New Constitution Tested, Judiciary Rejects Kibaki Nominees, Marende Ducks Ruling

Less than a week after being consultatively appointed by the executive authority, Kenyans witnessed bold masterstrokes from the Judiciary in correcting the theatre of politically absurd as President Kibaki's newly nominated coterie of Chief Justice, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions and Controller of budget were today dealt a severe blow in the ongoing constitutional battle against the approval of PORK's nominee's

The new constitution lived up to its much hyped billing by taking back the executive's jurisdiction over the court's and providing High court judge Daniel Musinga the much needed teeth with which to emphasise the commensurate bite that Kenya is for all Kenyans of all tribes, colour and creed and affirmative action excluding no professional career and qualified citizen from being fit to be appointed to any senior leadership position in the country.

However, no one understands peculiar Kenyans better than their duly elected equally peculiar leaders voted in by unanimous ethnically segrated universal sufferage. Having successfully divided us against each other they are now forever assured of a split cheering squad bitterly plotting still-birth Egypt/Tunisia style revolutions on social media (Twitter) while simultaneously praying for no further interruptions to the schedule of full implementation for the new constitution by the very same MPs! Normal human beings only have to be bitten once to become shy but peculiar Kenyans continue to enjoy the beauty of the view of every floor on their way down oblivious of the had pavement waiting to kiss their skulls open at the base

Parliament meanwhile continues to chase its tail with House speaker Kenneth Marende judiciously delegating the decision to bite the bullet to a divided relevant House committees. Disillusioned Kenyans expected the former E.mu.ha.ya MP to A I M H I G H E R than his previous LGB (Leader of Government Business) House ruling where he infamously sacrificed his own neck selflessly on the chopping block to break the stalemate between divorce prepared coalition marriage partners ODM and PNU

Thank God we have an effective consititution to fight injustice on our behalf, and baby-step taking Kenyans are slowly gaining confidence in learning how to turn the heat up from the kitchen as the political elite increasingly come face to face with their frail humanity as they find themselves within easy reach of litigation and other forms of checks for accountability. The law must be interpreted in both spirit and letter, and not according to usual me myself and I Kenyan politics. God Bless Kenya

Proposed Constitution: Land Question Mishandled

By Mwarang'ethe

In the proposed constitution, we find Article 68 (1), that, Parliament shall -

(c) enact legislation -
(i) to prescribe minimum and maximum land holding acreages in respect
of private land

(v) to enable the review of all grants or disposition of public land
to establish their propriety or legality.

There are a number of issues like money, which we feel are very dangerous in this Draft. However, we must warn that, the land question is the most visible to many, and therefore, is the most dangerous issue in this proposed constitution. The mistake we are making is to assume that, only a degree in law is required in constitution making.

This is a terrible mistake and we shall pay dearly. For instance, how many legal historians, general historians, philosophers, sociogists do we have in this constitution making business?

Sample this:

By the 2nd Century BC a lot of peasants had lost land to rich land owners in the mighty Roman Empire. When Tiberius was elected into the office of the tribune in 133 BC, he embarked on serious land reforms. To do so, he invoked an old law that had limited the amount of land that could be owned by a single individual. He therefore, established a commission to oversee the redistribution of land holdings from patricians to peasants. Mark you, he was just enforcing law that existed, but, had been ignored. A lot of senators who were huge land owners opposed his reforms. To counter this opposition, he appealed to the people arguing that, a tribune that opposed land reforms did not reflect the will of the people.

To counter him, the senators decided to prosecute him after his office. To avoid this scenario, he sought a second term. As we would expect, the senators opposed this move bitterly and in the ensuing confrontation, Tiberius and his supporters were murdered. We are told, that, this was the first time blood was openly shed in Roman politics for almost four centuries. When his brother Gaius took office in 123 BC, he sought to revive his brother's land reforms. He also sought to give non Roman Italians citizenship (did we hear complains about 8 year old child?). This made Roman citizens to turn against him. Once his support was weakened due to citizenship question, his movement was crushed and he and his supporters lost their lives as well.

