Muigwithania 2.0

We are the Ones,You and I are the inner light in a time of darkness.

We are the ones we’ve been waiting for .We are the generation everyone in Kenya has been waiting for, because we are able to see what is happening  with a much greater awareness than our parents,grandparents or our ancestors. We are the ones because ‘We’ were born for such a time as this and it is time someone said it.I will not lie or incite like Mutahi Ngunyi’s generation or pander to longevity like Kibaki’s generation.I will speak the wisdom of my generation.We (the young Kenyans)who have been victimized by their decisions.

We the victims of their failures and deceit can sit like lepers and die at the gate of blame and complaint or we can emerge with a strategy that enables us to say,” I am too valuable to die,too tenacious to wait on anyone’s mercy,and too creative to accept  your neglect as my destiny”.  Blaming yourself  is not positive,but refusing to blame others and deciding to take responsibility  for yourself and your situation, empowers you.So I will not blame Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga or complain like Mutahi Ngunyi and Maina Kiai. In 2010, I will begin my match towards the  change I expect in 2012 by taking personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility has a role at the very least to walk besides if not  infront of social justice.Each one us has a choice to make .We can stand with angry fists raised and perpetually and pathologically blame a system of dysfunction for a legacy of abnormalities and misappropriation of justice,or we can assume responsibility for expediting a cure to a crisis that we did not create but refuse to remain a victim of. This year,I hope you will take responsibility for every area of your life .

Change yourself  so that We can change Kenya. We are the ones Kenya has been waiting for! Be the change you expect .We can only cure our nation if we cure ourselves.Let us begin with ourselves in 2010 before we cure Kenya in 2012.

God Bless.

Editor (2010) Muigwithania 2.0

Facts on The Kenyan Maize Scandal

The maize scandal was executed from the prime ministers office. A PricewaterhouseCoopers report indicated that the Prime ministers chief of staff and personal assistant were directly involved in the scandal that cost 6 billion Kenya shillings.The president had earlier suspended the two and calls for the prime minister to take political responsibility were growing.The prime minister instead targetted the Agriculture Minister one of his former allies in the disputed 2007 election but recently turned foe asking him to take political responsibility for the scandal.The Agriculture minister instead sighted the PWC report with Kibaki  Later revoking the suspension.Many in Kenya view the current crisis as an attempt by Raila odinga to create political drama to hide his involvement in grand corruption.

Timeline:

A.d 2010 february 9th:
Odinga lecturers professor ongeri and professor karega mutahi, telling them that investigations start by suspecting everyone (in other words, guilty before innocent). He tells them to step aside to allow investigations and says that were it his own brother, he would do the same.

A.d 2010 february 10th:
A report leaks that implicates railas p.a and p.s were involved in stealing from the kenya public kshs 6billion through inflated maize prices. The report from the pwc specifically mentions railas p.a caroli omondi

A.d 2010: february 11th
Odinga says he has not studied the pwc report and that he needs time to study it. The truth of the matter is, the report arrived at his desk in december 2009 and he knew all about the corrupt deals taking place in his office from as far back as 2008.

A.d 2010: february 11th
Another report from the parliamentary committee on agriculture chaired by john mututho says that raila chaired the adhoc committee that gave a go-ahead to afrigil pty to steal maize from kenyans. Afrigil was not among the 123 companies that submitted a tender neither was it among the 5 shortlisted ones.

A.d 2010 february 12th
Odinga says that “we should not sacrifice the innocent“ and we should wait for investigations to go the full course. In other words innocent till proven guilty. However, when it is apparent that he is directly involved in the maize scam, he tells his p.a caroli and p.s to step aside.

A.d 2010 february 14th
In a bid to keep the scrutiny of his nefarious theiveing ways from the public, he “consults with kibaki”- just that the kenyan public have never known that james orengo and otieno kajwang were also called kibaki. James orengo kibaki and so on.. After consulting “kibaki” he ostensibly is guided to suspend ongeri and ruto. When asked by the media whether he consulted kibaki, he says yes.

A.d 2010 february 14th
The other kibaki ie mwai kibaki, reverses the decision of suspending Ongeri and ruto because odinga has no powers to do so. However it is quite clear that odinga was involved in maize theft. He told others to resign, yet he couldnt take his own medicine as the biggest culprit. 2 reports from pwc and psc mention him directly as the beneficiary of inflated maize prices. In an interview with bbc, he says that he doesnt need to consult kibaki. But wait,..i thought he said he consulted kibaki? well….he did, but not the kibaki you thought. He meant that he consulted james orengo kibaki..

A.d 2010 February 15th

Odm declares a national accord crisis and call for Kofi Annan to return.Creating a new scandal Aimed at covering up the Maize scandal and the Prime Ministers involvement …..

A.d 2010 February 16th

ODM Writes to the CoE disowning the parliamentary select committee draft constitution(further creating new drama)

.. Anyway, long story. Raila Odinga’s office was the architect of the Maize Scandal  everything else is just high political drama to hide that fact

On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister I would like to state as follows:-
Dennis Onyango’s statement on the Mau compensation raises certain issues that need to be addressed as follows:-

1. The Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Uhuru Kenyatta has only publicly discussed the issue of the Mau on two key occasions:-(a) At a fundraising to raise money to settle those displaced by the evictions from the Mau, where he attended in his personal capacity. What he said at the fundraising was that there was no need to add more tents when we are trying to remove others. The purport of his statement was that there was no need to have more displaced persons living in tents as we already were trying to deal with the settlement of the current IDPs. The statement is a matter of public record.(b) When he was responding to a media story that gave the impression that the government intended to pay out large sums of money as compensation to large landholders. He was categorical that no arrangement had been made nor any discussion entered into for any payment by the government. The government has not made any budgetary allocation for the payment of any compensation for landowners of any kind. He made the statement as the public were concerned and he was reassuring them that no arrangement as alleged had been entered into, and that is the position.

2. The Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Uhuru Kenyatta has never attacked any policy of the government on Mau at any time

3. The matter of resettlement of Mau evictees has been discussed by government, on humanitarian grounds, but there has been no discussion on compensation on large landholders, there is no contradiction in this regard.

