Mrs. Patricia Anderson:
By asking what if Uhuru and Ruto are found guilty, your moral antennas or whatever informs your sense of justice should have prompted you, and those who use the ICC indictment as an indicator, to also ask: what if they won't be found guilty?
Guilty persons may bear the consequences but if you take away their rights before they have the chance to defend themselves, there may not be a retroactive compensation when they are found not guilty, as in this case, because there is no allowance for a new presidential election due to the "reinstalled candidacies." Where, therefore, does the greater harm lie in the dispensation of justice? Protecting rights or curtailing same before the outcome of any case?
Kenya exists in the international community and is a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Both persons have indicated their willingness to defend themselves. The indictments were known to the electorate.
The hue and cry after the elections is the missing puzzle: What is the law that makes the ICC an instrument in Kenya's electoral process to cause the lamentation? Kenya's Supreme Court is not a subordinated arm of the ICC for it to allow its independent judicial processes to take into account the mission of the ICC. Among the protected rights of Kenyan citizens is the right to stand as candidates for elective offices as provided by the law.
Since both gentlemen were not in violation of any known Kenyan law that could disqualify them, ICC-related arguments to prevent their candidacies constituted nothing less than a blatant encroachment that would have undermined the sanctity of the Kenyan constitution. It could have set a dangerous precedent where foreign entities would assume sovereign powers but without sovereign responsibilities. That is also tyranny.
Should both men be found guilty, the Kenyan constitution covers vacancies in case of one. Let's assume Uhuru was an American president, nothing will happen. America is not a signatory to the ICC and will not respect the outcome of any trial of her citizen. Netanyahu of Israel can make decisions to bomb, riots can happen after that with thousands killed. Israel does not respect the rulings of ICC. There are other countries, including some in Africa, that are not bound by ICC verdicts. Countries can withdraw as members of ICC. This is just to let you know.
Mrs. Anderson, since your incomprehension or apprehension is not based on any clause that Kenyans and the world can refer to and see how Kenya violated any law by allowing the Jubilee candidacies of the president-elect and vice president-elect of Kenya, I can respect your yearning while saying that your emotive reaction is not versed in any law nor desire for order.
I only note your background, a white lady living in Britain, since your uncomprehending dispositions are at odds with due process but in line with this so-called snub of Kenya. Citizens were supposed to quake in their boots and to the extent that the Supreme Court must have considered the dire consequences of the deprivation of external love, acceptance, including reduced places to jet and hobnob by the President of Kenya? What other emotions? As wonderful as they may sound, at a point you may afford to pause and switch from the visceral to the cerebral. Ma'am, snub is not free. At what price? You see, the world needs Africa, too. It is not just for the affection for humankind that words like bilateral, mutual were coined.
If you believe in propaganda directed to influence the dynamics of population as truth in principle, you will be at pains to understand the flop as a matter of realpolitik. For example, your government's real issues are its permanent interests; not fleeting variables. While foreign powers may have preferred candidates, as some did in the Kenyan elections, they also adjust to realities. These realities must be shaped by Kenyans as a validation of their sovereignty. That happened and the "diplomatic quandary," as touted by peddlers in Nairobi, gave way to diplomatic correctness:
From Britain:"The Prime Minister wrote to President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta today. He congratulated the President-elect and all others elected in Kenya's elections." The statement went on: "The Prime Minister also underlined his strong commitment to the partnership that exists between Kenya and the UK. He described the relationship as deep and historic, with a substantial shared agenda of stability, security, development and prosperity that benefits both our countries. He looked forward to working with the President-elect's new Government to build on this partnership, and to help realise the great potential of a united Kenya in line with Vision 2030."
From France: "French President Francois Hollande congratulated President elect Uhuru Kenyatta upon his election as the President of the Republic of Kenya. Noting that France considers Kenya an important partner in Eastern Africa for its role in regional stability, President Hollande expressed France's desire to continue its cooperation with Kenya in many social, political and economic spheres. France considers Kenya as an important partner in Eastern Africa, one essential to regional stability and therefore wishes to continue its cooperation and constructive reinforced political dialogue with your country."
From United States: "President Barack Obama on Saturday sent a message to Kenya's new leader, Uhuru Kenyatta, congratulating him on his political victory over his presidential opponents in Kenya's heavily contested election, according to the White House."
