Jubilee, Raila Odinga, and the People's Assembly: A Constitutional Dilemma

 There’s something fascinating about how Jubilee Party interprets the Kenyan Constitution. Their approach seems selective—parts are upheld when convenient, while others are ignored for political expediency. This inconsistent application raises serious concerns about governance and constitutional fidelity.

Contradictions in Upholding the Constitution

One glaring example involves a president, sworn in to protect and uphold the Constitution, presiding over police forces that disrupt peaceful gatherings. In one instance, a prayer meeting—a fundamental right under the Constitution’s provisions on freedom of assembly—was forcefully broken up. This contradiction exemplifies the selective respect for the law that Jubilee appears to practice.

Jubilee leaders have also issued direct threats to Raila Odinga, warning him against taking any actions perceived as challenging their authority. Such statements reveal a troubling disregard for the Constitution’s safeguards against tyranny and its clear provision that ultimate power lies with the people.

Power Belongs to the People

Kenya’s 2010 Constitution is a robust document that envisions both indirect and direct exercises of power by citizens. Through mechanisms like referenda, the people can assert their will and bypass institutions, such as Parliament, that may attempt to obstruct their desires. This people-centered framework sets the stage for intriguing legal and political possibilities, such as the establishment of the People’s Assembly and, potentially, secession.

The People's Assembly and Secession

The People’s Assembly, an initiative championed by Raila Odinga and his allies, could become a pivotal force. According to the Constitution, citizens have the right to determine their governance structure—even to secede from the larger Republic of Kenya. If assemblies across the country united and passed a decree to secede, electing Raila Odinga as their president, this action would be legally binding under Kenya’s Constitution.

While such a move would likely be deemed rebellious internationally, domestically it would align with constitutional provisions. Arresting Raila Odinga would achieve little, as the Constitution fully protects those acting under its guidance. This scenario could lead to the birth of the People’s Republic of Kenya—a legitimate legal entity, though its territorial reach might initially be limited.

The Bigger Concern: Repercussions

However, the real concern isn’t the legality of these actions but their consequences. A secessionist move could trigger political and social unrest, potentially destabilizing the country. This is the unspoken fear many analysts are reluctant to confront.