Kenya’s High Court has postponed the case to determine whether two prominent Kenyans facing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and aspiring to be president meet the constitution’s integrity standards for public office.
High Court Judge Issac Lenaola postponed the case to September 27 in order to allow lawyers representing the petitioners to amend their petition. He also postponed the case because the other two judges who were supposed to be sitting on the panel were not available to do so Tuesday.
Judge Lenaola ordered Ambrose Otieno Weda, who is representing some of the petitioners, to submit the amended petition within the next 14 days to the respondents and interested parties in the case. They in turn will have 14 days to respond to it, Lenaola ordered. He also said that if the petitioners wished to comment on the responses, they had seven days after that to do so.
Weda told the court the amended petition will include the names of other “substantive Kenyans” in order for the court to deal with the issue of integrity in leadership at one go. Weda declined to state whom he intended to name as additional respondents in the case before he had filed the amended petition.
The petitioners are individual voters, some civil society organizations, such as the Kenya Youth Parliament and the Kenya Youth League, as well as some of the people who were displaced from their homes during the bloody upheaval that shook Kenya following the country’s last election in December 2007.
The petitioners are asking the court to determine whether Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and former Cabinet Minister William Samoei Ruto pass the integrity standard set in the constitution. The petitioners would like the court to rule on this because Kenyatta and Ruto have declared their intention to run for president while they are set to face trial at the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity.
Kenyatta faces five counts of crimes against humanity allegedly committed after the December 2007 presidential poll. His trial is due to begin on April 11, 2013. Ruto faces three counts of crimes against humanity and his trial begins on April 10, 2013. The next Kenyan elections are due to be held on March 4, 2013, one month before the ICC trials begin.
Some of the interested parties in the case are the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution, which is an independent institution responsible for overseeing the process to implement Kenya’s nearly two-year old supreme law. Others include the Law Society of Kenya and Kenyatta’s newly formed political vehicle, The National Alliance party.
The constitution lays out in broad terms the integrity standards any one holding, seeking to hold or being appointed to public office must satisfy. These are in chapter six of the constitution. The National Assembly is also required to pass a law that expands the broad principles on integrity in the constitution and that also describes the penalties to be applied in case of violation. The National Assembly is yet to do this because a draft bill is at the public comments stage.
This lack of legislation is one of the grounds for preliminary objections to the case some lawyers indicated on Tuesday that they would be making. They will be arguing the court has no jurisdiction because no subsidiary law has been enacted. They will argue the court is in effect being asked to do the work of the legislature.
by Tom Maliti
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Suspected Offenders of Kenya Post-Election Violence To Escape Prosecution
The task-force set up by Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko in April said most of the 8,869 cases reported fell below the prosecutable level and may not be pursued by the prosecutor’s office.
Of these, 5,374 suspects are still under investigation, the task-force pointed out when it gave an update on the cases under review.
A further 425 are yet to be arrested even though their identities are known. Another 125 have been withdrawn from court.
On Friday, the team chaired by Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor Dorcas Oduor said the police files did not have essential information making it difficult to pursue them.
“A cursory examination of the files shows that they are incomplete and do not containing essential information such as witness statements of complainants or investigating officers,” the task force said referring to murder investigations cases.
Where the crimes were committed was also not clearly identified therefore the magistrates given the files could not issue any orders of inquiry into the deaths.
While looking at the police files, the team categorised the cases into three: sexual and gender-based violence, murder and general offences.
Sexual offences were not properly reported too denying victims a chance to press charges against their attackers.
Ms Oduor’s team evaluated 150 sexual and gender-based violence cases and reported that they were filed long after the offences hence the inability to capture necessary evidence vital in prosecuting the offenders.
“Most complainants did not identify the perpetrators as the attacks were at night or the people were unknown to them,” the task force document states.
Injuries resulting from the attacks could not be substantially verified as there were no P3 or medical reports to back up their claims.
Additionally, those raped or subjected to other sexual abuses only remembered the month and year of their ordeals but not the exact dates.
General offences constituted more than three quarters of the total cases and included arson, theft and malicious damage. In pursuing these, the task force also found glaring gaps that had made it difficult to conclude them fast.
Vital information such as the identity of the suspects, delays in reporting case, inadequate police statements and lack of witnesses were cited.
“Some complainants saw their houses being burnt from a distance but they were unable to identify the raiders, invaders and arsonists,”
The latest findings put to question the commitment of the police to satisfactorily investigate the 2007 post-election offences. Some of the officers are also under investigation in 47 sexual offences.
Their names have been forwarded to the Mr Tobiko for further investigation and prosecution.
The task force findings puts the police on the spotlight once again as most files were incomplete, did not have investigation diaries or statements from investigating officers.
Mr Tobiko appointed the multi-agency task force on April 20 to review, re-evaluate and re-examine post election violence files. So far the team has looked at 4,408 files.
Ms Oduor said they were seeking other alternatives to help the victims who may not get redress from the courts owing to lack of adequate evidence.
“We have held discussions with the International Court of Justice, Fida-Kenya and other institutions to see ways the victims could be helped,” she said on Friday during a press conference at the National Social Security Fund building in Nairobi.
Source: Daily Nation
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Are Mungiki Back?
Any journalist who has worked on investigative stories will tell you that not all investigations for stories get completed successfully.
For weeks now I have been following up on what I think is a big story albeit very scary news. I would hate to be the one to alarm my readers for nothing and so I have resisted the temptation to do a half-baked post without the concrete evidence to back it up.
Still this news is so important and secondly after the killings in Meru recently there is a clear trend and so I have decided to go ahead with this post and give you my dear reader the little information that I have so far and let you make your own decision as to whether my haunch is correct or off the mark, even as I continue to do more digging. The decision is entirely yours.