"On behalf of the President and the people of the United States, we congratulate Uhuru Kenyatta on his election as president of Kenya. We also congratulate the people of Kenya on the peaceful conduct of the election and commend Raila Odinga for accepting the Supreme Court's decision," the Obama White House said in a press statement. Obama's message also called on the Kenyan people to peacefully accept the results of the election despite past differences."
The Germans issued their own congratulations to Uhuru and pledged support.
Mrs. Anderson, are you still there pointing out number six in the email you responded to?
If responsible analysts in US and Europe elections invoke such extraneous and irrelevant comparisons, stroking of raw animosities that normally that linger in the losing camp, the populace would be reminded of sheer barbarisms because worse had happened in advance democracies while on their way to perfecting their institutions where voting machines still malfunction with 2% rejected ballots.
Who will count these as democracy in action to improve electoral process: Lynching of civil rights workers who were registering voters, curtailing voting hours, to Obama was not born in America nuts? Some of the trepidations will frighten individuals to stay out of public services. For examples, the type of dug up fears will make any Kennedy negate politics for fear of assassins. Blacks would give up gubernatorial and senatorial ambitions but some win. Obama could not have dreamt but did. Just as advance democracies came of age with incremental gains and a more enlightened electorate, why must Kenya despair?
There is no vanquished when Kenya is the victor by moving away from violence. Some stood 10 hours on their feet to cast ballots; not cast stones. However imperfect, from 2007 to 2013, Kenya marched forward.
Regards,
MsJoe
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Patricia <paanderson2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
George,
well said, your reasoning is, as usual, constructive. I'm particularly interested in reason number six. I found it difficult to understand how Uhuru Kenya and Ruto could stand in the elections when they had been indicted by the ICC. Your last sentence in the sixth paragraph say's it all. Thank you for pointing out that the pair should have cleared their names before standing in the elections. What happens if they are found to be guilty?
Pat.
--- In Mwananchi@yahoogroups.com, George Ayittey <ayittey@...> wrote:
>
> Kenya's Supreme Court Renders a Bad Ruling
>
>
>
> I respect Kenya's Supreme Court Justices but I beg to disagree with the
> Justices. They rendered a bad decision on Saturday. Here are 6 reasons why.
>
>
>
> First, given the highly charged political atmosphere, they should have
> stayed above the fray, instead of inserting themselves into it by declaring
> or confirming Kenyatta or Odinga as the winner. Now they risk being seen as
> "compromised" or "partisan," favoring one candidate over the other.
>
>
>
> Second, the SC ordered a re-tally of votes from 22 polling stations out of
> a total of 33,400. The sample was too small. Admittedly, the Supreme Court
> had only 6 days to make a ruling and, further, CORD (the Odinga camp) may
> have suggested a scrutiny of those 22 polling stations. However, if that
> small sample revealed evidence of irregularities, logic suggests that the
> large remainder must also contain irregularities that must also be
> scrutinized. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, would you cut it off and
> eat the rest?
>
>
>
> Third, the decision does not erase the widespread suspicion that there were
> nefarious attempts to manipulate the results and rig the election. It is a
> bit of a stretch to attribute the irregularities to "clerical" or "human
> error." How does one explain:
>
> 1. The sudden break-down of IT or electronic transmission of results,
> necessitating manual tabulation?
>
> 2. The break-down of biometric equipment, necessitating voting without
> biometric verification?
>
> 3. The mysterious expansion of over 1 million voters in the electoral
> register for the presidential election but not for the parliamentary?
>
>
>
> I am afraid, these suspicions will linger and no one knows what they will
> morph into.
>
>
>
> Fourth, Kenya is dangerously polarized politically. Uhuru's win of 50.07 of
> the vote is one the narrowest majority and the "minority" is nearly 50
> percent of Kenyans who did not vote for him. That means nearly half of
> Kenyans are not going to like the Supreme Court decision and will still
> feel aggrieved. This is dangerous because, in Africa, it takes a small
> group of determined mal-contents to wreak havoc and mayhem -- let alone
> half of the electorate.