4. The Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Uhuru Kenyatta has never at any time tried to play politics with the issue of Mau, and the allegation is not only baseless and unsustainable, but is in itself playing politics with Mau.

5. The ministry of Finance has not entered into consultations nor discussions with large land owners nor has he received any communication from any government department for any valuation or intent to pay large land owners. Further we have not factored any such payments into the current budget

In conclusion the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance would wish to inform Kenyans that it is committed to maintaining macro-economic stability and implementation of sound financial management principles and policies. In this regard, the Ministry has and will remain focused on committed government programmes of which compensation of large land owners is not one of themThe Prime Minister is a principal in the coalition government and if Dennis Onyango has any reason to doubt a government statement issued in consultation with other government departments, he should not have responded through the media but should have done so through laid down government procedures.

Njee Muturi
Principal Liason Officer
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance
22nd December, 2009

Kenya’s prime minister, Raila Odinga, said his government “will not shield or protect” senior officials if they are indicted by the international criminal court for crimes against humanity committed during last year’s post-election violence.In an interview with the Guardian, Odinga voiced support for the Hague-based court whose prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said last week he would pursue a unilateral investigation into the 2008 bloodletting in which at least 1,133 people were killed.

The main suspects include several cabinet ministers, including some from Odinga’s party, who are accused of organising and financing ethnic-based attacks.Odinga’s remarks describing himself as holding “identical” views to Ocampo on the urgent need for justice to prevent future politically-inspired violence put him at odds with powerful ministers on both sides of the coalition, who are desperately seeking to derail the international process.

When parliament reopens they are expected to try to push through a bill creating a special local tribunal, in an attempt to weaken Ocampo’s case when he requests authorisation next month from the ICC’s pre-trial chamber to proceed with investigations. After meeting Ocampo in Nairobi last week, Odinga and Mwai Kibaki, the president, whose widely discredited election win kicked off the violence, released a statement saying they would co-operate with the court. But Odinga has gone further.

“We said that we will not shield or protect people found to have committed crimes against humanity,” he said. “That is what we told Ocampo.”

The ICC’s intervention is a tricky issue for both Kenyan leaders, who want to avoid alienating allies in their respective parties named by the government-funded Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights for allegedly orchestrating the violence. In Odinga’s case, it is ministers from the Rift valley region, who offered crucial election support to his Orange Democratic Movement party, who have the most to fear. The area saw the worst of the violence, as Kalenjin gangs attacked Kikuyu civilians from Kibaki’s party.

Some of the most senior Kalenjin MPs say the Rift valley bloodshed was a spontaneous reaction by Odinga supporters, who thought he had been cheated of victory. But Odinga rejected this, pointing to similar ethnic attacks around elections in the 1990s.”There had been conflict and clashes in some parts of the Rift Valley even before the election. During campaigns, there were fires [attacks] in Molo and Burnt Forest and so on. These were things that had nothing to do with the post-election protests. .. They need to be separated [from genuine protests],” he said. In Kibaki’s party, panic over Ocampo’s move is strongest among some senior MPs from his home region in Central province, who are accused of sponsoring Kikuyu gangs to attack opposition supporters. As part of a peace deal last year, Kibaki and Odinga agreed to establish a local tribunal to try those responsible for the violence. But when they presented a bill to parliament to facilitate this it was rejected.

The legislation was weak, human rights activists say, and Odinga said some MPs – and most Kenyans – had serious concerns that a domestic court would not be independent. But he said politicians involved in the violence had also helped to quash the bill, fearing that a local tribunal would move faster then the ICC.”They thought it would take 50 years before it [the ICC] reached the Kenyan trial. To them the ICC was like a parking place – put it [the case] there and park it there,” he said.Ocampo has said he will seek to bring cases against two to four people, perhaps as soon as next year, in order to prevent further violence during the next election. His decision to move quickly is broadly supported among Kenyans fed up with decades of high-level impunity. Odinga said he shared the concern about further violence in 2012, when he is almost certain to run for president again.

“My position is informed by what we have been through since the introduction of multipartyism … We had these clashes in 1992, then again in 1997 and 2002. This is happening because nothing has been done to stop it. My position is identical to that of Mr Ocampo,” he said.He said the police needed to be held to account for supporting the Kikuyu militias, but refused to be drawn on whether any of his party leaders might eventually be indicted by the ICC.”The mere fact that names have been floated is not sufficient evidence that people are culpable,” he said.

Civil society groups have criticised Odinga and Kibaki for refusing Ocampo’s request to grant him permission to investigate, which would have avoided the prosecutor have to seeking authority from the pre-trial chamber. But Odinga said that granting a referral would have been tantamount to admitting Kenya was a failed state. He insisted that lower-level perpetrators could still face justice domestically.”We told him [Ocampo] that we have not given up on the local process and have embarked on a very major reform of the judiciary and the police to try the bulk of the culprits locally.”

*By Wangari Maathai -Nobel Peace Prize winner

With the pervasive demonisation of the Mungiki militia group providing an effective cover for the killing of members of the Kikuyu community – Mungiki and non-Mungiki alike – ordinary citizens are reluctant to speak out, both for fear of being accused of supporting the sect and of the reactions of Mungiki militia to criticism. Calling on the political and religious leadership of the Kikuyu community to face up to the challenge in its midst, Maathai urges the country to heal the growing rift between the community and other Kenyans.

Mungiki

In the course of history everywhere in the world, it is the leadership of the day that guides its people towards peace or war, poverty or wealth, development or collapse, slavery or freedom. And so it is with Kenya’s current leadership, a leadership which is failing to see the signs of anger and frustration of those they govern even though the writing is on the wall. Since the rupture over the infamous Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2003, the referendum on the constitution, the general elections and the subsequent fallout from them, Kenya has continued to slide dangerously backwards.

