I do have first-hand knowledge, I can see how Miguna has continually invoked other people’s names to ‘validate’ his stories, how he has engaged in writing up long, imaginary-looking conversations to bolster his case, and how he has employed these and other devices in a myriad different ways to cast Raila Odinga in a poor light.





These might seem like small matters but their sheer volume cumulatively establishes the book’s false tenor – which is designed to lend credence to other, larger claims. After his book-launch a couple of weeks ago, Miguna started shouting about post-2007-election meetings at Pentagon House, about which he claims to know everything and in which he claims to have played a central role. I was present and took verbatim notes of 32 meetings, interviews and telephone conversations during those early days of 2008. Miguna was present for four of those meetings, in two of which he said nothing and in the two others, two sentences in each.





It was hectic at Pentagon House. Raila was fielding continual telephone calls from foreign leaders and repeating to everyone who cared to hear it his mantra of peaceful protest. People were arriving, footsore and weary, from demonstrations on the ‘battlefront’ at Uhuru Park – Joe Nyagah, William Ruto, Charity Ngilu and many others. Joe burst in with a big smile and announced with some pride, “I’ve been tear-gassed!” Charity was advising everyone to wear trainers. Miguna was not among them. Maybe he was in another room. I don’t know.





There are a hundred stories I could tell. There is no space. I would have to write a book myself to refute all the distortions in Peeling Back the Mask. Miguna’s fictionalised vignettes are deliberately intended to paint a carefully designed picture. They are not ‘revelations’, as the media like to call them, but false allegations. He builds his case on a web of distortions, gradually fashioning a straw man he can then destroy. The lies are insidious, and it is unforgivable that Miguna has stooped to such deceit in his efforts to achieve what is surely an ignoble goal.





One curious thing I noticed was Miguna’s apparent lack of male friends. He esteems his male teachers who supported him, and he admires some of his erstwhile student colleagues (that is, those he is not busy sneering at) but most of the good friends he mentions are women. (An exception is Onyango Oloo, who runs the Jukwaa web blog, and who was Miguna’s main defence witness in his 2003 trial for alleged sexual assault against two of his clients – which, by the way, is mentioned nowhere in Miguna’s story of his glorious career, even in an exculpatory manner.)





Perhaps Miguna finds it difficult to get along with other men because of his history. He was raised with no father but he had five older sisters who no doubt fondly treated him like a little prince. Then his mother would kneel before him so that he could stand and breastfeed when he got home from school, as Miguna tells it in his book. Perhaps Miguna still wants to be treated like a prince, and perhaps that is why he can’t bear anyone else to be top dog. But let me not get into amateur psychology here (let alone mixing my metaphors).





Poignantly, Miguna’s book, even bearing in mind that it is self-evaluation written by a very conceited man, reveals a person of unrealised and unchannelled talent. It initially tells the story of someone who worked hard to improve his life and who was strongly committed to what he believed in. As the book unfolds however it also reveals that Miguna’s achievements from very early on in his life have all been diminished and spoiled by his explosive temper, his lack of diplomacy, his inability to co-operate with anyone to find mutually acceptable and workable compromises that allow a way forward, and his consequent failure to find a winning strategy to achieve his various life objectives. The result is that Miguna is a very bitter man.





In the end, though, it is his lies that condemn him – for if a person tells lies on one occasion, it is unquestionable that he will do so on others. Lies fracture trust and render everything else suspect. Miguna has not operated in a vacuum. There are many other people who know the truth. Miguna has chosen to publish and be damned. Unfortunately for him, he might be.

The writer is a freelance journalist and a supporter of Team Raila Odinga.

[tnk]

wow

what an article by Sarah

this is a most severe drubbing

am going to take a glass of water

hehehe

have to admit am now a little curious on whether the events at harambee house transpired as stated in that account

hope some of those at the meeting can verify

==

wow, Sarah has blown some pretty big holes in miguna's narrative of events

.......

[akinyi2005]

Miguna should spare us this arrogance


By PHILIP OCHIENG
Posted Saturday, July 28 2012 at 19:28

The science of psychology suggests that there is no such thing as absolute mental sanity. This should follow, at any rate, from the fact that every natural phenomenon is a double-edged self-contradiction.

That is probably why, despite our high level of specific intelligence, every human being suffers from one delusion or another.

Megalomania — the delusion of self-importance — is among the most common of all such conditions that Brian Masters describes in his illuminating book The Evil That Men Do. It was what pursued Amin, Bokassa, Bush II, Franco, De Gaulle, Hitler, Lon Nol, Marcos, Mobutu, Napoleon, Stalin, Thatcher and others with such fury.

The term megalomania is composed of megalo and mania. The Latin mania refers to a mental state characterised by uncontrolled excitement or euphoria and often violence.

A mania is an obsession, fixation or preoccupation with, for instance, money, sex, power or war — all driven by deep-seated and morbid egotism.

In Kenya, many link kleptomania with the Moi and Kibaki regimes. For the functionaries steal big. That is why kleptomaniacs can also be called megalomaniacs. The Greek megalo or mega — means big, bloated, grandiose and exaggerated, especially in the pursuit of power, characterised — on gaining it — with a streak of sadism.

Thus, even without reading Miguna Miguna’s book, Peeling Back The Mask, those with television sets will have seen for themselves — and to their utter horror and dismay — a man powerfully consumed by his own genius, a man full to overflowing with his own greatness, a man whose ego only a psychiatrist can fathom.

That is why Kenyans should be grateful that Mr Miguna is no longer in the service of anybody so close to ultimate power as Raila Odinga.

For the probability of Mr Odinga romping to State with Mr Miguna in his retinue was very great. I shudder violently at the mere thought of it.

Had Mr Miguna reached State House, would even Cabinet Ministers have escaped his wrath — his chest-thumping bigness, his bloated heroics, his devil-may-care oral fisticuffs, the know-it-all conceit with which he dares even President Kibaki? Mr Miguna is probably acutely intelligent and highly skilled.

But it takes the inordinate haughtiness for him to be the one announcing it to the world.

It reminds us of the character in Kenneth Grahame’s satitical novel The Wind in the Willows: Of all the great intellects of our world, none knows half as much as the Great Mister Toad! I know people in that office — like Salim Lone and the son of Clem Lubembe — who are at least equally intelligent and skilled.

A critic with any sense of proportion would have known much better than to stand in the agora to proclaim to the whole world that he was the only one who ever did anything worth doing in that office.

Habitual self-praise is often but the fig leaf with which to cover the inadequacies of one’s intellectual genitals. But it seems extremely difficult for our hero to work with others, listen to their views and — for the sake of harmony — occasionally yield to their suggestions.