Since the beginning of this year there have been very strange killings happening around the country but mainly in Central province and its’ environs that have the Mungiki trade mark written all over them. Indeed in some cases locals have clearly pointed out to the authorities that the killings suggest that Mungiki are back. Nobody wants to even consider that possibility and so these voices have been muffled. Even reporters and editors have been quick to edit the Mungiki link out of these stories dismissing them as unsubstantiated claims.
But on the ground many Kenyans are living in great fear for their lives. A case in point is Muranga where a headless body of a woman was recently found. The body of Julia Njeri was dumped along Nguthuru-Muruka road and was discovered early in the morning. Residents suspected that Njeri was murdered elsewhere before her body was dumped beside the road. The head is yet to be found. Residents have been living in fear since then. See a video of this news report HERE.
I have followed several other very similar killings since that Muranga incident in May with the latest being the blood letting incident in Meru. Read the story HERE.
In my view this is all very worrying bearing in mind that we are headed for the most competitive general elections in the history of Kenya. Less competitive elections in the past have shed lots of blood and so what should we expect this time? Less blood-letting or more?
Of course we also know that Kenyan politicians are a superstitious lot and ritual killings to complete witchcraft spells to win elections are usually common as we head to the elections with plenty of killings, disappearances and bizarre road accidents. However we also know that the killer Mungiki gang is usually most active as we head to general elections.
Does the Mungiki terror group have any chance of resurrecting after the bloody so-called shut down by former police commissioner Major General Hussein Ali and his hit squads created to do just that? Read all about these hit squads and other unpublished secrets, like how all the dirty money was made by Kenya's top 5 wealthiest families, now. As I have said many times here before, wiping out every suspected Mungiki member in site is not the way to deal with this kind of problem. It is a case of dealing ruthlessly with the symptom and then cheating yourself that you have cured the disease. Besides those with good memories will remember that the Prime Minister Raila Odinga promised to negotiate with the group not too long ago, meaning that Mungiki is far from being extinct.
And so clearly anybody who thinks that the Mungiki are dead and buried would be gravely mistaken. Still experts on these matters consulted by this blogger are of the opinion that it is unlikely that the Mungiki would have recovered enough organizational teeth to carry out the killings across such a wide area of Central province. To be honest I personally disagree.
So the mystery remains; what are the bizarre killings all about?
For weeks now I have been following up on what I think is a big story albeit very scary news. I would hate to be the one to alarm my readers for nothing and so I have resisted the temptation to do a half-baked post without the concrete evidence to back it up.
Still this news is so important and secondly after the killings in Meru recently there is a clear trend and so I have decided to go ahead with this post and give you my dear reader the little information that I have so far and let you make your own decision as to whether my haunch is correct or off the mark, even as I continue to do more digging. The decision is entirely yours.Since the beginning of this year there have been very strange killings happening around the country but mainly in Central province and its’ environs that have the Mungiki trade mark written all over them. Indeed in some cases locals have clearly pointed out to the authorities that the killings suggest that Mungiki are back. Nobody wants to even consider that possibility and so these voices have been muffled. Even reporters and editors have been quick to edit the Mungiki link out of these stories dismissing them as unsubstantiated claims.
But on the ground many Kenyans are living in great fear for their lives. A case in point is Muranga where a headless body of a woman was recently found. The body of Julia Njeri was dumped along Nguthuru-Muruka road and was discovered early in the morning. Residents suspected that Njeri was murdered elsewhere before her body was dumped beside the road. The head is yet to be found. Residents have been living in fear since then. See a video of this news report HERE.
I have followed several other very similar killings since that Muranga incident in May with the latest being the blood letting incident in Meru. Read the story HERE.
In my view this is all very worrying bearing in mind that we are headed for the most competitive general elections in the history of Kenya. Less competitive elections in the past have shed lots of blood and so what should we expect this time? Less blood-letting or more?
Of course we also know that Kenyan politicians are a superstitious lot and ritual killings to complete witchcraft spells to win elections are usually common as we head to the elections with plenty of killings, disappearances and bizarre road accidents. However we also know that the killer Mungiki gang is usually most active as we head to general elections.
Does the Mungiki terror group have any chance of resurrecting after the bloody so-called shut down by former police commissioner Major General Hussein Ali and his hit squads created to do just that? Read all about these hit squads and other unpublished secrets, like how all the dirty money was made by Kenya's top 5 wealthiest families, now. As I have said many times here before, wiping out every suspected Mungiki member in site is not the way to deal with this kind of problem. It is a case of dealing ruthlessly with the symptom and then cheating yourself that you have cured the disease. Besides those with good memories will remember that the Prime Minister Raila Odinga promised to negotiate with the group not too long ago, meaning that Mungiki is far from being extinct.
And so clearly anybody who thinks that the Mungiki are dead and buried would be gravely mistaken. Still experts on these matters consulted by this blogger are of the opinion that it is unlikely that the Mungiki would have recovered enough organizational teeth to carry out the killings across such a wide area of Central province. To be honest I personally disagree.
So the mystery remains; what are the bizarre killings all about?
Can Kenyatta and Ruto run for president while facing ICC trial?
What do Congo and Kenya have in common, except an obvious undying love for rhumba? The answer: politicians who stand accused at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and want to be president of their respective countries.
Former Congolese vice-president and senator Jean-Pierre Bemba, who has been charged at the ICC with two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes, was unable to pursue his ambitions of leading Congo because he is detained in The Hague. Bemba is alleged to have committed the crimes when his Movement for the Liberation of Congo got embroiled in the 2002 to 2003 conflict in the Central African Republic. Bemba’s detention in The Hague, however, did not stop him from exploring the possibility of running for president in Congo’s 2011 election. It also did not stop other Congolese opposition leaders seeking his support for their own bids for the country’s top seat. In the end Bemba was not on the ballot, and his former ally-turned-nemesis, Joseph Kabila, was re-elected Congo’s president.