In 2008, thanks to a quick response from the African Union and the international community, Kenya was saved from the brink and a National Accord was arrived at to allow the Party of National Unity (PNU) and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) to declare a ceasefire, share power and work towards national cohesion and reconciliation. Kenya was given a new lease of life but since then the leadership has wasted away that second chance as it continues to compete and play politics with only 2012 in mind. In the past, the failure to recognise danger signs were the reason why some people expressed shock and dismay that deadly post-election violence could happen in Kenya in 2007-08. Such people had believed that Kenya was a peaceful country. Unfortunately, that perception was because people ignored the danger signs and lived a lie. To such people the tribal clashes of 1991, 1992 and 1997 were quickly forgotten. Yet during those earlier clashes, as in 2007-08, distress calls to the police for help were ignored. Many people died, and more were maimed, raped and displaced, while much property was destroyed. Again, once politicians shared power and privileges, nobody was held responsible for those crimes. Everything was swept under the carpet and was quickly forgotten. As it turned out, the clashes of the 1990s proved to be rehearsals for the post-election violence of 2007-08 and in all cases the violence was largely directed at the Kikuyu community.

Currently, the danger signs are palpable. Instances of citizens being murdered in cold blood in cases where no robbery is involved, or citizens shouting down leaders at public rallies – such as happened during Jamhuri Day (12 December 2008) and Labour Day (1 May 2009) – or youth uprooting the railway, engaging police in gun battles in rural towns, or engaging in killing orgies of defenceless villagers, are all signs of a society that is falling apart and losing respect for the rule of law. The government knows that the violence and killings are largely perpetrated by members of militia groups, which are created and funded by politicians. Different communities have their militia, which bear different names. The government knows these militia groups and knows that politicians use them to punish and defeat their opponents, especially during elections. If they win elections, the same politicians end up in government and become part of the leadership.

Mungiki, which is currently making headlines, is the militia group from the Kikuyu community. Information about the group is kept secret, but unconfirmed reports indicate that this militia is split into several groups. The original Mungiki members were only interested in pursuing the Kikuyu form of worship, which prays facing Mt. Kenya. This group does not believe in Christianity and calls for the traditional Kikuyu way of life, including practicing female circumcision. Owing largely to its stand on those two issues, the strongly christianised Kikuyu community has been unsympathetic towards this group and has largely demonised the sect. The banning of the sect by the government has criminalised it, and therefore the community and Kenyans in general have tolerated the extrajudicial killing of its members.The police have taken advantage of this demonisation and criminalisation to kill Mungiki indiscriminately, because they know that they will not be called to account. Why the members of the sect are denied freedom of worship, in a country where everybody else can worship as they please, is not clear. Indeed it is only among the Kikuyu community that worshiping in a traditional way is demonised, criminalised and the killing of followers is tolerated.

The second group camouflages itself as Mungiki but is said to be comprised of militiamen being recruited from thousands of unemployed youth. With the failure of the cash crop economy, impoverishment and the introduction of drugs and illicit alcoholic drinks in the Central region, it has been easy to recruit youth and men into militia groups. Criminality gradually infiltrated some of these militia groups, especially as they sought ways to sustain themselves beyond the handouts from their sponsors. Therefore, they become available to politicians and others for hire. They are the type we encounter protecting grabbed public lands or properties built on stolen land. Sometimes they may receive police protection, an indication of their political patronage.

The third group is claimed to be closely connected to the law enforcement arm of the government and is used to collect information, intimidate and instil fear in citizens, terrorise matatus and silence elements like dissidents, activists and competing elements. It may also provide ‘protection’ or other services for a fee. These are the ones people accuse of hiring police guns to commit crimes.

In some cases the militiamen and the law enforcement arm of the government form a symbiotic relationship, which sometimes goes sour with either of them getting killed. When militiamen are killed they are labelled thieves and members of the Mungiki sect. That is usually an indication that the matter get closed and no further action is expected. Because of the internalised disdain of the Mungiki sect, especially in the Kikuyu community, the expected outcry against their killings has been absent and nobody in the community wants to be seen supporting Mungiki. At the same time Mungiki has instilled so much fear in the community that nobody is willing to speak about them or their actions for fear of immediate elimination.Therefore, when innocent persons are killed and are labelled Mungiki, death is stoically accepted as the will of God and the community internalises the pain. Killing members of Mungiki, irrespective of their innocence, has became so acceptable that all that police have to claim to literally get away with any murder is to say that the victim was a member of Mungiki. Unfortunately, that has degenerated into acceptance of killing of innocent Kikuyus. Currently this is further degenerating into members of Mungiki turning on the community itself in a cycle of vengeance and tit-for-tat.

The recent murder of the son of the former member of parliament for Gatundu North, Hon. Kariuki Muiruri, painfully exemplifies the tragedy and the dilemma that the Kikuyu community faces. The son was shot dead by a plainclothes policeman, who subsequently walked into a police station and wrote in the Occurrence Book (OB) that he had killed a thief who was also a member of the Mungiki sect! Yet the son was on holiday and the two met casually at a social place. Whatever the circumstances that led to the shooting of the son, this was a case of an innocent young man killed by a policeman who knew that nothing would happen to him if he were to record that the man was a member of the Mungiki sect. But for the fact that the victim was the son of a former member of parliament and a former assistant minister, Muiruri’s son would have joined the list of thousands of Kikuyu youth who have been killed under similar circumstances and labelled thieves and members of the Mungiki sect.

The Mungiki phenomenon, almost like the Mau Mau experience five decades ago, is providing cover for extrajudicial killings, intimidation, harassment, criminalisation and the bashing of the Kikuyu community under the pretence that police are protecting citizens from Mungiki. Sometimes police are fully aware of the activities carried out by this group. The killings in Mathira and Kirinyaga, for example, are said to have been committed with full knowledge of the law enforcement arm of the government. Indeed, citizens claim that distress calls to the police for help were never responded to until the killings had been completed. The extrajudicial killings of innocent Kenyans have been attracting international attention. This is because not only is the state perceived to be failing in protecting its citizens, but the police are being blamed for some of the deaths. Promises to carry out a thorough investigation come to nothing, and nobody has been held to account. After all, the police cannot be expected to investigate and incriminate themselves.