Does it appear like any of the COE is aware of this history? However, they cannot plead ignorance because, when the COE requested public input last year, we did give our feedback. We reproduce some of what we informed this COE. The opening lines of our proposal was like this:

"Having examined CHAPTER SEVEN of the Draft Constitution entitled LAND AND PROPERTY, we have come to the conclusion that, although on appearance it looks a better deal than the current one, this Draft Constitution dwells on EQUALIZATION OF FORTUNE and entrenchment of MONOPOLIZATION OF LAND by a few. We believe that, this policy falls short of the objective of a well designed agrarian reform which is the EQUALIZATION OF RIGHTS of all citizens."

To ensure equalization of rights as opposed to chaos of equalization of fortune and continued monopolization of land, we propose the inclusion of the following maxims in the Draft Constitution:

(a) Acknowledging that, the Almighty and Eternal God, having created men free and equal in respect of their rights and having given the earth in common to all men, every Kenyan has a birthright that is original, inalienable and indefeasible by any act or determination of others to an EQUAL share of the property in the land/natural resources in its original state. This is a maxim of natural law.

(b) It is also a maxim of natural law, that everyone, by whose labour any portion of the soil has been rendered more fertile, has the right to the additional produce of that fertility, or to the value of it and may transmit this right freely to other men. This is also a maxim of natural law.

(c) LAND/NATURAL RESOURCES VALUE TAX (including landing slots, airwaves etc) and then POLLUTION and WASTE shall be the main source of revenue for running the affairs of the Kenyan state. There shall be no taxation of INCOME, CAPITAL & EXPENDITURE etc until the WHOLE land value, pollution and waste tax has been collected and utilised productively.

We added this:

"Having started well on the s.79, the Committee went adrift and ended up with a land law that is ambiguous and will cause unnecessary economic and political tension. Our considered view is that, you have ended here for you and the whole nation has been and is still labouring under a false and a very dangerous doctrine that, land/natural resources can be called a man's property. By so doing, you have acquiesced to a false but, traditional doctrine that has not yet been subjected to critical examination. You have therefore failed to heed the words of Sir William Blackstone in the Commentaries on the Laws of England that:

“There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any
other individual in the universe. And yet there are very few that will give themselves the trouble to consider the original and foundation of this right. Pleased as we are with the possession, we seem afraid to look back to the means by which it was acquired, as if fearful of some defect in our title; or at best we rest satisfied with the decision of the laws in our favour, without examining the reason or authority upon which those laws have been built. We think it enough that our title is derived by the grant of the former proprietor, by descent from our ancestors, or by the last will and testament of the dying owner; not caring to reflect that (accurately and strictly speaking) there is no foundation in nature or in natural law, why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of land: why the son should have a right to exclude his fellow-creatures from a determinate spot of ground, because his father had done so before him: or why the occupier of a particular field or of a jewel, when lying on his death-bed, and no longer able to maintain possession, should be entitled to tell the rest of the world which of them should enjoy it after him.”


We then added that:

If this Harmonised Draft was the product of the man in the street, the incorporation of private property in land in the Constitution in the manner of] s. 81 would be understandable. However, since you are the experts in law, it is not an option for once again to quote Blackstone:

“These inquiries, it must be owned, would be useless and even troublesome in common life. It is well if the mass of mankind will obey the laws when made, without scrutinizing too nicely into the reason for making them. But, when law is to be considered not only as a matter of practice, but also as a rational science, it cannot be improper or useless to examine more deeply the rudiments and grounds of these positive constitutions of society.”

Since you are lawyers, who are supposed to be learned, ingenious and friends of mankind, you have no liberty to find this inquiry useless or troublesome as common men would do. You must therefore, summon courage and perhaps a bit of divine wisdom to examine this absurd and pernicious right to absolute ownership of land.

We added further that:

"... From the above two declarations, it is obvious that, by declaring that all men are equally entitled to the use of land does not involve in any way socialism or communism and we need not tamper so much with the existing arrangements as the draft proposes. Also, it is not
necessary that state manages land. To engage in these activities as the draft declares is to engage in equalization of fortune. This type agrarian reform did not work with Tiberius Gracchus of the Roman Empire and have not worked in Zimbabwe and is fatally failing with
dreadful consequences in South Africa that will shall witness in the fullness of time.

Instead of equalization of fortune, which is a dangerous route, all we need instead is an arrangement whereby all the land rent that has been going into the pockets of the few, is taken via taxation to fund the common purposes. To do so, we must deny and utterly reject the vicious idea of “divine absolute land titles” and replace them with conditional form of private ownership of land. This will ensure security of possession and thereby retain use rights and ownership of land for homes, businesses and production which will be both easier
and cheaper."