Kenya’s Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and his former Cabinet colleague, William Samoei Ruto, are not as hampered in pursuing their presidential ambitions as Bemba was. Kenyatta, who faces five counts of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the violence that consumed Kenya after the 2007 presidential election, is able to campaign freely because the court has not issued an arrest warrant against him. Ruto, who faces three counts of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the Kenya violence, enjoys the same freedom. The two are free so long as they obey the restrictions the court set for Kenya case one, which involves Ruto, and case two, which involves Kenyatta. They are also expected to attend all trial hearings, which are scheduled to begin in April next year, about a month after Kenya’s election is held.
Everything appears smooth for the two individuals, except a court case in Kenya. Two individuals and two organizations are asking the High Court to interpret the leadership standards set out in the constitution and whether those would restrict people facing serious crimes charges from contesting for public office. The first day of hearings is scheduled to start this Tuesday.
The court case is driven in part by the continuing public debate in Kenya about whether Kenyatta and Ruto should even consider running for president, especially once the ICC pre-trial chamber ruled in January that they should face trial for the charges the prosecutor has filed against them.
The common sense view is that the two individuals should not run for public office until the ICC’s trial chamber determines their cases. This is not a comment on their guilt or innocence. It is a comment on the spirit behind the decades-long agitation in Kenya for a new constitution. This spirit, in brief, included an aspiration for a higher standard of leadership in Kenya that would help the country fulfil its potential. This aspiration was informed by the country’s collective experience of past bad leadership and a sense Kenya can and should do better. This is a moral argument that supporters of Kenyatta and Ruto dismiss.
They rely on two constitutional principles. One is that the constitution presumes any one facing a court case is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, they argue Kenyatta and Ruto should not be penalized and stopped from running for public office because they are facing charges of serious crimes at the ICC. The other principle they advance is the constitution provides that each citizen has the right to vote for the person of their choice. The implication being that by locking out Kenyatta and Ruto from the presidential race, their supporters will be denied their freedom of choice.
The general public is, however, divided on this issue. Independent polling company Ipsos Synovate conducted a survey on the issue between January 27 and February 1. The poll, which was released on February 20, found that the Kenyan public was almost split in half on the issue. This was about a week after the ICC pre-trial chamber’s January 23 decision that Kenyatta and Ruto, together with two other co-accused, should face trial. Ipsos Synovate also found that almost half of those polled believed that nothing will happen if either Kenyatta or Ruto is barred from contesting the presidential poll.
When Ipsos Synovate asked the same question between April 6 and April 17, the poll it released in May found that public opinion had shifted. More people opposed Kenyatta’s and Ruto’s presidential aspirations than those who supported their ambitions. Those opposing Kenyatta’s presidential aspiration rose to 49 percent in April, compared to 46 percent in January-February. Those supporting Kenyatta’s bid dropped to 44 percent in April, from 48 percent in January-February. Those opposing Ruto’s presidential aspirations rose to 51 percent in April, compared to 47 percent in January-February. Support for Ruto’s presidential bid declined to 42 percent, compared to 47 percent in January-February.
Another polling company found that more than half of respondents did not support any one facing a court case running for public office. Strategic Public Relations and Research interviewed 5,000 people between April 27 and May 2 and found that 56 percent of them did not support any one charged with an offence in court seeking public office. The company found, however, that a high number of people, about 42 percent, supported individuals facing charges in a court campaigning for public office. Strategic Public Relations and Research did not name Kenyatta and Ruto in the question they asked respondents but the answers are a comment on the bids of Kenyatta and Ruto as well as one of their co-accused at the ICC, Joshua arap Sang, who has indicated he may run for a national Senate seat.
Aside from the legal and moral questions facing them, Kenyatta and Ruto have not found the nuts and bolts work of political campaigning easy going. The law governing political parties and their operations has forced the two to do the hard work of building from scratch their political vehicles, recruiting members across the country and laying the infrastructure for these parties to be viable national organizations. The law demands political parties have offices in at least half of the country’s counties as well as a minimum of 1,000 members in each of those counties. These requirements are in the almost two-year old constitution Kenyans voted for in August 2010. Previously, political parties did not have to have a minimum number of members or even offices outside the capital Nairobi. Political parties were in essence the property of the rich and powerful.
The efforts of Kenyatta and Ruto to forge an alliance also have not gone far because of the myriad of interests they have to accommodate beyond their personal presidential ambitions. Although opinion polls consistently put Prime Minister Raila Amolo Odinga in the lead with at least a 10 point margin ahead of anyone else, there are too many variables that make the Kenyan presidential poll still wide open. One variable is that no aspirant crosses the 50 percent margin in opinion polls. This threshold is constitutionally decreed for a candidate to win an election in the first round. Another, which is not included in the opinion polls, is the views of Kenyans living outside the country. Kenyans in the diaspora will for the first time have the right to vote in the presidential election, and they are a huge untested factor.
by Tom Maliti
Former Congolese vice-president and senator Jean-Pierre Bemba, who has been charged at the ICC with two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes, was unable to pursue his ambitions of leading Congo because he is detained in The Hague. Bemba is alleged to have committed the crimes when his Movement for the Liberation of Congo got embroiled in the 2002 to 2003 conflict in the Central African Republic. Bemba’s detention in The Hague, however, did not stop him from exploring the possibility of running for president in Congo’s 2011 election. It also did not stop other Congolese opposition leaders seeking his support for their own bids for the country’s top seat. In the end Bemba was not on the ballot, and his former ally-turned-nemesis, Joseph Kabila, was re-elected Congo’s president.