Perhaps militia groups like Mungiki have gotten out of hand. But is the right response to militia groups a license to kill them indiscriminately? We are not in a state of war, and nobody should be killed without following the due process of the law of the land, police excuses for self-defence notwithstanding. Police Commissioner Hussein Ali will find it hard to explain how in his era Kenya has experienced a level of carnage at the hands of the police greater than at any other time, even when compared with the colonial era. When the government sends the message that the Mungiki group should be crushed, it is an endorsement for extrajudicial killings. For their part, the militiamen will subsequently go on a killing spree to avenge members killed. This cycle of death has become a common feature, has instilled fear and has given rise to frustration in the people of Central Kenya.

The way I see it, the political and religious leadership of the Kikuyu community should rise to the challenge facing the entire community. This is a community that suffers from accumulated trauma and frustration extending back to the beginning of the colonial era. From the latest attack during the post-election violence, the community has yet to bury their dead, settle the internally displaced persons (IDPs) and send their children back to school. A culture of Kikuyu bashing, criminalisation and isolation is being perpetrated and is quickly entrenching itself, creating a deep rift between the community and other Kenyans. The fact that this is happening when the national leadership in State House is from the community is doubly tragic. How can they be so bashed, so criminalised, killed, displaced and humiliated when their beloved son is in State House? Will he wait until he or members of his family are touched by the tragedy afflicting the community? If they are now encouraged to turn on each other, there will be no shortage of helping hands, including being given guns to kill their own children! For a country awash with militia groups, these are dangerous signs not only for the Kikuyu community, but for Kenya as a whole. The question I would ask Prime Minister Raila Odinga is, have you not heard the cries or seen the tears of these Kenyans in your capacity as the coordinator of government business? Have you not seen the mourning mothers?

When Paul Collier, professor of economics at Oxford, publishes something, it invariably contains some very important ideas. I realised this when I first encountered his paper about civil war and insurgency, “Greed and Grievance”. Collier co-wrote it when head of research at the World Bank, where he developed a rare ability to merge his deep understanding of economics with sober analyses of a rapidly changing political landscape. Put simply, in “Greed and Grievance” he argued that armed rebellion had more to do with access to financial resources than with any deep commitment to ideology.

mong political scientists that particular paper was greeted by murmurs of approval and harrumphing in equal measure. Here was an economist treading on the keenly defended turf of political wonks, and many took umbrage. A few wonks, however, recognised the valuable contribution Collier’s research had to make to the struggle against poverty and political violence.I think some of the harrumphing that followed the publication of that paper might also be ascribed to Collier’s liberal use of baffling mathematical formulae to prove his point. I confess I had to skip a raft of calculus in his earlier work. But I am pleased to report that since he started writing bestselling books, he has dumped the equations in favour of clear prose.

This strategy paid real dividends just under two years ago when he published The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can be Done About It, a fresh and inventive look at chronic underdevelopment, its victims and its winners (the latter being few in number but abnormally powerful). The book was showered with praise as it offered many cogent explanations for the persistence of grinding poverty in a world which was until last September indecently rich. Wars, Guns & Votes carries on from where The Bottom Billion left off.

Apart from the fact that its author is not American, Collier’s work is distinguished from the books of Tom Friedman, Bob Kagan, Fareed Zakaria and several other gurus of globalisation in that it is based on extremely thorough empirical research. This puts him in the same camp as real heavyweights such as the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. When Collier asserts that the bottom billion are much more prone to insurgency and civil war than the rest of the world, you can be confident this is not observational anecdote. The chances are that he and his indefatigable team of student minions will have exhaustively examined the data from every civil war since the dawn of time to back his thesis.

This aspect of Collier’s books is powerful, making it hard to refute many of his conclusions, some of which are disturbing, iconoclastic or both. He is destined to upset a lot of people when he asserts at the outset that democracy is bad news for the countries of the bottom billion – it usually ends in tears, not to mention grand larceny, murder and even genocide. On closer examination, he argues that elections alone do not amount to a strong democracy. Without institutions that promote accountability, they are too easily exploited by cynical, greedy elites.

Unfortunately, the “kumbaya” politics of the 1990s held that voting was an end in itself. Western institutions became involved in an electoral circus which often absorbed huge sums. Self-selecting election “monitors” from America and Europe would travel to Armenia one week and the Ivory Coast the next to pass judgment on the validity of the process. By contrast, there was little or no investment in dealing with the consequences of the elections or building the institutions essential to ensuring that the resulting government did not abuse its power. In the former Yugoslavia, unscrupulous populists exploited the plebiscitary democracy in 1990 and 1991 to rip the place apart. And Collier saw this repeated in many countries in Africa, the continent where the great majority of the bottom billion states are found.

It is a brave scholar who asserts that democracy equals bloodshed, but Collier is not afraid of going against the grain. He gives very short shrift to the fashionable cause of self-determination or special status for minorities espoused by the Kosovo Albanians, the Luo in Kenya or the rebels in Darfur. He casts Raila Odinga, the Kenyan prime minister, and not President Kibaki as the provocateur in the country’s last elections (in contrast to most foreign media covering the story).But he mounts a very heartening defence of peace-keeping operations which, using hard facts, he is able to prove unambiguously are extremely good value for money. He then comes close to creating what on the surface looks like a surefire formula for stabilising the countries of the bottom billion, enabling them to begin economic development in earnest.

And this is where the problems arise with his thesis. He proposes a reduction of sales in weapons to governments and rebels in these areas – so far so good, although he skips over the issue of how to police such a regime a little too lightly. It is in his central assertion, however – that fragile democracies in Africa must be allowed to flower under the military guarantee of the United States, France and Britain – that the optimism of his economic modelling clouds the reality of global geopolitics. The “command centre” that the Americans are trying to establish in West Africa is motivated by a need to secure oil supplies, not by an altruistic project to nurture democracy. And his faith in the military strategies of the French in West Africa overlooks much of Paris’s cynical manoeuvring in the region (including the promotion of arms sales and mineral exploitation).