We then WARNED the COE on the DANGERS of looking backwards. We therefore, requested the COE to look forward and not backwards and to empasise this, we wrote that:

"We find the same sentiments expressed by Alfred Marshall, a great economist who straddled the classical and the post – classical period of economics for he wrote:

“Looking forward rather than backwards, and not concerning ourselves with the equity and the proper limits of the present private property in land, we see that part of the national dividend which goes as earnings of land is a surplus in a sense in which the earnings from other agents are not surplus... there is this difference between land and other agents of production, that from a social point of view land yields a permanent surplus, while perishables made by man do not."

We then informed the COE that:

"... However, should the Committee of Experts desire to educate itself more on this question, we stand ready to provide materials in our possession. We also stand ready to assist the Committee to get in touch with some of the leading thinkers on land question who are in a position to assist in designing a land policy conducive to equalisation of rights.

However, should the Committee and the nation at large ignore this opportunity; it will go down in history as having squandered an historical opportunity to remove the entrenched the fiscal folly that characterises the modern state whereby, the annual public value of the land is monopolised or privatised by a few while taxing the majority poor to increase the value of this land."

Given what we presented to the COE, and our offer to help them get in touch with leading land reform thinkers from around the world, it is therefore, very disturbing to see that, this COE has ignored well detailed lessons of dangers of land redistribution and very reasonable
advise of a great economist, Alfred Marshall, that, the best way is to look forward and not backwards.

Now, let us ask:

(a) Will we divide land into equal portions for every Kenyan?
(b) If we shall not divide land into equal portion, where is equality before the law in such a case?
(c) And, if we will not have equal pieces of land, who shall have a bigger portion and what criteria shall be used?
(d) If the mighty Roman Empire was unable to enforce land size limitations, for what reasons do we think we will succeed?
(e) If we go back and check the validity of past land grants, how far shall we go?

Of Ellusive Vision 2030 and Executive Robbery

By Mwarang'ethe

A great man in the name of Frederic Bastiat, wrote words that shall echo for eternity. He noted this.

“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.”

Like Bastiat, we feel we have a moral duty to warn Kenyans of the greatest robbery which is a foot in the name of the so called Vision 2030. Now, under the “Vision” 2030, one of the key planks is infrastructure like roads, railways and ports. There is nothing wrong with this at first glance for we need them. However, let the reader first appreciate the origins of this “vision” by visiting this site: (Visited on 20/3/2010).

Having seen the origin of this “vision,” let us now turn our attention to some obscure “business news” which did not and cannot compete with more “serious issues” like the “women affirmative” action, counties and regions and such kind of jazz. (DN informs us that: “Thika Road land soars OVER highway.”

Then, we are informed by Mr Ibrahim Mwathane, the director of Landscape Surveyors, that:

“The value of land in Ruiru and Juja areas is appreciating fast as a result of the ongoing re-engineering of Thika Road into a modern highway. real estate experts, the prospects of new structures and amenities have pushed up the cost of land along the vital artery as Chinese contractors build the country’s first eight-lane highway. ... “New infrastructure will play a big role in increasing the value of land. Prices have also risen due to speculative activities since building work started last year,”

Meaning of the above statement

The above facts, do confirm what we have stated many times here. Land values do not result from any labour or capital expenditure of landowners, but, from:

(a) from good governance funded by Wanjiku, and
(b) population increment.

Thus, courtesy of Wanjiku taxes (Remember, she walks to work hungry) the new infrastructures in tune with “vision” 2030 are being put into place. If we take Thika road as an example, we are told this:

1. “Kasarani, Githurai, Ruiru, and Juja are burgeoning industrial and commercial centres. For example the cost of 80 metres by 100 metres plot in Ruiru has risen to about Sh1 million.”
2. Land from Globe Cinema, Muthaiga and Ruaraka area is currently valued at between Sh20 million to Sh40 million an acre.
3. The cost of land from Ruaraka to Githurai ranges from Sh3 million to Sh6 million. From Githurai and Thika, the value ranges from between Sh500, 000 to Sh1 million an acre in the rural setting while the value rises to between Sh1.5 and Sh3 million in urban centres.
   

