“Raila Tosha” Kibaki Finally Utters The Two Magic Words In His Sleep

My late father told me this story many times. He was there.

President Mzee Jomo Kenyatta sat down to lunch in Kakamega shortly before he left for Kisumu on that fateful day in 1969 where his motorcade was stoned in that infamous incident. Those who were there could see that the president was preoccupied and appeared to be in a foul mood. This was confirmed shortly because he hardly touched his soup (which was only the first course). Five minutes later he got up and his motorcade was on the move headed for Kisumu in what was destined to be his last trip to the lakeside city. Clearly Kenyatta was very nervous about that last Kisumu trip.

The late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga

Yesterday President Mwai Kibaki made a historical visit to Kisumu. He received a very warm welcome but appeared to be uncomfortable throughout the proceedings. Predictably most of the politicians who were given an opportunity to speak keptreaching back to history to remind us all that this was no ordinary trip. And they wasted no time in putting the president under immense pressure. They took his mind again and again back to 2002 where Raila Odinga uttered those famous words that changed the course of Kenya’s history, actually just two words “Kibaki Tosha.” They politely told the president that now would be a good time to return that favour. They also wanted the president to rename the Kisumu International airport The Jaramogi Oginga Odinga International airport. The president in his usual style ignored both requests.

History has an uncanny way of repeating itself like some stuck record. Two men (a son and his father) have twice decided the Kenyan presidency and both times they did it conscious of the fact that it would put them in pole position to take over the very same office from those they named.

The late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga told a shocked Legco (Kenyan parliament in those days) that Jomo Kenyatta was like a god to the Kenyan people and there was no way Kenyans were going to consider independence without Kenyatta being freed. With all due respect to the memory of the older Odinga this was nothing but a selfish political move to block a kid on the block who was hurtling at break neck speed towards the presidency. One Thomas Joseph Mboya. Odinga knew that Tom Mboya usually won his elections to parliament with over 90 per cent of the people voting for him being from the Kikuyu community. If Mboya was seen as not being in support of Jomo Kenyatta, he would be wiped out politically.

Historians will want to note that that was one of the very first seeds of tribalism in Kenyan politics ever planted, but that is a post for another day.

What Kenyans still don’t know is that when Raila Odinga 50 years later did exactly what his dad did and said Kibaki Tosha, he was also blocking another man from ascending to the presidency and that man was Simeon Nyachae. Nyachae had made his plans carefully and had managed to position himself as a compromise candidate to take over the presidency of the country for an interim period of one term only t give the other biggies a little time to sort themselves out and come up with one candidate. Using his vast wealth and influence he had enough support to see his long standing ambition through. Raila scuttled Nyacahe’s plans with his famous two words in support of Kibaki. Admittedly Raila’s main motive for backing Kibaki was to ensure the defeat of President Moi and his KANU party.

Now yesterday Mwai Kibaki predictably refused to return the favour that saw him ascend to the presidency. Now if history finishes off this repeat thing Raila will NOT ascend to the presidency. Instead somebody else will come from nowhere and shockingly become the fourth president. Maybe some folks will even call him a passing cloud, but of course he or she will be nothing of the sort.

But enough with the history lessons which bore so many of my readers and lets get to hard ball politics.

The reason why Kibaki’s refusal shocked some insiders is because the president has already made a pact with Raila Odinga. Kibaki will fully support his bid for the presidency and in return President Odinga will protect the Kibakis. And so what happens if President Odinga never happens? It means that Kibaki’s retirement will be extremely uncomfortable.

However the question Kenyans should be asking themselves is are these Raila Toshas and Kibaki Toshas as effective are they used to be? I think NOT. The era of endorsements deciding the presidency is over why are the political class refusing to open their eyes to the new reality? The next election will be decided by the young people of Kenya and they are in a foul mood at the moment and terribly impatient measuring Kenya on the same scale as developed economies whose democracies are over 100 years old. They watch their news and admire the American system of governance and are continually asking themselves why not Kenya?

Presidential candidate Odinga dyes his hair black regularly and there is no doubt that his handlers will want him to spot an even younger look as the presidential campaigns gather momentum. Will that be enough to win the presidency against an extremely crowded field? I think not. I believe that we are headed for a run off when we finally sit down to elect our next president. It will be Raila versus a much younger nobody and that kind of contest will not be good for the courageous but unlucky son of Jaramogi.

I’m keeping my eyes firmly on boring history knowing fully well that the damned thing is going to repeat itself yet again

Tutaona. (we shall see what happens)

Ocampo 4: A Flawed Defense Strategy

by Mwarang'ethe
Up to now, we have refrained from commenting too much on the on going ICC case of the Ocampo six who have been reduced to four.  We have done so because, we hold this Kangaroo Court in utter contempt for it is being used to throw dust into the eyes of the long suffering African people. First, we acknowledge that, serious crimes were committed in Kenya in 2007/8. Secondly, we also, acknowledge, the need for justice for the victims.