One might argue that British, French and American motives may change; however, after Iraq, Rwanda and Afghanistan (to name but three), the political and moral space for intervention is extremely limited. But it is to Collier’s great credit that he has really opened up a debate that we need to conduct with some urgency. Even as we dither about military strategies and aid for West Africa, for example, the entire region is being captured by Colombian and Venezuelan cartels who are turning Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Liberia and even Senegal and Ghana into the new Mexico. In economic terms, even after the crash, the world still has more than enough money to raise the bottom billion out of the swamp they are forced to inhabit. As in so many challenges we face, it is political vision and political will that is lacking.

By Misha Glenny

“You may gain temporary appeasement by a policy of concession to violence,but you do not gain lasting peace that way”.Anthony Eden 

DN .The entire top ODM leadership on Thursday skipped the burial of victims of the arson attack on a church in the Rift Valley district of Eldoret during the post-election violence which had been billed as a reconciliation gesture between different communitiesPrime Minister Raila Odinga, deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi, Agriculture minister William Ruto, ODM national chairman Henry Kosgey and local MP Peris Simam, all failed to show up at the ceremony presided over by President Kibaki. The arson of the Eldoret church was one of the most brutal attacks of the post-election violence which followed the declaration of the 2007 presidential election.

Standard -Burned Kenya Assembly of God Church burials the Orange Democratic Movement boycotted on Thursday, have scoured old wounds in the Grand Coalition.The internment boycotted by Kalenjin leaders has renewed the cat and mouse games between President Kibaki’s Party of National Unity and Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement. The groundswell stands out in the Rift Valley – ODM’s stronghold and the hotspot of post-election chaos – where local MPs stayed out of the State burial organised for 36 victims of the bloodletting.Fourteen of those buried in the church compound died in the fire that destroyed the shrine. The other 22 bodies were collected around the area and were not identified or claimed.President Kibaki’s presence at the Kiambaa burial, the first for victims of post-election violence, PNU’s proposal to split Rift Valley Province, plans for a monument at the church, which Kalenjin leaders insist was not destroyed by their youth, and the decision to bring in bodies collected elsewhere, triggered the ODM boycott.Those who did not attend, leaving the burial to members of one community, Government officials and PNU leaders, say they did not want to be accused of displaying double-standards because they were not at the burial of the party youths killed in the violence that was at its worst in January and February, last year.

Others claimed there was favouritism for a section of the Internally Displaced Persons and by attending the burial it would seem they would be endorsing this, courting a political backlash among their communities.At least one MP, speaking in confidence because of the sensitivity of the matter, claimed they would not be part of Kiambaa burials because of the feeling it was hyped to cast their party as the aggressor and PNU the victim.”Why did they bury them in the church? We have public cemeteries. Why bring in bodies that had nothing to do with the church fire? Why build a monument if we are pursuing healing? Should we also erect monuments everywhere our children were killed as a perpetual reminder of what happened?” asked an ODM MP.

*Eldoret Church Suspects Set Free

The political organisation of the Kikuyu people  was closely interwoven with the family and the riika. A young man after initiation through circumcision automatically entered into the National council of junior warriors(njama ya anake a mumo). After 82 moons or 12 rain seasons after the circumcision ceremony the junior warrior was promoted to the Council of senior warriors (Njama ya ita). Together this two councils would be called upon to protect the tribe in case of external aggression. The council of senior warriors was in addition an important decision making organ. The two councils were served by men of 20 – 40 years.Upon marriage a man was initiated into a council called kiama kĩa kamatimo. This was the first grade eldership and it denoted elders who were also warriors. At this stage the man plays the role of observers of senior elders. They are required to assist in proceedings by carrying out menial tasks like skinning animals, being messengers, carrying ceremonial articles or light fires among other tasks.

When a man had a son or a daughter old enough to be circumcised, he was elevated into another council called the council of peace (kiama kĩa mataathi). On entering this council the man was now a man of peace and no longer of the warrior class. He assumed the duty of peace maker in the community.When a man had had practically all his children circumcised, and his wife (or wives) had passed child-bearing age he reached the last and most honoured status. A council known as kiama kĩa maturanguru (religious and sacrificial council). After paying an ewe which was slaughtered and offered in sacrifice to Ngai (God) the man was invested with powers to lead a sacrificial ceremony at the sacred tree (Mũgumũ mũtĩ wa Igongona). The elders of this grade assumed the role of ‘holy men’. They were high priests. All religious and ethical ceremonies were in their hands. In the Agĩkũyũ society the religious, governance and law functions were closely intertwined. With various councils being called upon to perform one of this functions. From the literature I’ve seen it is not quite clear whether women also had councils and what functions these councils served. The initiation ceremony seems to have been organized by a council comprised of both men and women.

Parallel to the said councils the family unit formed a council known as ndundu ya mũcie of which the father was the head. The father as the head of the household then represented the family in the next council called kiama kĩa itora (village council) comprising of all the family heads in the village. This was headed by the senior elder. A wider council called kiama kĩa rũgongo (district council) was formed comprising of all the elders from the district. This was presided over by a committee (kiama kĩa ndundu), composed of all the senior elders in the district. Among the senior elders, the most advanced in age was elected as the head and judge (mũthamaki or mũciiri) of the ndundu. The district councils then came together to form the national council. Among the judges, one was elected to head the meetings.

* by Gikuyu Architecture 

With each passing day, william ruto is becoming more and more belligerent. He is slowly coming out of the closet to air his frustrations with the orange democratic movement, the coalition, the treasury and anything else he can lay his hands on. He is the new kid on the block with the bravado to challenge the system he is serving as a cabinet minister. He no longer thinks collective responsibility among cabinet ministers is a good idea. If he is not blasting connivers and schemers against him within his party, he is training his guns on the treasury that doesn’t think his agriculture ministry deserves more money than the military department. All of a sudden, ruto has become a champion of the poor, the oppressed and the jobless youth. He has found new inspiration in the fight against poverty and inequality; unlike his two superiors who have found comfort in their new relationship. Ruto has a special loathing for the waki report which has driven him to the edge. For this reason, his realization that his boss raila odinga had supported the full implementation of the report amounted to a betrayal of the highest order and a stab on the back by a comrade in arms.