Kenya’s Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and his former Cabinet colleague, William Samoei Ruto, are not as hampered in pursuing their presidential ambitions as Bemba was. Kenyatta, who faces five counts of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the violence that consumed Kenya after the 2007 presidential election, is able to campaign freely because the court has not issued an arrest warrant against him. Ruto, who faces three counts of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the Kenya violence, enjoys the same freedom. The two are free so long as they obey the restrictions the court set for Kenya case one, which involves Ruto, and case two, which involves Kenyatta. They are also expected to attend all trial hearings, which are scheduled to begin in April next year, about a month after Kenya’s election is held.
Everything appears smooth for the two individuals, except a court case in Kenya. Two individuals and two organizations are asking the High Court to interpret the leadership standards set out in the constitution and whether those would restrict people facing serious crimes charges from contesting for public office. The first day of hearings is scheduled to start this Tuesday.
The court case is driven in part by the continuing public debate in Kenya about whether Kenyatta and Ruto should even consider running for president, especially once the ICC pre-trial chamber ruled in January that they should face trial for the charges the prosecutor has filed against them.
The common sense view is that the two individuals should not run for public office until the ICC’s trial chamber determines their cases. This is not a comment on their guilt or innocence. It is a comment on the spirit behind the decades-long agitation in Kenya for a new constitution. This spirit, in brief, included an aspiration for a higher standard of leadership in Kenya that would help the country fulfil its potential. This aspiration was informed by the country’s collective experience of past bad leadership and a sense Kenya can and should do better. This is a moral argument that supporters of Kenyatta and Ruto dismiss.
They rely on two constitutional principles. One is that the constitution presumes any one facing a court case is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, they argue Kenyatta and Ruto should not be penalized and stopped from running for public office because they are facing charges of serious crimes at the ICC. The other principle they advance is the constitution provides that each citizen has the right to vote for the person of their choice. The implication being that by locking out Kenyatta and Ruto from the presidential race, their supporters will be denied their freedom of choice.
The general public is, however, divided on this issue. Independent polling company Ipsos Synovate conducted a survey on the issue between January 27 and February 1. The poll, which was released on February 20, found that the Kenyan public was almost split in half on the issue. This was about a week after the ICC pre-trial chamber’s January 23 decision that Kenyatta and Ruto, together with two other co-accused, should face trial. Ipsos Synovate also found that almost half of those polled believed that nothing will happen if either Kenyatta or Ruto is barred from contesting the presidential poll.
When Ipsos Synovate asked the same question between April 6 and April 17, the poll it released in May found that public opinion had shifted. More people opposed Kenyatta’s and Ruto’s presidential aspirations than those who supported their ambitions. Those opposing Kenyatta’s presidential aspiration rose to 49 percent in April, compared to 46 percent in January-February. Those supporting Kenyatta’s bid dropped to 44 percent in April, from 48 percent in January-February. Those opposing Ruto’s presidential aspirations rose to 51 percent in April, compared to 47 percent in January-February. Support for Ruto’s presidential bid declined to 42 percent, compared to 47 percent in January-February.
Another polling company found that more than half of respondents did not support any one facing a court case running for public office. Strategic Public Relations and Research interviewed 5,000 people between April 27 and May 2 and found that 56 percent of them did not support any one charged with an offence in court seeking public office. The company found, however, that a high number of people, about 42 percent, supported individuals facing charges in a court campaigning for public office. Strategic Public Relations and Research did not name Kenyatta and Ruto in the question they asked respondents but the answers are a comment on the bids of Kenyatta and Ruto as well as one of their co-accused at the ICC, Joshua arap Sang, who has indicated he may run for a national Senate seat.
Aside from the legal and moral questions facing them, Kenyatta and Ruto have not found the nuts and bolts work of political campaigning easy going. The law governing political parties and their operations has forced the two to do the hard work of building from scratch their political vehicles, recruiting members across the country and laying the infrastructure for these parties to be viable national organizations. The law demands political parties have offices in at least half of the country’s counties as well as a minimum of 1,000 members in each of those counties. These requirements are in the almost two-year old constitution Kenyans voted for in August 2010. Previously, political parties did not have to have a minimum number of members or even offices outside the capital Nairobi. Political parties were in essence the property of the rich and powerful.
The efforts of Kenyatta and Ruto to forge an alliance also have not gone far because of the myriad of interests they have to accommodate beyond their personal presidential ambitions. Although opinion polls consistently put Prime Minister Raila Amolo Odinga in the lead with at least a 10 point margin ahead of anyone else, there are too many variables that make the Kenyan presidential poll still wide open. One variable is that no aspirant crosses the 50 percent margin in opinion polls. This threshold is constitutionally decreed for a candidate to win an election in the first round. Another, which is not included in the opinion polls, is the views of Kenyans living outside the country. Kenyans in the diaspora will for the first time have the right to vote in the presidential election, and they are a huge untested factor.
by Tom Maliti
Kenyan case looking into Kenyatta, Ruto presidential bids postponed
Kenya’s High Court has postponed the case to determine whether two prominent Kenyans facing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and aspiring to be president meet the constitution’s integrity standards for public office.
High Court Judge Issac Lenaola postponed the case to September 27 in order to allow lawyers representing the petitioners to amend their petition. He also postponed the case because the other two judges who were supposed to be sitting on the panel were not available to do so Tuesday.
Judge Lenaola ordered Ambrose Otieno Weda, who is representing some of the petitioners, to submit the amended petition within the next 14 days to the respondents and interested parties in the case. They in turn will have 14 days to respond to it, Lenaola ordered. He also said that if the petitioners wished to comment on the responses, they had seven days after that to do so.