In a nutshell, we are now witnessing the unprecedented transfer of EARNED INCOME from Wanjiku to few landowners in terms of the WINDFALL GAINS in the name of “vision” 2030. What did Adam Smith say about these windfall gains? He was clear, but, no one seems to remember these words, not even “eminent economists” like Kibaki (remember education is ignorance):

“Ground rents, so far as they exceed the ordinary rent of land, are altogether owing to the good government of the sovereign,...Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government."

In simple words, increased land values are a social/common product and no one has right in front of God and man and in justice and, or equity to monopolise it. Thus, in a free enterprise society, such monopoly ought to be extinguished. So, by refusing to extinguish this monopoly, what kind of economy do we have then? We answer socialism.

This is so because; socialism is denoted by DIVORCE BETWEEN LABOUR AND REWARDS. To the extent that, a few stand to make billions for doing nothing, for we suspect that, having known where these infrastructure will lie, these few, have moved to purchase these lands, we are practicing not free markets as we are told, but, socialism for the few. What is interesting is that, those few who believe in socialism are the first to accuse others of being socialists so as to confuse and frighten the ignorant masses who are being robbed.

Some have argued that, our views about land are motivated by Karl Marx views. Firstly, we ask, was also Adam Smith motivated by Karl Marx? Secondly, for anyone to link Karl Marx to land question betrays monumental ignorance on land question. For instance, during the English civil war, in 1659 (note the centuries before Karl Marx) Harrington warned that, Parliament was not to be trusted to reach a settlement that was good for the people, for it was likely to introduce the monarchy (sounds familiar?).

Although they did not love the monarchy, the gentry wanted a political formula that would protect its estates, i.e. land. Harrington’s advice for diffusion of land to those who had been dispossessed was at odds with the gentry. What did Harrington ask for? He had asked for compulsory education, election by ballot of the executive, executive drawn from all classes in rotation. They rejected such wise advice and brought the monarchy back on one condition. On MONEY MATTERS (remember what we have been saying about banks?), the landed class would determine public policy. It took centuries and rivers of human blood for even ballot to be accepted.

He also noted one truth that, popular government entailed the diffusion of land rights. This will take may be another 1000 years, for, it seems, just as Harrington was shouted at in 1659, we hear same echo, you are too utopians bwana Mwarang’ethe in the 21st Century. So, from this, we can see that, the idea of Karl Marx and land is a red herring adopted by those who dispossess Wanjiku to hide their crimes against humanity which has been going in modern times since 1235. Thus, let no one tell us about Karl Marx for we shall wonder how ignorant one can be in the 21st Century. Now, we ask, is there an alternative to this robbery in the name of “vision” 2030? We answer in the affirmative and give an example.

Hong Kong – A sterile Outcrop Transformed

The terms, on which Hong Kong was to be administered as revealed by Lord Aberdeen in 1843, the then UK’s Foreign Secretary is all we need state to silence would be detractors. He noted that:

"The principal source from which revenue is to be looked for is the Land; and if by the liberality of the Commercial regulations enforced in the Island, foreigners as well as British Subjects are tempted to establish themselves on it, and thus to make it a great mercantile Entrepôt, with very limited dimensions, Her Majesty’s Government conceived that they would be fully justified in securing to the Crown all the benefits to be expected from the increased value which such a state of things would confer upon Land. Her Majesty’s Government would therefore caution you against the permanent alienation of any portion of the land, and they would prefer that Parties should hold land under Leases from the Crown, the terms of which might be sufficiently long to warrant the holders in building upon their allotments . . . It would probably be advantageous also that the portions of land should be let by auction."

This was a clear case of Adam Smith's way of levying tax or communism if you are brainwashed by the modern “education.” And, it is self evident to all today, the integration of the public finance with private property rights has transformed what was a sterile outcrop on the edge of China into one of the most dynamic capitalistic economy. In fact, if Hong Kong had the natural resources we have in Africa, its economy would be more advanced than even of the USA by far. That is what awaits Kenya/Africa when it wakes up to the reality we preach here.

The facts of the Hong Kong economy were captured by Heritage Foundation (2003). When it came to income tax rates, the top rate was 17% in Hong Kong, in Singapore was 22%, in the UK, was 40%, and in the USA was 39.1%. As concerns marginal (average payer), it was 17% in Hong Kong, 8% in Singapore, 22% in the UK and 27.5% in the USA. As to corporation tax, in Hong Kong, it was 16%, 22% in Singapore, 30% in the UK and 35% in the USA.