According to him, the mayhem, murder, rape and displacement of thousands of non- kalenjins in the rift valley was done in the name of raila. Therefore, for better or for worse, raila should be the last person to want to punish the community that stood by him and fought his war. It is true the war cry at the time, at the height of the violent protest all over the country was “no raila! no peace!” back then, most of kenya except central,North Eastern,chunks of Nairobi and eastern provinces believed that raila had won the elections. However, despite this anger with the government machinery for robbing raila of victory, the man never told anybody to kill, maim, rape and rob in his name. He never ordered non- kalenjins to be removed from rift valley or any part of the country. That kind of order would have impacted negatively on the person who wanted to be the president of kenya. Ruto is not alone in being upset with raila. Most mps from rift valley and western province seem to have an axe to grind with their prime minister. The rift valley mps have used every opportunity to vilify and discredit him right from the day the coalition government formed its first cabinet. A number of them who thought they deserved to be in that cabinet but missed have never forgiven raila. Initially they used three bi-elections in kipsigis part of rift valley to punish raila’s odm.

They failed three times. Then they lurched onto the mau forest that raila had promised to clear of settlers and restore the water catchment area. As they struggled with the mau forest saga, waki presented them with a convenient diversion. Now the song in rift valley is that raila has used them to get his premiership and is about to dump them and watch as some of their leaders are rounded up for the hague trials. The question is; can ruto and his kinsmen afford to decamp from odm now if matters got worse? can raila let the kalenjin mps go away should they continue to nag him for all manner of reasons? do they have enough disrespect for him to continue distracting him with their parochial issues? how many of these mps would have been elected on a kanu ticket had they not joined odm? between these noisy mps and raila; who used who to get elected? how many of these characters are electable on their own? if the original narc had held together in 2003 and chose to pursue these characters for their past misdeeds when they were in power for 24 years under daniel arap moi, where would some of them be today? most of these questions can only be answered appropriately by the very mps from rift valley because they know better their recent history. As for ruto; if he is a true leader of his people; if he truly thinks he can no longer serve in a cabinet of incompetent, visionless and self seeking leaders like president mwai kibaki and raila, then the best laudable option is to resign at least from the cabinet.

There are precedents to emulate. Raila’s father jaramogi oginga odinga did just that in 1966. The late joseph murumbi followed him a few months later. Kenneth matiba and kibaki followed the same path two decades later. It is the honorable thing to do when you no longer believe in collective responsibility.

When Martha Karua announced in late 2007 that she would be one of the debutantes for the 2012 presidential polls, most of us ignored her.Enter 2008, she has repeatedly reiterated this and proceeded to underpin it with concrete political action. She is now interim chair of NARC-K, the PNU partner boasting the highest number of members in the tenth Parliament. When she therefore asserts that she is no longer interested in PNU unity and wishes to strengthen her party in preparation for 2012, only non-serious political strategists can afford to take her lightly.

Ms Karua is the embodiment of political suave. No one quite understands how she appeared on the political scene. She stands on no historical political legacy akin to Mr Uhuru Kenyatta, Mr Musalia Mudavadi or Mr Raila Odinga, nor was she chaperoned into politics by any national or regional kingpins as was Mr Kalonzo Musyoka. Neither was she born into financial plenty to help her “buy” her way into parliament as many others have had to. And, in the many years she has served from the backbench of parliament and later the front bench as cabinet minister, she has not been embroiled in financial improprieties.

Her tenure as cabinet minister has also been colourful. Those in the Water ministry will tell you that she left a legacy that endures. She is credited with a reform model that has now become a benchmark for reforms in other sectors. And, she was strong and no-nonsense when she served there. Those in the Justice ministry will have stories to tell about her tireless style. She works indefatigably. That’s good for policy formulation and driving.

Raw courage

Her raw courage amazes. Recall when she stoically walked out in broad daylight, cameras zooming,  on former president Moi in Kerugoya stadium, that she had been denied a chance to address her people?
Why then would anyone be surprised that she, today, can easily stand her ground against President Kibaki on this small matter of PNU unity? That’s Martha for us.That’s why I think it would be political folly to disregard her current drive for presidential office. Here’s a Kenyan with an unblemished record of public service, occupies a key cabinet office, is leader of a growing political party, has courage and a doubtless clarity of mind.Clearly, she has come from afar to occupy ground earlier reserved for only the likes of Mr Uhuru and Mr Saitoti in taking the mantle from President Kibaki.

By Susan Chipanga

MARK Twain, an acclaimed American author wrote: “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”.

This timeless quote was brought to mind after intolerable criticism of Zimbabwe by Raila Odinga, Prime Minister of the Kenyan Government of National Unity whose ticket to power was signed by the blood of innocent people. Odinga’s moral right to condemn Zimbabwean elections is overshadowed by his coming into office as a result of the death of 1 500 people and the displacement of over 600 000 people.

On December 30, 2007 the chairman of the Kenyan election commission declared Odinga’s opponent, incumbent president Mwai Kibaki, the winner by a margin of about 230 000 votes. Raila challenged the results alleging fraud by the commission, but refused an election petition before the courts and urged protests, which plunged the country into one of the brutal and bloody post-election violence ever to be witnessed in recent history. Shamefacedly, the poor fellow has been blabbering on about Zimbabwe’s elections, violence, peacekeepers and for the country to be barred from regional bodies; a case some may attribute to being overwhelmed by the glare of the media after being in political obscurity for so long. Consequently, the whole of Africa and the world are regaled by the antics of a witless and hypocritical African politician whose propensity to expose himself unearths his want of tact and maturity in African politics.

Some who are not so harsh in their criticism of Odinga’s unwarranted utterances on Zimbabwe are easy to forgive him as he is a product of incarcerations, flights into exile and betrayal by erstwhile political allies which undoubtedly has made him a bitter man mad at the whole of Africa for not intervening on his behalf. Odinga, as a result, has made himself a champion of opposition politics in Africa after his backdoor entry to leadership in Kenya making him an emperor without clothes after Kenya’s recent history which someone said reads like a Shakespearian tale; full of dramatic intrigue, intricate conspiracies and king making plots.