Imposing one’s own ideas on one’s colleagues is just incompatible with the democracy that we desperately need.

Nor is the habit of sending to newspaper offices very badly written articles with the instruction to the editors that they are not to remove even a comma and then calling them all sorts of names when they reject this. The only saving grace is that Miguna Miguna is not alone in this empty-headed arrogance.

Our government offices are chockfull of three-piece-suited characters who rate themselves extremely highly and will react with extreme oral violence whenever you point out their shortcomings to them.

That is why I often admonish Mr Odinga to surround himself with aides who are firm and intelligent but humane and humble.

www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Miguna+should+spare+us+this+arrogance/-/440808/1465690/-/q6ml3e/-/index.html

[jakaswanga]

Jul 28, 2012 20:53:41 GMT 3 raiswakesho said:

... Prof. Mutua has graded the book, guys it's a D !I can't wait for Miguna's rebuttal
www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Dont+write+cheap+books+to+settle+political+scores/-/440808/1465714/-/item/1/-/roa0ht/-/index.html

Prof. Makau Mutua of Buffalo New York is a lazy geek here on the DN. After denouncing Miguna's book as no memoir, he fails to discern what else he can correctly call it if he wants to be serious, given his own alternative description. A polemic he should say. This is actually a literary genre, and the book is then a pamphlet.. An epic pamphlet Instead, he writes as if the book is nothing further. Lazy.

DN:

It’s not really a memoir, as Mr Miguna claims. A memoir is an autobiographical literary genre. But Mr Miguna’s book is rather a “political expose”. One might best describe it as a tawdry “scandal sheet” meant primarily to bring Prime Minister Raila Odinga down.[end quote]

This is being clueless for a professor. If he accuses Miguna of being intellectually cheap and a fake, he must try to do better and know that there is a literary genre which matches 'political expose', and which, in a tawdry column in a scandal-sheet like the DN , can be described in such polemical terms. Anyway, technically speaking, how would even the most dismissive 'criticus' deny Book I, on the childhood/boyhood, is not the literary genre autobiography?)

In the english language, some of the best prose has been, even from a critical literary perspective, penned in pamphlets engaging in heroic polemics. Best example I can come up with is the legendary exchange between John Stuart Mill and Thomas Carlyle, on whether blacks have souls and slavery is good for them. (I think Charles Dickens too joined the fray. (And I have forgotten what it was Oscar Wilde was waxing polemical about --Homosexuality maybe, I will check it out, and all literati said they read it just for the fine prose and wit!]. But well, just like I wouldn't know a clause from a paragraph in law, may be the good professor wouldn't know the difference between a biography and an autobiography!

Just that it is well-written to a literary standard, even if it then does not meet the professors criterion of a memoir, is enough to identify the literary genre it could be condemned to, without the word tawdry! Makau is a professor, and the bar has to be set high for professors, even if they are 'mere' lawyers writing for a daily 'rag' soliciting favours by appearing authoritative on matters not their specialization.

Very tawdry indeed.

[jakaswanga]

When I looked at this unwieldy speech again, I realised to my horror that pages of it had been reproduced word for word from a speech given by the then South African president, Thabo Mbeki, in April the previous year. I was worried about what else might not be original and I didn’t know what brief Adams had been given by Raila.

I spent some frantic time trying to contact Adams, by phone and in every other way. Eventually, I got an email from him. I think he was in Indonesia. He said an assistant had provided material for the speech, which had been hurriedly put together. Adams was most apologetic and was relieved the error had been caught in time. It was now barely a day before this major speech was to be delivered.
Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=7183&page=11#ixzz222a3tio8

The amount of fire-power expended by Sarah in the rebuttal of this 'malicious work of fiction sponsored by a rogue spy agency and opponents of Raila' is, in military terms, a give away of high-value target in the vicinity.

At the same time, this is why I really love the saying behind every great man there is a woman --not necessarily his wife. I will bet your own heart you can not find a hired hand to do what Sarah is doing here. This is a passionate defence my instincts understand very clearly.

Take a look at this: Adams Oloo got an opportunity to write a speech for Raila. He could not care shit, he delegated it to some clerk who in turn could not be bothered, but just copy-pasted Thabo Mbeki's speech (writer). And he did not even bother to edit and assess before he sent it to Raila. Classic Kenya.

But what does Sarah do? she recognizes every pitfall of the speech, including the plagiarism! That is not a service you will get in Kenya by paying cash. This is a passion speaking. That fact alone warms my heart.

Sarah Elderkin working for Raila, is a testimonial of love. And in this Miguna rebuttals, I enjoy the inspiration, reaching the levels of a high.
But when you around power, you know the dark horse is money. Sarah Elderkin will never be eloquent on the flow of money, as in forensic accounting, through the office of the PM. Follow the money, just the money, that is where the skeletons are burried, old hands at this will tell you. She as much as admitted the money flow was irregular, if the e-mail flying around is genuine.

But I wish she had not done a Miguna on Adams Oloo!

[tnk]

Jul 29, 2012 22:30:49 GMT 3 jakaswanga said:

[/quote

Take a look at this: Adams Oloo got an opportunity to write a speech for Raila. He could not care shit, he delegated it to some clerk who in turn could not be bothered, but just copy-pasted Thabo Mbeki's speech (writer). And he did not even bother to edit and assess before he sent it to Raila. Classic Kenya.

excellent catch jakaswanga

this is precisely why kenya remains backwards

"important" people are assigned tasks they have no time or passion for

while millions of eager skilled or green resources waste away never getting an opportunity to apply themselves

how many meetings and events get held up or postponed because the "key" person is busy elsewhere

great catch

[jeff]

Jul 29, 2012 22:30:49 GMT 3 jakaswanga said:

When I looked at this unwieldy speech again, I realised to my horror that pages of it had been reproduced word for word from a speech given by the then South African president, Thabo Mbeki, in April the previous year. I was worried about what else might not be original and I didn’t know what brief Adams had been given by Raila.

I spent some frantic time trying to contact Adams, by phone and in every other way. Eventually, I got an email from him. I think he was in Indonesia. He said an assistant had provided material for the speech, which had been hurriedly put together. Adams was most apologetic and was relieved the error had been caught in time. It was now barely a day before this major speech was to be delivered.
Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=7183&page=11#ixzz222a3tio8

The amount of fire-power expended by Sarah in the rebuttal of this 'malicious work of fiction sponsored by a rogue spy agency and opponents of Raila' is, in military terms, a give away of high-value target in the vicinity.