The most interesting figures were in the government expenditure per cent of the GDP. In Hong Kong, the expenditure was 21.6%, Singapore was 18.1%, in the UK, it was 38.3% and in the USA was 30.4%. What is clear from the last figures is that, due to the tax structures in the UK and in the USA, which rob those who labour because land was monopolized under the guise of capitalism/free markets, these governments, are now forced to intervene in the name of so called welfare state. Unfortunately, such intervention is a dangerous delusion as is evident in mounting public debts which are will eventually bankrupt the UK and the USA. Also, this will be self evident in Kenya within the next 10 years (remember the “infrastructure bonds” we are issuing for these “vision” 2030 roads?)

Through the Hong Kong scheme, those who made/make money did/do not own land for windfall gains were/are captured by the colonial/current government through auctions. The result of this was/is low taxation as we show above, which thereby, enabled/s capitalists or the investors to make huge profits and high wages for workers. This philosophy remains the best kept secret of Hong Kong. While World Bank continues to pile infrastructure debts such as on Thika road on Wanjiku, we can see how Hong Kong uses its land values to fund its infrastructure while relieving those who labour from inquisition in the name of tax.

Some questions to ponder about

1. Have some people with insider information about “vision” 2030 bought land along the infrastructural routes? If so, how many billions do they stand to make? If so, do these people believe in free markets or socialism?
2. Instead of allowing a few idlers to pocket these billions, what if we took these values, and relieved our teachers, doctors, nurses, etc of taxes to the value generated by the infrastructures they have funded? More so, what would this do to our economy and wealth gap?
3. If Hong Kong which has no natural resources is outperforming USA, can you imagine what Africa would look like if we adopted this system with all the natural resources we have?
4. In the last few months, we have been screaming about a few millions that have been stolen. Of course, the World Bank joins in that cry. Why are these people silent about what Hong Kong does?
5. To Phil, we ask, why is the ODM so hopelessly unable to sell such a wonderful idea to the masses who are confused to think land reforms means eviction of Kikuyu’s from RV?
6. To PDM guys like Vikii, Deroo, we know you guys have gone to heaven and hell in search of “progressiveness” ideology. But, we ask, does this “ideology” of yours include what Hong Kong has done? And, if not, why?
7. Finally, let the reader read the DN article, together with two articles we have posted here before, i.e. The First Principle in Drafting a Constitution and Why the New Constitution is Void Ab Initio. Once you do that, is the futility of the current “new constitution” which does not come even close to respecting the NATURAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY become self evident because, as we noted, it seeks to entrench ARTIFICIAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY, i.e. rent seeking?
   

Finally, as you watch the “new constitution” drama, remember these words by Bastiat which summarizes the ongoing constitutional “reforms.”

“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the [Kenyan] French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.”

The First Principle in Drafting a Constitution

By Mwarang'ethe

Everyone is crying out for peace, none is crying out for justice (Peter Tosh)

Almost all Kenyans fervently believe that, the executive branch of the Kenyan government is the root cause of the miseries in our land. Most Kenyans are sincere in this believe. But, the few who originate and propagate the idea, it is a necessary illusion to remove risk from democracy. We deny and reject with unmitigated contempt this believe because it ignores the FIRST PRINCIPLE of constituting a just and peaceful society that must guide drafting of a constitution. Those few who originate and propagating this idea, do so as to continue throwing sand into the eyes of mankind so as to shield them from seeing the self evident truth. They continue to do so in their monstrous but, failing expectation of finding a very huge fund of gullibility in today’s men.

Let the reader bear in mind the following Kenyan prayer/anthem:

O God of all creation
Bless this our land and nation
Justice be our shield and defender
May we dwell in unity
Peace and liberty
Plenty be found within our border

In denouncing these vulgar falsehoods, we assert that, our miseries stem not from failures of the executive, but, from the gross violation of the FIRST PRINCIPLE in our constitution that must be adhered to in constituting a just and peaceful society. This first principle flows from the command of the Creator whom we call upon in the above prayer. It is this. In the Genesis 3:19, the Almighty and Eternal God, declare that, "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." In this, God the Almighty has declared the Natural Law that, industry, intelligence and thrift shall be rewarded with wealth and idleness, indolence, ignorance and imprudence by destitution.