Odinga’s unwarranted criticism of Zimbabwe might be borne from a need to outshine Mwai Kibaki, the Kenyan president who trounced him in the December election. But, Zimbabwe cannot bear the brunt of his inferiority complex in a bid to gain recognition in African politics. Someone should advise Odinga that the route he has taken is a dead end and neither is it going to absolve him of the blood that is on his hands as rightly pointed by the presidential spokesperson, George Charamba, during the recent African Union Summit in Egypt.

Maybe Odinga’s weakness is more to do with not acquainting himself with African history. He should start to appreciate that more is at stake than meets the eye in the Zimbabwean situation. If the sentiments he echoed during his inauguration are anything to go by, then he is in for a rude awakening in his quest to liberate Kenyans from neo-colonialism.

When Odinga was sworn in as Prime Minister of Kenya on April 18 2008, he told the gathering that “we will ensure that power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of many, not the few”. Robert Mugabe whom he is now alleging is a dictator was once the darling of the West until he decided to empower his people by distributing land, which was in the hands of a few whites to the majority of the landless blacks Kenya, like all other African countries, is no exception. It would want to address these historical imbalances and some have alluded that the chaos that Kenya witnessed is the result of historic injustices including land tenure systems and the unequal sharing of resources between the country’s more than 40 ethnic groups.

Other African leaders know that addressing the injustices born out of colonialism is at the core of all African problems and that sooner or later, these issues have to be addressed by each member country. The decisions made by African leaders at the AU summit, that is, wanting Africans to solve their own problems is born out of a realisation that abandoning Zimbabwe at this critical stage will set a bad precedent.

Some delusional African politicians like Odinga might not understand that sticking together with Zimbabwe is also for their future well-being. That, Mr Odinga, is the definition of Pan Africanism. It is not about calling yourself a Pan Africanist when your deeds are devoid of “ubuntu” as you were able to countenance the beheading, skinning, raping, murdering and torturing of innocent people for your own political gain.I am no religious fanatic but I do believe the good book offers sound advice in the case of looking at a straw in another’s eye whilst not considering the rafter in your own eye. It is evident Odinga is singing for the few morsels that the United States is dropping on his lap whilst mortgaging Kenya in the process. Reports indicate that the US government is negotiating base access agreements with the government of Kenya that will allow American troops to use military facilities when the United States wants to deploy its own army in Africa. So at the right intervals Odinga has to make the right noises on Zimbabwe so as to appease his benefactors. Shame on you Odinga!

Odinga is a disgrace to the continent, which has produced notable statesmen like Nelson Mandela who spent all his life fighting for the liberation of his people and Robert Mugabe who is fighting for the total emancipation of his people. What has Odinga to show for himself, except bloody hands, which no doubt soiled his reputation of ever being regarded as a statesman. Instead of being fixated with what is happening in Zimbabwe, Odinga should be concerned with healing his own country where thousands still remain displaced, traumatised and reluctant to return to the their former homes because the horrors they witnessed are forever etched in their minds. Odinga will remain an overly ambitious politician who would stop at nothing to achieve his political ends. He should keep his tainted hands off Zimbabwe.

BREAKING NEWS: China and Russia Veto Zim Sanctions.

The zimbabwe government has responded to kenyan prime minister, raila odinga’s calls for military action on zimbabwe and for the african union to expel the country from the group by saying he is not qualified to speak on zimbabwe as his hands ‘drip of blood’. In response to questions about recent utterances by prime minister odinga presidential spokesman, george charamba said: “you follow politics carefully.

I hope you follow kenyan politics closely. Prime minister raila odinga’s hands drip with blood,” said charamba. He continued, ”raw african blood, and that blood is not going to be cleansed by any amount of abuse of zimbabwe.”odinga has become one of the harshest critics of the zimbabwean government. He called for zimbabwe to be suspended from the african union until president robert mugabe allows ‘free and fair elections’ adding that the au would be making a grave mistake if it recognized president mugabe as a legitimately-elected president.he also asked the african union (au) to deploy peacekeeping forces in zimbabwe to protect opposition supporters from alleged harassment and torture.charamba’s response referred to kenya’s recent which saw raila odinga declared prime minister after coalition talks with president mwai kibaki.

The kenyan election was marred by the worst election violence ever seen on the continent, with 300 pre election deaths and over 1 500 people dying post election.the government of president kibaki accused odinga’s party of unleashing “genocide” on the kenyan people. The coalition government in kenya has not been without problems as violence has continued in kenya.kenyan politics is deeply embedded in tribalism with most members of parliament elected on the basis of tribal and community votes.recently tension has been rising in kenya’s rift valley, the epicentre of last january’s post-election chaos

Before someone becomes a Kikuyu elder, One must must meet the following conditions.

i)The Candidate and his last born son must be circumcised.
ii) A candidate from another tribe, must denounce his tribe(This is done by offer of 3 sheep)and an Elder (muchuha) of his choice will become his/her God father.The person is not entitled to any dowry for his daughters and the dowry goes to the ‘Muchuha’.
iii)He must be recommended by ‘athuri a matathi and Athuri a maturango(Elders of Matathi and those of Maturango.)These two recommend the person to Arathi.
iv) the Arathi (12 in number) then verifies the persons past to see if he/she has been involved in any murder or general crime against the community.

If the person has met those conditions, he is given two mithigi’s(Sticks).One is straight (signifying one God) while the other is two pronged at the end Signifying Ngoma (Kikuyu right word for Ancestoral spirits, not satan)

The muthigi was taken to Kirinyaga by the arathi for 40 days where they were to speak with God.its then that they come up with a decision of whether to make a person an Elder.

when all this is done the person receives the following items

1 Muthigi (stick-two pronged)-signifying power to lead
2 Rwenji (Circumcisers knife)-power to circumcise
3.Kioho kia migathi (stringed Beads)-Power to choose what other elders and agemates will be adorning.
4.Ruhiu (Panga/sword)-power to slaughter a goat

5.Coro (Blowing horn)-power to rally people together

6.Itimu na ruhiu rwa njora (Spear and sword)-power to call his people to war.