Weda told the court the amended petition will include the names of other “substantive Kenyans” in order for the court to deal with the issue of integrity in leadership at one go. Weda declined to state whom he intended to name as additional respondents in the case before he had filed the amended petition.
The petitioners are individual voters, some civil society organizations, such as the Kenya Youth Parliament and the Kenya Youth League, as well as some of the people who were displaced from their homes during the bloody upheaval that shook Kenya following the country’s last election in December 2007.
The petitioners are asking the court to determine whether Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and former Cabinet Minister William Samoei Ruto pass the integrity standard set in the constitution. The petitioners would like the court to rule on this because Kenyatta and Ruto have declared their intention to run for president while they are set to face trial at the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity.
Kenyatta faces five counts of crimes against humanity allegedly committed after the December 2007 presidential poll. His trial is due to begin on April 11, 2013. Ruto faces three counts of crimes against humanity and his trial begins on April 10, 2013. The next Kenyan elections are due to be held on March 4, 2013, one month before the ICC trials begin.
Some of the interested parties in the case are the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution, which is an independent institution responsible for overseeing the process to implement Kenya’s nearly two-year old supreme law. Others include the Law Society of Kenya and Kenyatta’s newly formed political vehicle, The National Alliance party.
The constitution lays out in broad terms the integrity standards any one holding, seeking to hold or being appointed to public office must satisfy. These are in chapter six of the constitution. The National Assembly is also required to pass a law that expands the broad principles on integrity in the constitution and that also describes the penalties to be applied in case of violation. The National Assembly is yet to do this because a draft bill is at the public comments stage.
This lack of legislation is one of the grounds for preliminary objections to the case some lawyers indicated on Tuesday that they would be making. They will be arguing the court has no jurisdiction because no subsidiary law has been enacted. They will argue the court is in effect being asked to do the work of the legislature.
by Tom Maliti
High Court Judge Issac Lenaola postponed the case to September 27 in order to allow lawyers representing the petitioners to amend their petition. He also postponed the case because the other two judges who were supposed to be sitting on the panel were not available to do so Tuesday.
Judge Lenaola ordered Ambrose Otieno Weda, who is representing some of the petitioners, to submit the amended petition within the next 14 days to the respondents and interested parties in the case. They in turn will have 14 days to respond to it, Lenaola ordered. He also said that if the petitioners wished to comment on the responses, they had seven days after that to do so.
Weda told the court the amended petition will include the names of other “substantive Kenyans” in order for the court to deal with the issue of integrity in leadership at one go. Weda declined to state whom he intended to name as additional respondents in the case before he had filed the amended petition.
The petitioners are individual voters, some civil society organizations, such as the Kenya Youth Parliament and the Kenya Youth League, as well as some of the people who were displaced from their homes during the bloody upheaval that shook Kenya following the country’s last election in December 2007.
The petitioners are asking the court to determine whether Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and former Cabinet Minister William Samoei Ruto pass the integrity standard set in the constitution. The petitioners would like the court to rule on this because Kenyatta and Ruto have declared their intention to run for president while they are set to face trial at the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity.
Kenyatta faces five counts of crimes against humanity allegedly committed after the December 2007 presidential poll. His trial is due to begin on April 11, 2013. Ruto faces three counts of crimes against humanity and his trial begins on April 10, 2013. The next Kenyan elections are due to be held on March 4, 2013, one month before the ICC trials begin.
Some of the interested parties in the case are the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution, which is an independent institution responsible for overseeing the process to implement Kenya’s nearly two-year old supreme law. Others include the Law Society of Kenya and Kenyatta’s newly formed political vehicle, The National Alliance party.
The constitution lays out in broad terms the integrity standards any one holding, seeking to hold or being appointed to public office must satisfy. These are in chapter six of the constitution. The National Assembly is also required to pass a law that expands the broad principles on integrity in the constitution and that also describes the penalties to be applied in case of violation. The National Assembly is yet to do this because a draft bill is at the public comments stage.
This lack of legislation is one of the grounds for preliminary objections to the case some lawyers indicated on Tuesday that they would be making. They will be arguing the court has no jurisdiction because no subsidiary law has been enacted. They will argue the court is in effect being asked to do the work of the legislature.
by Tom Maliti
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Cases Against Kenya 4 to Kick off in April 2013
A statement from The Hague based Court declared that the cases against Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua arap Sang should start on April 10, 2013 while that of Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Former Head of Civil Service Francis Muthaura will commence on April 11.
The four are accused of perpetrating the post-election unrest of 2008 that killed at least 1,300 people.
Kenyatta and Ruto are potential candidates in presidential elections set for March 4 next year and prosecutors have voiced concern over potential unrest should one of the accused be seen as being favoured over the other.
Both Ruto and Kenyatta have proclaimed their innocence.
The violence shattered Kenya’s image as a beacon of stability in east Africa when the then opposition leader Raila Odinga accused President Mwai Kibaki of rigging his way to re-election following the 2007 polls.
The statement also establishes a time table for the various procedural steps required to be undertaken before the opening of the trials to guarantee the fairness of the procedures.
According to the International Criminal Court trial Chamber V, the trial will commence on April 10, 2013, a month after the elections if they are held in March.
The announcement came as the African Union renewed its efforts to seek the referral of the crimes against humanity cases facing the four Kenyans.
In order to ensure the expeditious conduct of the trial pursuant to Article 64(2) of the Rome Statute and to facilitate the preparation of the parties and participants, the, Chamber issued the following schedule leading up to trial:
“The prosecution and the defence teams for both accused are directed to liaise with a view to reaching agreement about non-contentious issues. The first joint submission on agreed facts is to be filed by 3 September 2012,” read a ruling by the Chamber.