At the same time, this is why I really love the saying behind every great man there is a woman --not necessarily his wife. I will bet your own heart you can not find a hired hand to do what Sarah is doing here. This is a passionate defence my instincts understand very clearly.

Take a look at this: Adams Oloo got an opportunity to write a speech for Raila. He could not care shit, he delegated it to some clerk who in turn could not be bothered, but just copy-pasted Thabo Mbeki's speech (writer). And he did not even bother to edit and assess before he sent it to Raila. Classic Kenya.

But what does Sarah do? she recognizes every pitfall of the speech, including the plagiarism! That is not a service you will get in Kenya by paying cash. This is a passion speaking. That fact alone warms my heart.

Sarah Elderkin working for Raila, is a testimonial of love. And in this Miguna rebuttals, I enjoy the inspiration, reaching the levels of a high.
But when you around power, you know the dark horse is money. Sarah Elderkin will never be eloquent on the flow of money, as in forensic accounting, through the office of the PM. Follow the money, just the money, that is where the skeletons are burried, old hands at this will tell you. She as much as admitted the money flow was irregular, if the e-mail flying around is genuine.

But I wish she had not done a Miguna on Adams Oloo!

I think Sarah Elderkin is trying too hard to also try and make her own twisting of the facts.

1. She has confirmed Miguna's assertion that Raila expressed deep emotions (Raila cried) after one of the meetings with Kibaki. I am sure Miguna or Lone or Sarah and everyone else who was present are free to give us their interpretation of the incident. This includes the reader. Miguna has given his.

2. Sarah has confirmed Miguna provided some input in the presidential launch campaign. Why is she intent of minimising Miguna's input.

3. Miguna definitely played a big role in the coming up with the eventual Minesota speech after Oloo and Sarah failed in their duties. Could Raila have circulated a speech to the delegates that he did not agree with? What was the content of his "off cuff" speech if the earlier one (Oloo's and Sarah's ) could not be used due to stated errors? Again, what is the motive for minimising Miguna's input here?

4. Sarah has also gone fishing.....the reference to the 2007/8 ODM meetings is basically to call out Miguna on the information he alluded he has on ODM meetings during PEV which could potentially 'take all of them to the Hague'. Will Miguna bite the bait?

The question should then be what else is Sarah twisting in an effort to defend Raila. Will this now turn into "she said, he said" match?

Meanwhile, there are certain credibility issues in OPM that Makau, Sarah and other Miguna critics are not talking about.
unedited

[b6k]

Jul 29, 2012 23:55:21 GMT 3 jeff said:

Jul 29, 2012 22:30:49 GMT 3 jakaswanga said:

When I looked at this unwieldy speech again, I realised to my horror that pages of it had been reproduced word for word from a speech given by the then South African president, Thabo Mbeki, in April the previous year. I was worried about what else might not be original and I didn’t know what brief Adams had been given by Raila.

I spent some frantic time trying to contact Adams, by phone and in every other way. Eventually, I got an email from him. I think he was in Indonesia. He said an assistant had provided material for the speech, which had been hurriedly put together. Adams was most apologetic and was relieved the error had been caught in time. It was now barely a day before this major speech was to be delivered.
Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=7183&page=11#ixzz222a3tio8


The amount of fire-power expended by Sarah in the rebuttal of this 'malicious work of fiction sponsored by a rogue spy agency and opponents of Raila' is, in military terms, a give away of high-value target in the vicinity.

At the same time, this is why I really love the saying behind every great man there is a woman --not necessarily his wife. I will bet your own heart you can not find a hired hand to do what Sarah is doing here. This is a passionate defence my instincts understand very clearly.

Take a look at this: Adams Oloo got an opportunity to write a speech for Raila. He could not care shit, he delegated it to some clerk who in turn could not be bothered, but just copy-pasted Thabo Mbeki's speech (writer). And he did not even bother to edit and assess before he sent it to Raila. Classic Kenya.

But what does Sarah do? she recognizes every pitfall of the speech, including the plagiarism! That is not a service you will get in Kenya by paying cash. This is a passion speaking. That fact alone warms my heart.

Sarah Elderkin working for Raila, is a testimonial of love. And in this Miguna rebuttals, I enjoy the inspiration, reaching the levels of a high.
But when you around power, you know the dark horse is money. Sarah Elderkin will never be eloquent on the flow of money, as in forensic accounting, through the office of the PM. Follow the money, just the money, that is where the skeletons are burried, old hands at this will tell you. She as much as admitted the money flow was irregular, if the e-mail flying around is genuine.

But I wish she had not done a Miguna on Adams Oloo!

I think Sarah Elderkin is trying too hard to also try and make her own twisting of the facts.

1. She has confirmed Miguna's assertion that Raila expressed deep emotions (Raila cried) after one of the meetings with Kibaki. I am sure Miguna or Lone or Sarah and everyone else who was present are free to give us their interpretation of the incident. This includes the reader. Miguna has given his.

2. Sarah has confirmed Miguna provided some input in the presidential launch campaign. Why is she intent of minimising Miguna's input.

3. Miguna definitely played a big role in the coming up with the eventual Minesota speech after Oloo and Sarah failed in their duties. Could Raila have circulated a speech to the delegates that he did not agree with? What was the content of his "off cuff" speech if the earlier one (Oloo's and Sarah's ) could not be used due to stated errors? Again, what is the motive for minimising Miguna's input here?

4. Sarah has also gone fishing.....the reference to the 2007/8 ODM meetings is basically to call out Miguna on the information he alluded he has on ODM meetings during PEV which could potentially 'take all of them to the Hague'. Will Miguna bite the bait?

The question should then be what else is Sarah twisting in an effort to defend Raila. Will this now turn into "she said, he said" match?

Meanwhile, there are certain credibility issues in OPM that Makau, Sarah and other Miguna critics are not talking about.
unedited

Jeff, you're right. Elderkin down plays Miguna's past efforts for the struggle in equal measure as Miguna embellished parts of his tale. The truth is most likely somewhere in between. As you point out though, the issues that she remains silent on just won't go away. Ochieng's piece is more balanced & less emotionally loaded.

[job]

Jul 29, 2012 23:55:21 GMT 3 jeff said:

I think Sarah Elderkin is trying too hard to also try and make her own twisting of the facts.

1. She has confirmed Miguna's assertion that Raila expressed deep emotions (Raila cried) after one of the meetings with Kibaki. I am sure Miguna or Lone or Sarah and everyone else who was present are free to give us their interpretation of the incident. This includes the reader. Miguna has given his.