What this means is this. Without intervention of any law, agreement or contract between individuals as to what shall belong to each, Nature produces in each the notion of individuality, which extends to ownership, thereby, bestowing on each person and exclusively that which he produces or creates. Thus, before any man made law, Nature begets to all men the law an expectation that he shall be able to enjoy what he produces in commensurate to labour and skills he employs. This is the law or the first principle of NATURAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY that must be adhered to in constituting a just society.

Flowing from the above, it follows and must follow that the MAIN question in drafting a constitution is not the executive or the so called representation, but, this. Does the Constitution as drafted ensure that, the government to be constituted shall be for no other purpose, but, to guarantee the enjoyment of natural right to property? In other words, is it the sole objective of the government to be constituted to recognise, guarantee and protect the NATURAL relationship between labour and its produce? If not, haven’t such a law violated the corollary principle and Divine law that, thou shall not steal? And, if we have enshrined robbery in our supreme law, haven’t we done violence to justice that we invoke as our shield and defender? And, if justice which should be our shield and defender is dispensed with violently, haven’t we then, relinquished that which must come first before we can dwell in unity, peace and liberty? Finally, having casually relinquished the right to live in unity, peace and liberty, on what basis can we pray to the Creator for plenty within our borders?

Believing the above to be true, let the reader bear this in mind. By the Natural law, no man has or shall ever willingly shoulder the curse of his brother that he can only eat bread from his sweat of his brow. It is from this Natural Law; man has and will forever resist any attempt to burden him with his brother's curse. It follows therefore, that, so as to fasten his curse on the resisting brother, the man running away from his curse, retorts to oppression. Therein, we see that the attempt by man to run away from his curse, that he shall eat his bread from his own sweat, is the root cause of all kinds of oppression devised by man against his fellow man and the attendant slavery, ignorance, poverty, discord and misery that continues to inflict our society. In short, our ability to live in unity, peace, liberty and plenty is totally and absolutely dependent upon the preservation of natural rules of appropriation.

Let us now recall briefly, the Kenyan history. When the barbarians who knew no art or trade but plunder, calling themselves silly and blasphemous names like lord Delamere arrived on our shores, the first thing they did was to appropriate our soil by the means of the sword. To prevent Africans from challenging their barbaric acts, though legal means, their lawyers who look at words like a usurer looks at money, came up with the monstrous doctrine that, public international law could only apply only to “civilised” states. Since Africans were not “civilised” to constitute a state, this law did not apply to them. With such a devilish fiction concocted by European lawyers, the fate of African soil was sealed. Interestingly, this monstrous doctrine is still propagandised to international lawyers even today, but, without the historical context of its bloody origin. However, to protect their corporate tyrannies i.e. private powers in the name of multinationals which James Madison warned will eventually demolish the experiment in democratic government by becoming “at once its tools and its tyrants,” these monstrous absurdities and unintelligent fictions are over looked. What a miserable contradiction in the name of law?

This is the key point. By appropriating our soil, they effectively reduced Africans into slaves because whoever appropriates the soil, must as the night follows the day, pocket the surplus produced by those who must labour in agriculture and manufacturing in accordance with law of rent. In other words, to appropriate land means to claim everything that must be made using its help. In simple words, those who sweat can only pocket only a small piece of the bread that is just necessary to ensure bare survival. The bigger part of the bread they bake with their blood and sweat is thereby, pocketed by those who appropriated land, but, who do not sweat. Hereby, we now see that, this LEGAL/ARTIFICIAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY which grows not from natural causes, but, by the law of fraud or what men in wigs call the law of the land is founded on the negation of the first principle of a just and peaceful society, i.e. the NATURAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

Having appropriated our soil, they did not sheath their sword. Still dripping with the blood of the innocent, they kept it on their hands and proceeded to engrave the law for the conquered and vanquished. As anyone knows, these first law makers and their descendants had one thing in their mind. To preserve in perpetuity the power and privilege so established. Thus, we have a law founded on oppression, upheld by force and fraud, and intended solely to preserve ill gotten power and ill gotten wealth, i.e. land so as to maintain dominion of the soil by the aristocracy so as to perpetuate slavery, ignorance and poverty.

However, since the natural right to property is ingrained in the heart of all men by their Creator, whenever this right is violated, they revolt. It was revolt against the appropriation of wealth of those who labour by those who are idle contrary to the Divine Law, i.e. negation of the first principle, which is implanted in the hearts of all men that drove Kenyans to fight to be free. Here is another key point to note. It is the origin and meaning of constitutions. Since the governing and legislating class have throughout history, sought to annihilate the first principle of society, i.e. the natural right to property as in the case of slavery, in the case of colonialism and apartheid the victims of this robbery, have always sought to guarantee against such violation via constitutions. Thus, the constitutions are not and cannot confer any rights. Their purposes are twofold. Firstly, to affirm previously violated natural rights of man. Secondly, to be a testimony to the future generations of how law makers have sought throughout history to annihilate natural rights of man and thereby, call for eternal vigilance.

Unfortunately, when we gained independence, all that changed was the colour of the law makers. The principles of oppression and plunder were left as the foundation of our political and legal edifice. Consequently, it is this unjust appropriation of wealth after the so called independence that has been the source of revolt ever since. Thus, the objective of a new constitutional order was and should be the re-introduction and affirmation of the first principle of constituting a just and peaceful society.

Unfortunately, what should have been about recovering the natural relations between labour and rewards, has been turned into matters of preservation of power by the law makers in the name of executive and so called people’s representation. It is because of these frustrations we have witnessed the unprecedented bloodshed in Kenya of late. Sadly, when men revolt without understanding fully the source injustice they feel in their hearts, they revolt in a manner that harms themselves and others in their blind efforts to correct the great injustice.

It is from this view; the violence among Kenyans and the government response we have seen of late in Kenya must be understood. So as to maintain order in a society where men are revolting against unjust appropriation of their sweat, the government retorts to barbaric means to combat the lawlessness. Unfortunately, such police measures as we have witnessed against Sabaot “rebels” and Mungiki guarantee one thing. More massacres by the police and the military of both the active participants and the innocent bystanders. All this, leaves a society drenched in blood while retarding its moral, social, economic and political developments. This goes on until the final breakdown. Kenya has now entered this vicious cycle and it seems appropriate to warn that this new constitution may be the last trumpet. If it does not address this first principle meaningfully and comprehensively, all other “reforms” shall be in vain and we would have reached the end of road as it concerns peaceful reforms.

Thus, let us stop chasing shadows looking for the cause of our tribulations. We need only look at political institutions that were originally founded by the sword and have since been maintained by the sword of the majesty, injustice of the judge and an army of black myrmidons. Unfortunately, these institutions can only breathe hatred, discord and bloodshed. In simple words, as long as we seek to maintain principles flowing barbaric aggression, mutual oppression and plunder decreed by dead mad men whose highest and most noble vocation was slaughter of the innocent, using the hocus pocus and the mystic interpretation of law by lawyers, we shall be forever be tormented by open theft, fraud which destroy confidence which makes men act for themselves alone, instead of mutually exchanging their services and goods in mutual exchanges which is the basis of order in society and not police.

We reiterate that in the face of reason and facts, the imposition of artificial or legal right to property or that idle coinage of the brain which has no basis in the laws of nature, which therefore, violently overthrows the natural right to property, is the root cause of the Kenyan mess. It must be the root cause because it servers the NATURAL CONNECTION between LABOUR and its REWARDS. This artificial right to property creates a class of idle rich men who are not inventive. More so, since their natural wants are already met, and are idle, out of their low imagination capacity they come up with fancy and unreal wants and expensive vanities to meet their whims. Unfortunately, since they occupy the highest positions in society, their love of expense sets the fashion or the example which is copied by those below them. To copy these idlers is the beginning of corruption which eventually corrupts the whole society as it falls into vice and crime.

In conclusion, what we have sought to explain is this. Law makers are only known to invent new taxes and only conquer the pockets of their subjects. It is for this reason; they have diverted the need for reforms on right of property into creation of offices which will preserve their power (read 349 mps idle mps to be paid by those who labour). However, on our part, we insist that, the distribution of wealth in terms of wages, rent and interest which is the most critical issue in the stability of a nation should have been the priority. Without addressing this matter, we shall still be with a governance system dedicated to unjust appropriation of wealth of those who labour. From this parent theft, it shall surely flow all the theft, fraud, all vanity and chicanery that shall surely torment Kenyans worse than a pestilence and famine. This is because, it is impossible to violate the decree of the Creator we call upon in our national prayer with impunity.