In order to assist the Chamber and the Witnesses Unit, the prosecution is to file a provisional list of witnesses to be relied on at trial. This list should include a bullet-pointed summary of the main facts on which each witness is expected to testify.
“Additionally, the prosecution should indicate the estimated length of time required for each witness and the total time for the presentation of the prosecution case, in hours. The prosecution is also to provide a provisional list of the material it intends to rely on at trial. The prosecution is to file the provisional witness and evidence lists by 16 October 2012,” read the schedule.
The prosecution and the defence for both accused are to liaise in order to discuss the joint instruction of experts, and the prosecution is to revert to the Chamber on the outcome of these discussions by 31 October 2012.
The prosecution is to provide its witness list, which should include a bullet-pointed summary of the main facts on which each witness is expected to testify, an indication of the estimated length of time required for each witness and the total time for the presentation of the prosecution case, in hours. Both the witness list and the list of evidence are to be submitted by 9 January 2013.
Prosecution disclosure to the defence of all incriminatory material in the form of witness statements and any other material to be relied on at trial, as well as disclosure of all material for inspection to the defence should be completed by 9 January 2013.
The prosecution shall provide a document explaining its case with reference to the evidence it intends to rely on at trial. This document will be referred to as the “pre-trial brief”.
The pre-trial brief is to be filed by 9 January 2013.
The statement reads: “The pre-trial brief should contain, for each count, a summary of the relevant evidence of each witness to be relied on at trial and all other evidence upon which the prosecution intends to rely, and shall clearly explain how the evidence relates to the charges.”
Prosecution disclosure to the defence of identities of International Criminal Court Protection Programme (ICCPP) witnesses should be completed by 11 February 2013 while disclosure of the reports of any expert witness who will be called during the prosecution case should be completed by 14 February 2013.
The second joint submission on agreed facts (including agreements as to evidence) is to be filed by 8 March 2013. This will however be preceded by the Second joint filing session where the prosecution and the defence teams for both accused are to liaise with a view to reaching agreement on facts as well as the authenticity of evidence.
Any party which is unable to agree to a proposed stipulation shall reflect the reasons and indicate the factual basis for this disagreement in an annex to the joint filing.
Prosecution disclosure to the defence of identities of non-ICCPP prosecution witnesses with security concerns who have been the subject of an application for delayed disclosure should be completed by 12 March 2013.
Source: Capital FM
Friday, July 6, 2012
ICC turns ten as prosecutor faces hard task of proving Kenya cases
By Sang-Hyung Song
On July 1, 2002, the first three staff members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) entered the Court building in The Hague, The Netherlands. On that day, the ICC founding treaty, called the Rome Statute, entered into force. Ten years after that modest beginning, the ICC has turned into a major international institution, securing justice for victims when it cannot be delivered at the national level. And 121 States have ratified the Rome Statute, and another 32 countries have signed it, indicating their intention to join the treaty.
The ICC is working in seven situation countries, and monitoring developments in seven others on several continents, turning the principles of the Rome Statute into reality.
In March this year, the ICC delivered its first judgement in a case concerning the use of child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Six cases are in the trial stage and nine others in pre-trial phase. These proceedings are testimony that impunity for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is no longer tolerated by the international community.
The victims are a vital part of the ICC’s work. Thousands of victims have been given a voice in the arena of international justice, where their rights are upheld and their suffering recognised. Support for international justice is growing around the world every year. Everywhere, people want peace, justice, rule of law and respect for human dignity. The ICC represents the voluntary gathering of nations in a community of values and aspirations for a more secure future for children, women and men around the world.
However, rather than rejoice over our accomplishments, it is far more important that we recognise the shortcomings and the obstacles that remain, and redouble our commitment to further strengthen the Rome Statute system in order to move closer to our ultimate goals. If we act wisely, pulling our strength together, we can prevent terrible suffering before it takes place.
The ICC is the centrepiece of the evolving system of international criminal justice, but the most important aspect of the fight against impunity takes place in each country, society and community around the globe.
Domestic justice systems must be strong enough to be able to act as the primary deterrent worldwide, while the ICC is a “court of last resort”, a safety net that ensures accountability when the national jurisdictions are unable for whatever reason to carry out this task. In a spirit of solidarity, the States Parties to the Rome Statute have expressed their commitment to work together to ensure that this principle of complementarity is effective.
Another crucial aspect of the ICC is the cooperation of states and the enforcement of the Court’s orders.
The ICC has no police force of its own. The Court relies entirely on states to execute our arrest warrants, to produce evidence, to facilitate the appearance of witnesses and so on.
Unfortunately, several suspects subject to ICC arrest warrants have successfully evaded arrest for many years. Political will and international cooperation is crucial in order to bring these persons to justice.
While we work together to prevent impunity and to ensure accountability, we must remember that international criminal justice is one piece in a bigger framework for protecting human rights, suppressing conflict and working for peace and stabilisation. It is vital that other essential elements of conflict prevention and post-conflict recovery are present where needed, alongside international justice mechanisms. Only when accompanied by education, democracy and development, can justice truly help prevent the crimes of the future.
Let us cherish our spirit of solidarity as we look forward to the ICC’s next decade, celebrating our achievements and acknowledging the challenges that remain ahead. We must be united in our resolve to defeat impunity and the lawlessness, brutality and disdain for human dignity that it represents.
The writer is the President of the International Criminal Court
On July 1, 2002, the first three staff members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) entered the Court building in The Hague, The Netherlands. On that day, the ICC founding treaty, called the Rome Statute, entered into force. Ten years after that modest beginning, the ICC has turned into a major international institution, securing justice for victims when it cannot be delivered at the national level. And 121 States have ratified the Rome Statute, and another 32 countries have signed it, indicating their intention to join the treaty.