>
>
>
> In 1985, the late General Samuel Doe held elections in Liberia. When it
> appeared that he was losing, he ordered the vote count halted. Ballot boxes
> were then transported to a secret location at the army barracks where the
> votes were tallied and Doe declared the winner. Charles Taylor refused to
> countenance this contumely and started a "bush war" with only 100 men. The
> rest is history. Similarly in Uganda, Yoweri Museveni started out with only
> 27 men.
>
>
>
> Fifth, the Supreme Court decision does not ease but would rather exacerbate
> tension in the country. Kenya is also deeply polarized along tribal and
> religious lines. Gikuyus voted for Kenyatta, Kalenjin for Ruto and Luo for
> Odinga. Religion or tribal politics is a very dangerous proposition in any
> African country. In Kenya, there is a perception that the Gilkuyus have
> dominated both the political and economic scenes. Of Kenya's three
> presidents since independence in 1963, two – Jomo Kenyatta and Mwai Kibaki
> -- have been Gikuyu; Daniel arap Moi is Kalenjin. Further, the Kenyatta
> family are the largest land owners in Kenya and among the richest in Africa.
>
>
>
> In Nigeria, tribal politics led to the Biafran War (1967-70). The Igbo,
> through their own hard work and determination, had become very successful,
> dominating senior positions in government, educational institutions, etc.
> But it bred tribal resentment and persecution, which propelled the Igbo to
> secede. Over 3 million – mostly Igbos – died in the ensuing war. In Rwanda,
> tribal politics led to the 1994 genocide, in which 1 million Tutsis were
> slaughtered. In Ethiopia, tribal politics has stunted that country's growth
> prospects. In Ivory Coast, it was the politics of religion. The country was
> split into the Muslim North and Christian South after the Nov 2010
> elections. Similarly in Mali, where the Muslim Tuaregs have long chafed
> under Christian South domination and discrimination. In Kenya, the Mombasa
> Republican Council, a Muslim group, is demanding secession. They were
> responsible for a series of attacks on polling stations in the March 4
> elections. Clearly, the Kenyan Supreme Court cannot claim to be unaware of
> these developments. Note: Nearly all the civil wars in post colonial Africa
> were started by politically marginalized or excluded groups.
>
>
>
> Sixth, the Supreme Court's decision – wittingly or not – pokes a finger in
> the eye of the ICC, which has indicted Kenyatta and Ruto for crimes against
> humanity. To be sure, the ICC indictment was not the issue being
> challenged at the Supreme Court but by confirming that Kenyatta and Ruto
> won the elections, the Supreme Court has indirectly passed judgment on the
> case. It is as if the Supreme Court is saying the ICC can take a hike. The
> Supreme Court will not cooperate in bring Kenyatta and Ruto to justice as
> it has certified them as winners of the March 4 elections. And, further,
> the ICC indictment does not disqualify Kenyatta to be president of Kenya
> when in fact the Supreme Court should have debarred the two from contesting
> the presidential elections until they cleared their names.
>
>
>
> The ICC indictment puts Kenya in a diplomatic quandary if Kenyatta becomes
> president. He may be shunned diplomatically and risks arrest if he travels
> to Europe. It is unlikely President Obama will ever invite him to the White
> house or be seen with him.
>
>
>
> At any rate, the SAFEST decision the Supreme Court could have rendered was
> to order the Electoral Commission to re-tally the votes in ALL polling
> stations since the sample of 22 polling stations showed some irregularities
> and if neither candidate secured 50 percent plus one, to schedule a
> run-off.
>
>
>
> A run-off would mop up the stench of tribalism as it would force candidates
> to canvass for votes or court tribal groups other than their own. It would
> also put to rest the suspicion that the March 4 vote was manipulated or
> rigged. My preference would be a re-run of the entire elections because of
> the high number of rejected ballots. Voters were confused. This time,
> however, a new Electoral Commissioner should be employed. [The current one,
> Isaack Hassan, cannot be trusted.] The difference in cost of running a
> run-off and a complete re-run is likely to be same as it is the same
> electorate voting again. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, the entire
> meat should be thrown out.
>
--
George Ayittey,
Washington, DC__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (8) Join us at Mwananchi an African Forum at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/mwananchi
Mwananchi is now on facebook join us at
http://www.facebook.com/groups.php#/group.php?gid=61997445929
This online initiative is part of an ongoing dialogue among Africans about how to address the challenges facing the continent.
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment