The Misuse of the Word "Treason" in Kenya's Political Landscape

 

 In 1976, a powerful faction within President Jomo Kenyatta's kitchen cabinet launched the "Change the Constitution" movement. Their goal was to prevent then-Vice President Daniel arap Moi from automatically assuming the presidency if something were to happen to the aging Kenyatta, who was slipping in and out of comas. The political elite around Kenyatta knew that the country’s first president was nearing the end of his life, and succession plans were already in motion. In response, Attorney General Charles Njonjo took drastic action. He issued a statement that effectively shut down the movement by declaring that any Kenyan who even imagined the death of the sitting president was committing treason.

This statement had an immediate and chilling effect. It halted the momentum of the "Change the Constitution" movement as politicians and individuals quickly realized the serious consequences of even contemplating such thoughts. Njonjo’s words had the same effect as slamming the brakes on a speeding car, stopping the movement in its tracks. This action became an infamous part of Kenya's political history.

Years later, the word "treason" was again invoked in Kenya’s political discourse—this time in 2017 when Raila Odinga announced his intention to be sworn in as president, despite the controversial 2017 election results. Legal experts, politicians, and analysts immediately began using the term "treason" to describe Odinga’s planned inauguration. However, unlike in 1976, the use of this term did not put a halt to the political debate; instead, it intensified discussions around the issue.

In my opinion, misusing the term "treason" is a dangerous precedent. The word has historically been reserved for extreme actions against one’s country, such as betraying the nation, massive fraud, or rigging elections to install an unpopular leader. In contrast, Raila Odinga’s actions—swearing in as president despite the contested results—are controversial, but not treasonous. In my view, referring to this move as treason is not only incorrect, but also fuels unnecessary tensions.

Using "treason" in this context distorts the meaning of the term and risks deepening divisions in the country. It’s crucial that we use language responsibly to avoid inflaming an already volatile political environment. The 2010 Constitution, which many of our older politicians have failed to fully comprehend or apply, specifically addresses these issues with more modern perspectives. In the current political climate, individuals who use the term "treason" incorrectly are clinging to outdated thinking from the 1960s and 1970s—thinking that no longer serves the Kenya of today.