Raila's crying was never in dispute. In fact Salim Lone confesses it brought out the soft and human side of Raila they had never seen. What Lone disputed was Miguna's claim that they (Lone and Miguna) together exclaimed " Holly Molly!"... "What was that?". In other words, the point of dispute between Lone and Miguna was the interpretation of Raila's crying. According to Lone - it was indeed a good thing they were seeing a leader expressing a soft heart, seeking their collective counsel, and admitting they were all in it together...on the other hand, Miguna thinks it was a weakness (and cowardice) for a leader to cry before his supporters. In the latter school of thought, a leader must show a heart of steel.

2. Sarah has confirmed Miguna provided some input in the presidential launch campaign. Why is she intent of minimising Miguna's input.

If you have read the book, Miguna takes credit for being the one who wrote Raila's speech. Sarah says she (and not Miguna) was the one who actually wrote the speech. Debunking a lie and taking credit for what Sarah herself certainly did isn't in any way synonymous with minimizing Miguna's role. Sarah's intent was in fact to point out Miguna's lie, not to minimize anything.

3. Miguna definitely played a big role in the coming up with the eventual Minesota speech after Oloo and Sarah failed in their duties. Could Raila have circulated a speech to the delegates that he did not agree with? What was the content of his "off cuff" speech if the earlier one (Oloo's and Sarah's ) could not be used due to stated errors? Again, what is the motive for minimising Miguna's input here?

I guess you got it mixed up then failed to get the context of Jakaswanga's input. It is Adams Oloo who failed in his duty (to draft the Minnesota speech). One of his Assistants ended up plagiarizing portions of Mbeki's speech. It was Sarah who figured this out - keen diligence, Jakaswanga notes, is rare in Kenya. Miguna stepped in to fill out a portion of the final speech. This speech was distributed to attendees of the Conference - but never read out by Raila who only gave off-cuff remarks. Pointing out these clarifications doesn't in any way minimize Miguna's input. The truth is - it is in fact Miguna who was trying to take too much credit for everything he didn't singularly do - a pattern now well observed in him.

4. Sarah has also gone fishing.....the reference to the 2007/8 ODM meetings is basically to call out Miguna on the information he alluded he has on ODM meetings during PEV which could potentially 'take all of them to the Hague'. Will Miguna bite the bait?

Don't you find it recklessly negligent for Miguna to withhold crucial information that could help the ICC prosecute PEV masterminds? Is that surely information that should be shared with authorities (Police, DPP, ICC) or hoarded for a money-making book deal? Be the judge.

My opinion is that Miguna is setting the stage for his next book. He is already promoting what he thinks will be a best-seller release. Playing with the emotions of gullible Kenyans and victims of PEV. Trying to cash-in on other peoples' plight. Yet in the end - absolutely zero evidence of criminal undertakings. What more is new?

The question should then be what else is Sarah twisting in an effort to defend Raila. Will this now turn into "she said, he said" match?

As you can see, Sarah is in fact untwisting the lies Miguna weaved into his memoir. Anyone can choose what they believe but the truth is emerging and Sarah is in pretty good standing.

Meanwhile, there are certain credibility issues in OPM that Makau, Sarah and other Miguna critics are not talking about.
unedited

Why don't you take the mantle and bring them forth for debate. Kama haiko haiko! Rumours, hearsays and innuendo will remain that! Porojo! Miguna did great disservice by not leaving the OPM with actionable evidence that can lead to prosecution for either corruption or abuse of office. He likely knows it! I particularly believe that Caroli and Isahakhia are corrupt. I only wish Miguna quietly got hold of hard evidence while still inside the OPM. He would be in excellent standing as an effective whistleblower right now! Makelele and chest-thumping needs to be backed up with some actionable Githongo-isque dossier.

[reporter911]

Jul 29, 2012 23:55:21 GMT 3 jeff said:

Jul 29, 2012 22:30:49 GMT 3 jakaswanga said:

When I looked at this unwieldy speech again, I realised to my horror that pages of it had been reproduced word for word from a speech given by the then South African president, Thabo Mbeki, in April the previous year. I was worried about what else might not be original and I didn’t know what brief Adams had been given by Raila.

I spent some frantic time trying to contact Adams, by phone and in every other way. Eventually, I got an email from him. I think he was in Indonesia. He said an assistant had provided material for the speech, which had been hurriedly put together. Adams was most apologetic and was relieved the error had been caught in time. It was now barely a day before this major speech was to be delivered.
Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=7183&page=11#ixzz222a3tio8


The amount of fire-power expended by Sarah in the rebuttal of this 'malicious work of fiction sponsored by a rogue spy agency and opponents of Raila' is, in military terms, a give away of high-value target in the vicinity.

At the same time, this is why I really love the saying behind every great man there is a woman --not necessarily his wife. I will bet your own heart you can not find a hired hand to do what Sarah is doing here. This is a passionate defence my instincts understand very clearly.

Take a look at this: Adams Oloo got an opportunity to write a speech for Raila. He could not care shit, he delegated it to some clerk who in turn could not be bothered, but just copy-pasted Thabo Mbeki's speech (writer). And he did not even bother to edit and assess before he sent it to Raila. Classic Kenya.

But what does Sarah do? she recognizes every pitfall of the speech, including the plagiarism! That is not a service you will get in Kenya by paying cash. This is a passion speaking. That fact alone warms my heart.

Sarah Elderkin working for Raila, is a testimonial of love. And in this Miguna rebuttals, I enjoy the inspiration, reaching the levels of a high.
But when you around power, you know the dark horse is money. Sarah Elderkin will never be eloquent on the flow of money, as in forensic accounting, through the office of the PM. Follow the money, just the money, that is where the skeletons are burried, old hands at this will tell you. She as much as admitted the money flow was irregular, if the e-mail flying around is genuine.

But I wish she had not done a Miguna on Adams Oloo!

I think Sarah Elderkin is trying too hard to also try and make her own twisting of the facts.

1. She has confirmed Miguna's assertion that Raila expressed deep emotions (Raila cried) after one of the meetings with Kibaki. I am sure Miguna or Lone or Sarah and everyone else who was present are free to give us their interpretation of the incident. This includes the reader. Miguna has given his.

2. Sarah has confirmed Miguna provided some input in the presidential launch campaign. Why is she intent of minimising Miguna's input.

3. Miguna definitely played a big role in the coming up with the eventual Minesota speech after Oloo and Sarah failed in their duties. Could Raila have circulated a speech to the delegates that he did not agree with? What was the content of his "off cuff" speech if the earlier one (Oloo's and Sarah's ) could not be used due to stated errors? Again, what is the motive for minimising Miguna's input here?