The ICC is working in seven situation countries, and monitoring developments in seven others on several continents, turning the principles of the Rome Statute into reality.
In March this year, the ICC delivered its first judgement in a case concerning the use of child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Six cases are in the trial stage and nine others in pre-trial phase. These proceedings are testimony that impunity for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is no longer tolerated by the international community.
The victims are a vital part of the ICC’s work. Thousands of victims have been given a voice in the arena of international justice, where their rights are upheld and their suffering recognised. Support for international justice is growing around the world every year. Everywhere, people want peace, justice, rule of law and respect for human dignity. The ICC represents the voluntary gathering of nations in a community of values and aspirations for a more secure future for children, women and men around the world.
However, rather than rejoice over our accomplishments, it is far more important that we recognise the shortcomings and the obstacles that remain, and redouble our commitment to further strengthen the Rome Statute system in order to move closer to our ultimate goals. If we act wisely, pulling our strength together, we can prevent terrible suffering before it takes place.
The ICC is the centrepiece of the evolving system of international criminal justice, but the most important aspect of the fight against impunity takes place in each country, society and community around the globe.
Domestic justice systems must be strong enough to be able to act as the primary deterrent worldwide, while the ICC is a “court of last resort”, a safety net that ensures accountability when the national jurisdictions are unable for whatever reason to carry out this task. In a spirit of solidarity, the States Parties to the Rome Statute have expressed their commitment to work together to ensure that this principle of complementarity is effective.
Another crucial aspect of the ICC is the cooperation of states and the enforcement of the Court’s orders.
The ICC has no police force of its own. The Court relies entirely on states to execute our arrest warrants, to produce evidence, to facilitate the appearance of witnesses and so on.
Unfortunately, several suspects subject to ICC arrest warrants have successfully evaded arrest for many years. Political will and international cooperation is crucial in order to bring these persons to justice.
While we work together to prevent impunity and to ensure accountability, we must remember that international criminal justice is one piece in a bigger framework for protecting human rights, suppressing conflict and working for peace and stabilisation. It is vital that other essential elements of conflict prevention and post-conflict recovery are present where needed, alongside international justice mechanisms. Only when accompanied by education, democracy and development, can justice truly help prevent the crimes of the future.
Let us cherish our spirit of solidarity as we look forward to the ICC’s next decade, celebrating our achievements and acknowledging the challenges that remain ahead. We must be united in our resolve to defeat impunity and the lawlessness, brutality and disdain for human dignity that it represents.
The writer is the President of the International Criminal Court
Uhuru team, ICC agree on release of evidence
By Wahome Thuku
Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta has reached an agreement with the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecution on how evidence against him will be released in court during trial.
The two parties agreed on release of pre-trial briefs, which will include reference to the witnesses to call. The prosecution will also explain to Uhuru’s defence how the evidence relates to charges against him.
The office of the prosecutor, however, said it had not made a similar agreement with Uhuru’s co-accused Francis Muthaura.
The other two suspects in the second case are Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua Sang.
The parties had been asked by the chamber to consult and agree on several issues regarding the summary of the prosecution evidence.
agreement
When they appeared before the Trial Chamber on Status Conference on June 12 they had been asked to report on the agreement in ten days.
The prosecutors said they had not discussed whether Uhuru’s defence would also be required to file a Pre-Trial Brief if they decide to call their witnesses. They had agreed that the issue should be addressed at the closure of the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution had also prepared an analysis chart of the material they would produce if so ordered by the Trial Chamber, which include facts of their case, sources and title of sources. The court will soon be announcing when the trial will commence, which would most likely to be after March next year.
Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta has reached an agreement with the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecution on how evidence against him will be released in court during trial.
The two parties agreed on release of pre-trial briefs, which will include reference to the witnesses to call. The prosecution will also explain to Uhuru’s defence how the evidence relates to charges against him.
The office of the prosecutor, however, said it had not made a similar agreement with Uhuru’s co-accused Francis Muthaura.
The other two suspects in the second case are Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua Sang.
The parties had been asked by the chamber to consult and agree on several issues regarding the summary of the prosecution evidence.
agreement
When they appeared before the Trial Chamber on Status Conference on June 12 they had been asked to report on the agreement in ten days.
The prosecutors said they had not discussed whether Uhuru’s defence would also be required to file a Pre-Trial Brief if they decide to call their witnesses. They had agreed that the issue should be addressed at the closure of the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution had also prepared an analysis chart of the material they would produce if so ordered by the Trial Chamber, which include facts of their case, sources and title of sources. The court will soon be announcing when the trial will commence, which would most likely to be after March next year.
Lawyer pushes for more charges against Ruto, Sang at ICC
By FELIX OLICK
Lawyers of post-election violence victims at International Criminal Court (ICC) want trial judges to include more express and independent charges against two Kenyan suspects in the event of a conviction.
Ms Sureta Chana wants looting, destruction of property, and infliction of injuries also included as express charges in the event of a conviction against Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua arap Sang.
In her submission to the trial chamber led by Presiding Judge Kuniko Ozaki, Chana said the crimes should also be specifically referred to in the description of accounts.
“There is every reason why acts of destruction and burning of property, infliction of injuries and looting should also be specifically referred to in the description of counts as well as included as express independent charges in the event of a conviction,” reads the submission in part.
Huge impact
Currently, both Ruto and Sang face three counts of charges that include murder, deportation and persecution at The Hague-based court.
However, Chana said that crimes of destruction, burning of property, infliction of injuries and looting are very serious and had a huge impact on the victims and their communities. She, therefore, urges the judges to acknowledge them as crimes that have been perpetrated directly against the victims.
She argues that it would not be in the interests of justice if the two were to be acquitted on technical reasons that some other elements specific to the umbrella charge were not proved on the evidence.