Having conceded that, serious crimes were committed, and there is need for justice, we hold a very well considered opinion that, the best justice we can give to the victims of that senseless violence is to devote our attention to a careful reformation of the system which produce such senseless disorder in Africa. Regrettably, instead of devoting ourselves to this noble cause, we have cried for vengeance. The problem is that vengeance shall not remove the real causes of the rampant social disorder in Africa. This being the case, we risk being colonised by stealth in the name of justice.

Those who are ignorant of African history may find the above assertion far fetched. However, all one has to remember is this. In 1526, Nzinga Mbemba of Kingdom of Kongo, a.k.a. Alfonso I wrote the following plea to the King of Portugal:

“We cannot reckon how great the damage is, since the merchants daily seize our subjects, sons of the land and sons of our noblemen, vassals and relatives ... and cause them to be sold; and so great, Sir, is their corruption and licentiousness that our country is being utterly depopulated.”

The question is, did the Portuguese help in any way? They not only encouraged slave trade, but, ended up colonising Africa. Does any believe this time is different? If so, how and why?

Having noted the above, we would advise the Ocampo four to “pause” their frantic defence, change their defence strategy and take on Ocampo first. The problem we find with their defence is that, they have entrusted their fate to mainstream lawyers who will not challenge this body like Milosevic did until they killed him by refusing him medical attention. The truth is that, by taking his own defence, Milsoveic proved a serious challenge to the corrupt international justice system. For instance, his trial was supposed to be broadcast, but, since Milosevic was prepared, all this was dropped.

Thus, we propose, in terms of military art, they need to switch to an offensive strategy and forget their passive defense which their lawyers are pursuing. In fact, we would argue that, their defensive strategy amounts to letting  a long and unbroken line of troops move for so long which must be avoided completely if one is to win any war. As a matter of fact, their strategy amounts to fortification in the age of aerial warfare. As such, they need to abandon their fortifications and launch the greatest weapon of offensive warfare i.e. a surprise and ferocious attack.

This being the case, it is our considered view that, the best option at this moment is to mount a serious attack on the prosecutor and the ICC at large on account of partiality. As an example, they can argue that, the ICC prosecutor and the judges are in clear violation of Article 45 of the Rome Statute entitled: Solemn Undertaking which provides that:

“Before taking up their respective duties under this Statute, the judges, the Prosecutor, the Deputy Prosecutors, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar shall each make a solemn undertaking in open court to exercise his or he respective functions impartially and conscientiously.”

The argument would be like this:

(a) We do not fear to defend ourselves for the alleged crimes.

(b) However, before we stand trial, it is just and proper that, be it ascertained whether we can receive fair trial at the ICC.

Flowing from the above then, to the extent that, the ICC prosecutor and the judges, can be shown not to have not acted in accordance with Rome Statute and especially Article 45, they disqualify themselves from taking “up their respective duties” under the Statute against the four.

We content ourselves at this stage by citing just one example that can be cited and argued forcefully to demonstrate the partiality of this Court and therefore, demonstrate it's utter incapacity to offer a fair trial. In the recent war of aggression against Libya, Ocampo moved very swiftly to indict Gaddafi on fabricated charges.

However, at the same time, in clear evidence of the Court's partiality contrary to Article 45 of the Rome Statute, it did not, and has not acted on violations of international law by the NATO forces. To cite one plain example. The UN Charter, Chapter VII Article 46, provides that:

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

To the best of our recollection, there was no Military Staff committee which was involved in the Libyan war. Clearly, this being irrefutable, this is a a clear violation of the international law of war for the NATO leaders, and many of them are party to the Rome Statute have committed serious crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Why would Ocampo be in a rush to indict Gaddafi on fabricated charges while ignoring clear violations of the international law? If this is not partiality, what is it?

It can be argued that, to the extent the ICC has not seen it fit to investigate such blatant violation of international laws of war, is a confirmation of breach of the Rome Statute Article 42 which provides that, the Office of the Prosecutor “shall not seek or act on instructions from any external source.” If he has not received or sought such instructions, where does his partiality emanate from? From incompetence? If it is incompetence, how can he try the Kenyan case then?

As a matter of fact, the ICC prosecutor is on record saying that, he will ask the UN Security Council member states on the way forward for the Libyan case. How can those who have violated the international laws of war with impunity be the ones to give direction to the ICC prosecutor? What kind of justice is this?

The ultimate question which the ICC judges would be forced to answer in this novel approach is this: If the ICC is receiving instructions contrary to Article 42 of the Rome Statute, how can its impartiality as demanded by Article 45 of the Rome Statute be met?

By adopting this defence strategy instead of the usual one, the Ocampo four would force the ICC either:

(a) to live up to the lofty claims and especially Article 45. Definitely, were it to do this, it would be killed by those who seek to use it as a means of colonialism.

(b) to brush brush aside a well researched attack on its partiality which would lead to loss legitimacy which it has gained by propaganda.

In other words, the Ocampo four should force the ICC to live up to its lofty claims or close shop and scatter those lawyers wasting time there to look for other means of earning their living.