4. Sarah has also gone fishing.....the reference to the 2007/8 ODM meetings is basically to call out Miguna on the information he alluded he has on ODM meetings during PEV which could potentially 'take all of them to the Hague'. Will Miguna bite the bait?

The question should then be what else is Sarah twisting in an effort to defend Raila. Will this now turn into "she said, he said" match?

Meanwhile, there are certain credibility issues in OPM that Makau, Sarah and other Miguna critics are not talking about.
unedited

Opps have i come across Miguna's groupie or propagandist? surprise surprise.. welcome to Jukwaa a land of free speech without matusi's ;D ;D

Kenyans are still waiting for Miguna to table the "PEV" information he is withholding to the appropriate authorities ! he has a choice The ICC or Kenya Police..

[job]

A curious female friend (currently reading Peeling the Mask) has asked what I think a "wholly inappropriate woman" could mean? Could anyone help?

Many a time, we were appalled to find him [Raila] eating food brought to him by women I felt to be wholly inappropriate such as Rachel Shebesh, Ann Kariuki and Esther Passaris.

[/b] He seemed to have a strange weakness for women of all descriptions. If he wasn’t drinking with such women, he was spending too much time with sycophantic nincompoops like Paul Gondi, Mike Njeru, Tony Chege (prior to December 30, 2007), Jakoyo Midiwo, Oburu Oginga, Caroli Omondi, Mohammed Isahakia, James Orengo and others I saw as simply lazy layabouts.
[/i][/blockquote]


She noted another interesting one:

There wasn’t anybody in ODM, at his office or around him with the writing skills I had. Anyang’ Nyong’o and Ababu Namwamba could write very well and they did, regularly. The problem was that they didn’t have what my friend and Chief Executive Officer of the Star newspaper calls “the Miguna sting”.

Then seriously doubts another:

Credible reports had it that within three years, Caroli had assembled assets worth more than Sh10 billion.

[/b] [/i]
[/blockquote]

[reporter911]

Jul 31, 2012 5:31:22 GMT 3 job said:

A curious female friend (currently reading Peeling the Mask) has asked what I think a "wholly inappropriate woman" could mean? Could anyone help?

Many a time, we were appalled to find him [Raila] eating food brought to him by women I felt to be wholly inappropriate such as Rachel Shebesh, Ann Kariuki and Esther Passaris.

[/b] He seemed to have a strange weakness for women of all descriptions. If he wasn’t drinking with such women, he was spending too much time with sycophantic nincompoops like Paul Gondi, Mike Njeru, Tony Chege (prior to December 30, 2007), Jakoyo Midiwo, Oburu Oginga, Caroli Omondi, Mohammed Isahakia, James Orengo and others I saw as simply lazy layabouts.
[/i][/blockquote]


She noted another interesting one:

There wasn’t anybody in ODM, at his office or around him with the writing skills I had. Anyang’ Nyong’o and Ababu Namwamba could write very well and they did, regularly. The problem was that they didn’t have what my friend and Chief Executive Officer of the Star newspaper calls “the Miguna sting”.

Then seriously doubts another:

Credible reports had it that within three years, Caroli had assembled assets worth more than Sh10 billion.

[/b] [/i]
[/blockquote]

[/quote]
Yup!! only Miguna can answers that question, I wonder how many wholly inappropriate woman have served Miguna food or women of all descriptions? or is he served food by only male servers? just musing...

[job]

www.the-star.co.ke/weekend/siasa/88049-final-words-on-miguna


Saturday, 04 August 2012 00:04 BY SARAH ELDERKIN


‘A memo I wrote to Raila Odinga appears to be Miguna’s number-one piece of so-called ‘proof’ of corruption in the PM’s office – and the irony is that the source of the accusations I quoted in my memo to Raila was Miguna Miguna’




OK. This is the last. Even though I believe Miguna Miguna might be in a mental state where he can’t differentiate lies from the truth and is therefore probably deserving of my compassion, I am sick of his deceit. No doubt everyone else is getting pretty sick of this whole issue, too. But Miguna has written an article (in The Star, Tuesday this week) that is more about me than anyone else. So, despite my discomfort with writing about myself, I have no option but to put my response on record.




This is the story. Here’s how it was. Full disclosure. Miguna has made this necessary. For every substantive thing I have written about Miguna’s book, I have documentary evidence available to anyone who might care to see it. I have quoted much of it already. On the other hand, Miguna’s accusations against everyone he attempts to crush in his book consist of crude putdowns and unsupported allegations. Apart from documents written by himself, Miguna quotes hardly anything else in his book to back up his allegations. He has no documentary evidence. Except, notably, for two things: a newspaper article I wrote in his defence, and a memo I wrote to Raila Odinga. In other words, it is my communications that have now become the main, possibly the only, platform for Miguna’s own defence, and he is quoting them over and over again, in different media forums. These now appear to be Miguna’s one lifeline in the web of lies that make up his book.




Ironically, I, a long-time Raila Odinga supporter, now appear to be Miguna’s principal weapon against the PM. Above all, a memo I wrote to Raila Odinga appears to be Miguna’s number-one piece of so-called ‘proof’ of corruption in the PM’s office. And the irony of it all is that the source of the accusations I quoted in my memo to Raila Odinga was ….. who? Miguna Miguna.




I first became aware of how explosive and volatile Miguna’s temperament was during a meeting in Prof Edward Oyugi’s office, before Miguna was appointed by Raila Odinga. I was there with the two of them and, if I remember rightly, Dr Oduor Ong’wen, the country director of the Southern and Eastern African Trade, Information and Negotiations Institute, and Dr Adams Oloo of the University of Nairobi, as part of think-tank processes Miguna claims I was never involved in. Fine.




Nothing could be discussed properly because of Miguna’s bombastic, overbearing, egotistical manner. (Is there anyone who has seen Miguna on TV who still believes that this is a man one can deal with in a normal way?) In the end, I told him to shut up and allow other people to speak. I think he was so shocked that he sulked and refused to say anything thereafter throughout the rest of the meeting. But in due course, I came to appreciate in particular Miguna’s thorough reading of legal issues. Having made such thorough readings, however, Miguna always failed to make his conclusions meaningful to anyone else, because of his browbeating manner. He has no communication skills to interact in a group in the way other people do, so he was generally dismissed as a nuisance. I thought I had a better understanding of him and that he was undervalued.




Miguna was eventually employed in the Prime Minister’s office. Because of the delicate balance I knew Raila Odinga was trying to preserve in government, and knowing how a person like Miguna could upset it, I always offered Miguna a friendly ear. I felt I was a port in a storm, ready to listen and empathise and try to calm him down. Miguna is always angry. But he is parentless and only four or five years older than my own children, and I felt sorry for him. I tried to be a friend to a person who appeared to have no friends. Miguna says in The Star, “we also visited each other at our respective homes” – making it look as if we were constantly popping round for a chat. That’s how Miguna builds his lies.