According to the East African standard things in Central Kenya might be looking good for Raila Odinga.

There is soul searching in Central Province with disappointment targeting President Kibaki and elderly politicians who have surrounded him over the years.With the anger and rebellion that for now is being expressed only in hushed tones, the idea of a generational transfer of power initially associated with followers of the outlawed Mungiki sect, is getting a new life and going mainstream.

Anchoring these is the feeling that the General Election last year left the region hugely isolated from the rest of Kenya, in what some upcoming leaders blame on the old guard. They accuse them of using the community to fight the battles of just 100 or so rich people.

Sources told The Sunday Standard that the clamour by some leaders to have the Government negotiate with Mungiki instead of killing its followers is inspired largely by two issues:One, old leaders are trying to catch up with, if not all the same hijack and control the idea of a leadership change.There is also the fear that the youth in this region could soon rally behind Prime Minister Raila Odinga who called for an end to the killing of Mungiki members and advocated for negotiations.Interviews with various sources familiar with the simmering dissent in the region revealed that people here, especially the young, are beginning to take a new look at Raila, especially after he agreed to share power with President Kibaki, then going with him to the camps for the displaced in the Rift Valley.

According to the resident “experts on Kikuyus” Raila Odinga could run away with votes from poor Kikuyus and the children of the Mau Mau because people are resentful of kibaki . It is always amazing how people will spin almost any story to their advantage .The only problem with spin is that its just spin. So lets get the facts straight.Mungiki is what can be considered  an ultra nationalist organization(and i dont mean kenyan Nationalism).Mungiki is founded on returning kikuyu people back to their basic beliefs and roots. How Raila  can fit into this supreme goal i don’t know. Mungiki is for kikuyu supremacy .If a polite moderate like Kibaki trashed  the MOU with Raila . What  will the faceless  shadows that control Mungiki do .

On a side note

The grand Coalition is like the Treaty of Versailles.Everyone thought it solved all the problems and settled things I don’t need to tell you what happened later.What has the coalition settled  apart from sharing out seats  none of the underlying historic issues real or imagined  have been resolved .Everybody is smiling as we sweep the dirt under the carpet .

While on US tour, Mr Maina Kiai, the chairman of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, and Ms Muthoni Wanyeki asked their American hosts to freeze all military financial assistance to Kenya.They wrote in the Washington Post that “some of the security forces benefiting from this aid and equipment have been killing Kenyan civilians with impunity.There is no doubt that the country has been experiencing ferocious eruptions of violence since December 30, 2007.

The four words, happy, home, peace and prosperity are heavenly music to the ears of traumatised and displaced Kenyans.The Kenya Army has played and will for sure continue to play its rightful role by clearing highways of marauding gangs, securing the national economic arteries, escorting public transports, and providing medical services.While some 57 brave police officers have died in the violence in the line of public service, I have not heard of a single civilian killed by the military during these public unrest.What got me worried, however, are the serious, unsubstantiated aspersions on the integrity of our Armed Forces coming, as it were, from a highly placed and a jurist of Mr Kiai’s status.

To begin with, the Kenyan qualifying to be a member of the country’s military takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Republic and defend the country against all enemies, to bear true allegiance and to discharge well and faithfully, the duties of office.Most of them attend to their duties with fidelity, valour and patriotism. Our security personnel operate under difficult and risky environment.

They are like all public officers, the glue holding the country together.Without their exemplary sense of fidelity, the country could not have endured in its present form since the turbulent times of the 60s.The least the military personnel expect are encouragement, appreciation and understanding of their heroic contributions, not unjustified condemnation for crimes they have not committed.

BILLOW KHALID,
Wajir.

http://billowkhalid.blogspot.com/

On a visit early this year to Africa , President Bush deplored the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, defended his refusal to send U.S. troops to Darfur and decried the ethnic slaughter in Kenya.Following a contested election, the Kikuyu, the dominant tribe in Kenya, have been subjected to merciless assault. People are separating from one another and butchering one another along lines of blood and soil.According to a compelling lead article in the new Foreign Affairs, “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” we may be witnessing in the Third World a re-enactment of the ethnic wars that tore Europe to pieces in the 20th century.”Ethnonationalism,” writes history professor Jerry Z. Muller of Catholic University, “has played a more profound role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to recur elsewhere.”

Western Man has mis-taught himself his own history.

“A familiar and influential narrative of 20th-century European history argues that nationalism twice led to war, in 1914 and then again in 1939. Thereafter, the story goes, Europeans concluded that nationalism was a danger and gradually abandoned it. In the postwar decades, Western Europeans enmeshed themselves in a web of transnational institutions, culminating in the European Union.”Muller contends that this is a myth, that peace came to the Old Continent only after the triumph of ethnonationalism, after the peoples of Europe had sorted themselves out and each achieved its own home.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were three multi-ethnic empires in Europe: the Ottoman, Russian and Austro-Hungarian. The ethnonationalist Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 tore at the first.World War I was ignited by Serbs seeking to rip Bosnia away from Austria-Hungary. After four years of slaughter, the Serbs succeeded, and ethnonationalism triumphed in Europe.Out of the dead Ottoman Empire came the ethnonationalist state of Turkey and an ethnic transfer of populations between Ankara and Athens. Armenians were massacred and expelled from Turkey.

Out of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires came Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. In the latter three nations, however, a majority ethnic group ruled minorities that wished either their own national home, or to join lost kinsmen.

In China, Uighurs, Mongolians and Tibetans all resist assimilation. Tatarstan may be the next problem for Russia. In the Balkans, it is Kosovo. Serbs there and in Bosnia may emulate the Albanians and secede.Many, writes Muller, “find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally. Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that this is a product not of nature but of culture. …”But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.”Indeed, we see it bubbling up from the Basque country of Spain, to Belgium, Bolivia, Baghdad and Beirut. Perhaps the wisest counsel for Kenya may be to get out of the way of this elemental force. Rather than seek to halt the inexorable, we should seek to accommodate it and ameliorate its sometimes awful consequences.