In the years I have known Miguna, I have been to his house exactly once. He invited me to lunch one day last year, together with the then outgoing Netherlands ambassador, Laetitia Van Den Assum. I have never been to his house before or since. In the same years, Miguna has been to my house probably three or four times, once to drop off a copy of the new Constitution (I had missed out on all 2010 events, having spent the year in the UK nursing my dying daughter) and on two or three other occasions when he was in search of a sympathetic ear as he complained and berated and sounded off about his working problems.




Because I respected his work as I’d seen it, I generally believed what Miguna told me. I’m not used to dealing with liars who are presenting as honest friends, and I did not at the time realise that there were at least two very distinct sides to this one man. I had my own complaints about things and people in government, not excluding in our own political party (as I am entitled to have, and as I am sure everyone has concerning their people, whichever side of the political divide they fall) and I discussed these things openly with Miguna. I trusted him, just as I trust other friends. I don’t work in government. I have been in the Prime Minister’s current offices exactly once. Ever. I have other, serious, things to do with my life besides hanging around there like a “groupie”, as Miguna so crudely and so discourteously characterises me. (I have teenaged grandchildren. I am sure they would be most amused to hear Granny described as a “groupie”.




As for Miguna, I would suggest that his personal history should make him very wary of making sexist, derogatory and dismissive comments about women. Miguna in any case knows very well that such a description cannot honestly be applied to me. He also knows very well that I am a moral person with no tolerance for wrongdoing, and that my commitment is to a better Kenya. But he has no conscience MIguna miguna:and no shame when he is inventing his insults and lies.) Since I was not operating in the PM’s office, I had no independent information about any possible corruption there. If I write a newspaper article, I do very thorough research first, but by then I had only heard what Miguna had told me – mostly in countless ranting sms messages. Because I trusted Miguna, I foolishly listened to what he had to say.




And then I even more foolishly repeated it back to the PM in the said memo. So, first step – Miguna Miguna tells me a load of gossip and scandal (something, incidentally, that inordinately delights and intrigues him). Two, I (trusting soul) believe him. Three, I quote back to the PM some of what Miguna has told me. Four, I now get quoted in turn, by Miguna, as independent ‘proof’ of his claims about corruption. What kind of distorted dishonesty is that? I defended Miguna in my memo to the PM because I felt Miguna had been unfairly treated. I still think this should have been done differently.




But, again, as the words of the quoted memo also show, part of my concern was how the whole episode reflected on the PM’s office.
I had previously also defended Miguna in print when he was, I felt, unfairly dealt with in an article by the Star’s ‘public editor’. At that stage, I still believed Miguna had a lot to offer, but I was disturbed by his antics and concerned about how it was reflecting on ODM generally. I have to admit that that was part of my motivation in defending him. Nevertheless, I believed the things I wrote, though I included caveats about Miguna’s difficulty in getting along with others. I had only returned to Kenya two months previously, having been out of the country for 14 months, and I was not fully aware of just how unbearable Miguna’s behaviour had become at work, nor of how fundamentally dishonest he is.




When Miguna heard of his suspension, I was one of the first people he called. I in turn complained to the PM. Throughout the days that followed, I persistently tried to get Miguna to allow me to mediate. I could see the situation would otherwise get ugly. Miguna refused to give me that permission [that was before he got financially desperate and Patrick Quarcoo interceded on his behalf] but contrarily at the same time he complained that Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o and James Orengo were both useless and weren’t helping and I wasn’t helping either. So as a sign of good faith and to try and entice him into allowing me to mediate and resolve this unpleasant situation, I showed Miguna the memo of complaint I had written to the PM.




Before doing so, I asked him for an undertaking of confidentiality. He gave me his word. By the time Miguna announced he was writing a book, I had a much better understanding of the kind of ruthlessly destructive person he is and I immediately knew that this memo would be made public. I contacted him by sms and reminded him that he had given me an undertaking of confidentiality. He told me not to worry, he never betrayed his friends. When it became evident that those were empty words, I had the following conversation with Miguna by sms (it is preserved in its entirety on my phone) just a few weeks ago, on July 12 this year:

SE: Miguna, you gave me a solemn undertaking not to betray something shown to you in strictest confidence. I have never done anything to harm you and have done much to defend you. It doesn’t matter to me that this is exposed. It doesn’t portray me in a bad light. But it exposes you as a betrayer of someone who only ever tried to seek fairness for you. You have wronged me. You should hang your head in shame.


MM: Sarah, good evening. I’ve never done anything to harm u; have the highest respect for u and not once have I said anything remotely negative against u until even my editor kept asking why I hold u in such high esteem. However, if u were in my position and was being attacked so savagely and inhumanely like I was and have been, would u just drink the hemlock like Socrates or try to use all the available arsenals in your possession? Between the looters and an innocent victim like me, would u hide such an email so that u could produce it as evidence of having come to my defence at my funeral like Raila did at Ojode’s? No my friend; compared to ua looting and barbaric friends (people who can sacrifice an innocent loyal man like me for power & greed) there is nothing I’ve done. Thanks.



SE: Miguna, an agreement of confidentiality between you and me, something I asked you to pledge before showing you the letter whose contents demonstrated my support for your case, has nothing to do with anyone else’s deeds or misdeeds or pronouncements. That was an act of faith between two people, you and me, who pledged trust in each other. You have violated that in the worst way possible. Please don’t delude yourself otherwise. You have sacrificed and trashed fundamental tenets of what makes relations between people work. It leaves you with no moral ground on which to criticise anyone for betrayal.


MM: Stay up there Sarah. Some of us are down here.


SE: Regrettably, it would definitely appear so. Sad.


MM: The TRUTH shall set us free!


SE: The truth is, I trusted you and I thought you had morals too. That truth has done nothing to set me free. You betrayed my trust. Live with it.


MM: And by the way, I never signed any confidentiality agreement with u! U defend a poor looting mortal; I defend an idea/ideal/principle.


SE: Signed, Miguna? Signed? That’s clutching at straws, isn’t it? You know very well you said you would respect confidentiality over the matter. Clearly, your word is not your bond. Nothing you can say changes the fact of your betrayal. As I say, live with it.


MM: Thanks and bye bye.

Now, I think it is fairly clear from this conversation that Miguna knows very well he had given his word on this matter. He doesn’t deny it and he admits he is not on the moral high ground, but he suggests all this was unimportant when my disclosure to him became part of his “arsenals” against Raila Odinga. It is only “compared to ua looting and barbaric friends” that there is “nothing I have done”, he says. It’s a comparative issue, apparently. And then he goes on to say he had never given me an undertaking in writing! Who gets an undertaking in writing when asking a friend to keep something confidential? This is the same man who is now blatantly saying, to quote his article in Tuesday’s Star: “I never, ever gave Sarah that undertaking. I wouldn’t have.




Why would I have given an undertaking to keep the letter hidden from the public?” His denial of the undertaking is a bare-faced lie. Miguna is wily and deceitful, and coldly and calculatedly so. Nothing is too valuable to be sacrificed in his savage pursuit of his goal. Where it suits him, Miguna lies about everything he touches. As I have said before, he takes a nugget of truth and then twists it to present the story in a manner that serves his ultimate purpose of destroying Raila Odinga. Sarah Elderkin is minor collateral damage.
Miguna also unbelievably describes me, along with Philip Ochieng and Prof Makau Mutua, who have also criticised him, as prescribing “detention without trial; brutal torture; exile; and stigmatisation”.




Er, when and where was that, then? What absolute nonsense. Nothing Miguna says can be taken at face value. He is a bully. And he’s still at it. He just can’t help himself. As the author Sir Walter Scott wrote, “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.” It is an apt citation for Miguna. As for me, there’s another saying I have rueful good cause to make my own: “No good deed goes unpunished.” With regard to Miguna Miguna, I have discovered the truth of that, to my cost. Live and learn.

[einstein]

Aug 5, 2012 2:59:29 GMT 3 job said:

www.the-star.co.ke/weekend/siasa/88049-final-words-on-miguna


Saturday, 04 August 2012 00:04 BY SARAH ELDERKIN


‘A memo I wrote to Raila Odinga appears to be Miguna’s number-one piece of so-called ‘proof’ of corruption in the PM’s office – and the irony is that the source of the accusations I quoted in my memo to Raila was Miguna Miguna’




OK. This is the last. Even though I believe Miguna Miguna might be in a mental state where he can’t differentiate lies from the truth and is therefore probably deserving of my compassion, I am sick of his deceit. No doubt everyone else is getting pretty sick of this whole issue, too. But Miguna has written an article (in The Star, Tuesday this week) that is more about me than anyone else. So, despite my discomfort with writing about myself, I have no option but to put my response on record.




This is the story. Here’s how it was. Full disclosure. Miguna has made this necessary. For every substantive thing I have written about Miguna’s book, I have documentary evidence available to anyone who might care to see it. I have quoted much of it already. On the other hand, Miguna’s accusations against everyone he attempts to crush in his book consist of crude putdowns and unsupported allegations. Apart from documents written by himself, Miguna quotes hardly anything else in his book to back up his allegations. He has no documentary evidence. Except, notably, for two things: a newspaper article I wrote in his defence, and a memo I wrote to Raila Odinga. In other words, it is my communications that have now become the main, possibly the only, platform for Miguna’s own defence, and he is quoting them over and over again, in different media forums. These now appear to be Miguna’s one lifeline in the web of lies that make up his book.




Ironically, I, a long-time Raila Odinga supporter, now appear to be Miguna’s principal weapon against the PM. Above all, a memo I wrote to Raila Odinga appears to be Miguna’s number-one piece of so-called ‘proof’ of corruption in the PM’s office. And the irony of it all is that the source of the accusations I quoted in my memo to Raila Odinga was ….. who? Miguna Miguna.




I first became aware of how explosive and volatile Miguna’s temperament was during a meeting in Prof Edward Oyugi’s office, before Miguna was appointed by Raila Odinga. I was there with the two of them and, if I remember rightly, Dr Oduor Ong’wen, the country director of the Southern and Eastern African Trade, Information and Negotiations Institute, and Dr Adams Oloo of the University of Nairobi, as part of think-tank processes Miguna claims I was never involved in. Fine.




Nothing could be discussed properly because of Miguna’s bombastic, overbearing, egotistical manner. (Is there anyone who has seen Miguna on TV who still believes that this is a man one can deal with in a normal way?) In the end, I told him to shut up and allow other people to speak. I think he was so shocked that he sulked and refused to say anything thereafter throughout the rest of the meeting. But in due course, I came to appreciate in particular Miguna’s thorough reading of legal issues. Having made such thorough readings, however, Miguna always failed to make his conclusions meaningful to anyone else, because of his browbeating manner. He has no communication skills to interact in a group in the way other people do, so he was generally dismissed as a nuisance. I thought I had a better understanding of him and that he was undervalued.




Miguna was eventually employed in the Prime Minister’s office. Because of the delicate balance I knew Raila Odinga was trying to preserve in government, and knowing how a person like Miguna could upset it, I always offered Miguna a friendly ear. I felt I was a port in a storm, ready to listen and empathise and try to calm him down. Miguna is always angry. But he is parentless and only four or five years older than my own children, and I felt sorry for him. I tried to be a friend to a person who appeared to have no friends. Miguna says in The Star, “we also visited each other at our respective homes” – making it look as if we were constantly popping round for a chat. That’s how Miguna builds his lies.




In the years I have known Miguna, I have been to his house exactly once. He invited me to lunch one day last year, together with the then outgoing Netherlands ambassador, Laetitia Van Den Assum. I have never been to his house before or since. In the same years, Miguna has been to my house probably three or four times, once to drop off a copy of the new Constitution (I had missed out on all 2010 events, having spent the year in the UK nursing my dying daughter) and on two or three other occasions when he was in search of a sympathetic ear as he complained and berated and sounded off about his working problems.




Because I respected his work as I’d seen it, I generally believed what Miguna told me. I’m not used to dealing with liars who are presenting as honest friends, and I did not at the time realise that there were at least two very distinct sides to this one man. I had my own complaints about things and people in government, not excluding in our own political party (as I am entitled to have, and as I am sure everyone has concerning their people, whichever side of the political divide they fall) and I discussed these things openly with Miguna. I trusted him, just as I trust other friends. I don’t work in government. I have been in the Prime Minister’s current offices exactly once. Ever. I have other, serious, things to do with my life besides hanging around there like a “groupie”, as Miguna so crudely and so discourteously characterises me. (I have teenaged grandchildren. I am sure they would be most amused to hear Granny described as a “groupie”.




As for Miguna, I would suggest that his personal history should make him very wary of making sexist, derogatory and dismissive comments about women. Miguna in any case knows very well that such a description cannot honestly be applied to me. He also knows very well that I am a moral person with no tolerance for wrongdoing, and that my commitment is to a better Kenya. But he has no conscience MIguna miguna:and no shame when he is inventing his insults and lies.) Since I was not operating in the PM’s office, I had no independent information about any possible corruption there. If I write a newspaper article, I do very thorough research first, but by then I had only heard what Miguna had told me – mostly in countless ranting sms messages. Because I trusted Miguna, I foolishly listened to what he had to say.




And then I even more foolishly repeated it back to the PM in the said memo. So, first step – Miguna Miguna tells me a load of gossip and scandal (something, incidentally, that inordinately delights and intrigues him). Two, I (trusting soul) believe him. Three, I quote back to the PM some of what Miguna has told me. Four, I now get quoted in turn, by Miguna, as independent ‘proof’ of his claims about corruption. What kind of distorted dishonesty is that? I defended Miguna in my memo to the PM because I felt Miguna had been unfairly treated. I still think this should have been done differently.




But, again, as the words of the quoted memo also show, part of my concern was how the whole episode reflected on the PM’s office.
I had previously also defended Miguna in print when he was, I felt, unfairly dealt with in an article by the Star’s ‘public editor’. At that stage, I still believed Miguna had a lot to offer, but I was disturbed by his antics and concerned about how it was reflecting on ODM generally. I have to admit that that was part of my motivation in defending him. Nevertheless, I believed the things I wrote, though I included caveats about Miguna’s difficulty in getting along with others. I had only returned to Kenya two months previously, having been out of the country for 14 months, and I was not fully aware of just how unbearable Miguna’s behaviour had become at work, nor of how fundamentally dishonest he is.




When Miguna heard of his suspension, I was one of the first people he called. I in turn complained to the PM. Throughout the days that followed, I persistently tried to get Miguna to allow me to mediate. I could see the situation would otherwise get ugly. Miguna refused to give me that permission [that was before he got financially desperate and Patrick Quarcoo interceded on his behalf] but contrarily at the same time he complained that Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o and James Orengo were both useless and weren’t helping and I wasn’t helping either. So as a sign of good faith and to try and entice him into allowing me to mediate and resolve this unpleasant situation, I showed Miguna the memo of complaint I had written to the PM.




Before doing so, I asked him for an undertaking of confidentiality. He gave me his word. By the time Miguna announced he was writing a book, I had a much better understanding of the kind of ruthlessly destructive person he is and I immediately knew that this memo would be made public. I contacted him by sms and reminded him that he had given me an undertaking of confidentiality. He told me not to worry, he never betrayed his friends. When it became evident that those were empty words, I had the following conversation with Miguna by sms (it is preserved in its entirety on my phone) just a few weeks ago, on July 12 this year:

SE: Miguna, you gave me a solemn undertaking not to betray something shown to you in strictest confidence. I have never done anything to harm you and have done much to defend you. It doesn’t matter to me that this is exposed. It doesn’t portray me in a bad light. But it exposes you as a betrayer of someone who only ever tried to seek fairness for you. You have wronged me. You should hang your head in shame.


MM: Sarah, good evening. I’ve never done anything to harm u; have the highest respect for u and not once have I said anything remotely negative against u until even my editor kept asking why I hold u in such high esteem. However, if u were in my position and was being attacked so savagely and inhumanely like I was and have been, would u just drink the hemlock like Socrates or try to use all the available arsenals in your possession? Between the looters and an innocent victim like me, would u hide such an email so that u could produce it as evidence of having come to my defence at my funeral like Raila did at Ojode’s? No my friend; compared to ua looting and barbaric friends (people who can sacrifice an innocent loyal man like me for power & greed) there is nothing I’ve done. Thanks.



SE: Miguna, an agreement of confidentiality between you and me, something I asked you to pledge before showing you the letter whose contents demonstrated my support for your case, has nothing to do with anyone else’s deeds or misdeeds or pronouncements. That was an act of faith between two people, you and me, who pledged trust in each other. You have violated that in the worst way possible. Please don’t delude yourself otherwise. You have sacrificed and trashed fundamental tenets of what makes relations between people work. It leaves you with no moral ground on which to criticise anyone for betrayal.


MM: Stay up there Sarah. Some of us are down here.


SE: Regrettably, it would definitely appear so. Sad.


MM: The TRUTH shall set us free!


SE: The truth is, I trusted you and I thought you had morals too. That truth has done nothing to set me free. You betrayed my trust. Live with it.


MM: And by the way, I never signed any confidentiality agreement with u! U defend a poor looting mortal; I defend an idea/ideal/principle.


SE: Signed, Miguna? Signed? That’s clutching at straws, isn’t it? You know very well you said you would respect confidentiality over the matter. Clearly, your word is not your bond. Nothing you can say changes the fact of your betrayal. As I say, live with it.


MM: Thanks and bye bye.

Now, I think it is fairly clear from this conversation that Miguna knows very well he had given his word on this matter. He doesn’t deny it and he admits he is not on the moral high ground, but he suggests all this was unimportant when my disclosure to him became part of his “arsenals” against Raila Odinga. It is only “compared to ua looting and barbaric friends” that there is “nothing I have done”, he says. It’s a comparative issue, apparently. And then he goes on to say he had never given me an undertaking in writing! Who gets an undertaking in writing when asking a friend to keep something confidential? This is the same man who is now blatantly saying, to quote his article in Tuesday’s Star: “I never, ever gave Sarah that undertaking. I wouldn’t have.




Why would I have given an undertaking to keep the letter hidden from the public?” His denial of the undertaking is a bare-faced lie. Miguna is wily and deceitful, and coldly and calculatedly so. Nothing is too valuable to be sacrificed in his savage pursuit of his goal. Where it suits him, Miguna lies about everything he touches. As I have said before, he takes a nugget of truth and then twists it to present the story in a manner that serves his ultimate purpose of destroying Raila Odinga. Sarah Elderkin is minor collateral damage.
Miguna also unbelievably describes me, along with Philip Ochieng and Prof Makau Mutua, who have also criticised him, as prescribing “detention without trial; brutal torture; exile; and stigmatisation”.




Er, when and where was that, then? What absolute nonsense. Nothing Miguna says can be taken at face value. He is a bully. And he’s still at it. He just can’t help himself. As the author Sir Walter Scott wrote, “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.” It is an apt citation for Miguna. As for me, there’s another saying I have rueful good cause to make my own: “No good deed goes unpunished.” With regard to Miguna Miguna, I have discovered the truth of that, to my cost. Live and learn.

And OO and his crew still honestly wants us to concentrate ONLY on the CONTENT of Miguna Miguna's book without ANY reference to this guy's PSYCHO, really?