“For instance, on the charges as presently formulated, the accused could not be convicted on counts three or four in respect to these acts,” she argues.
According to Chana, in an instance where victims did not leave their home areas despite injuries, destruction of property and looting, the perpetrator would not have committed deportation or forcible transfer.
“Mr Ruto has only been charged under the mode of liability in Article 25 (1) (a) of the Statute (committing the crime), and therefore any attempted deportation or forcible transfer would not be within the charges as presently formulated against him,” she argues.
She adds that for justice to be seen to have been done, any charges and convictions should reflect evidence of what actually happened.
Chana argues that victims saw systematic destruction and burning of property during 2007 post-poll chaos. However, she adds, they have not seen the crimes charged.
Even if international criminal lawyers can be expected to understand that these acts have been incorporated under the umbrella charges of forcible transfer, or attempted forcible transfer, the community at large will not understand this,” she argues
Lawyers of post-election violence victims at International Criminal Court (ICC) want trial judges to include more express and independent charges against two Kenyan suspects in the event of a conviction.
Ms Sureta Chana wants looting, destruction of property, and infliction of injuries also included as express charges in the event of a conviction against Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua arap Sang.
In her submission to the trial chamber led by Presiding Judge Kuniko Ozaki, Chana said the crimes should also be specifically referred to in the description of accounts.
“There is every reason why acts of destruction and burning of property, infliction of injuries and looting should also be specifically referred to in the description of counts as well as included as express independent charges in the event of a conviction,” reads the submission in part.
Huge impact
Currently, both Ruto and Sang face three counts of charges that include murder, deportation and persecution at The Hague-based court.
However, Chana said that crimes of destruction, burning of property, infliction of injuries and looting are very serious and had a huge impact on the victims and their communities. She, therefore, urges the judges to acknowledge them as crimes that have been perpetrated directly against the victims.
She argues that it would not be in the interests of justice if the two were to be acquitted on technical reasons that some other elements specific to the umbrella charge were not proved on the evidence.
“For instance, on the charges as presently formulated, the accused could not be convicted on counts three or four in respect to these acts,” she argues.
According to Chana, in an instance where victims did not leave their home areas despite injuries, destruction of property and looting, the perpetrator would not have committed deportation or forcible transfer.
“Mr Ruto has only been charged under the mode of liability in Article 25 (1) (a) of the Statute (committing the crime), and therefore any attempted deportation or forcible transfer would not be within the charges as presently formulated against him,” she argues.
She adds that for justice to be seen to have been done, any charges and convictions should reflect evidence of what actually happened.
Chana argues that victims saw systematic destruction and burning of property during 2007 post-poll chaos. However, she adds, they have not seen the crimes charged.
Even if international criminal lawyers can be expected to understand that these acts have been incorporated under the umbrella charges of forcible transfer, or attempted forcible transfer, the community at large will not understand this,” she argues
African presidents in final bid to stop ICC
Africa’s final assault on International Criminal Court is
scheduled next week at African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and
on it rests hopes for referral of cases against four Kenyans.
Heads of State are expected to approve amendments to
expand the jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice designed to facilitate
the takeover of cases facing top African leaders at The Hague-based court.
The summit intends to endorse recommendations by Africa’s Ministers of Justices and Attorney Generals to extend the African court’s mandate to include prosecutions for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
The summit intends to endorse recommendations by Africa’s Ministers of Justices and Attorney Generals to extend the African court’s mandate to include prosecutions for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Besides stamping a seal of approval to the amendments,
the leaders attending the 19th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African
Union will also endorse “the African
It includes a resolution that the UN Security Council
acts on requests by the AU for deferral of proceedings against Sudanese
President Omar al-Bashir and cases against four Kenyans set to go to full trial
at The Hague.
The four Kenyans facing crimes against humanity charges
include two presidential aspirants – Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and
Eldoret North MP William Ruto – former Head of Civil Service and Secretary to
the Cabinet Francis Muthaura, and Kass FM head of operations Joshua arap Sang.
AFRICAN COURT
The AU meeting, which runs from July 9-16, was moved to Ethiopia after Malawi warned Bashir he was not welcome to the talks in Lilongwe.
The AU meeting, which runs from July 9-16, was moved to Ethiopia after Malawi warned Bashir he was not welcome to the talks in Lilongwe.
Malawian President Joyce Banda warned her Government
would promptly arrest Bashir, the first sitting president indicted by the ICC
for war crimes. Sudan petitioned AU to move the venue to Addis Ababa saying
Bashir’s attendance was critical.
The refusal of AU’s request for the suspension of cases
against the Sudanese leader and the Kenyans prompted Africa’s hard line
position on ICC, which has been accused of targeting African leaders.
Last week, Kenya’s Ambassador to AU Monica Juma said the newly empowered African court to try those accused of committing international crimes would be based in Arusha, Tanzania.
Last week, Kenya’s Ambassador to AU Monica Juma said the newly empowered African court to try those accused of committing international crimes would be based in Arusha, Tanzania.
Arusha hosted the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR), which is winding up its activities. It is also the seat of the
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
“The process of establishing the court has commenced, but
it is a matter of negotiation. The location, however, has been identified and
it would be in Arusha,” said Dr Juma, who is also the permanent representative
to Intergovernmental Authority on Development.
Kenyatta and Muthaura have petitioned the ICC to move
their trials from The Hague to Kenya or Arusha. In their submissions during the
status conference last month at The Hague, the two argued the Rome Statute
provides that the ICC may sit elsewhere whenever it considers it desirable to
do so.
Muthaura submitted that the trial could affect his
health, as it would not only significantly disrupt his life but would also be
stressful.
“It is principally for this reason – a desire to reduce
disruption and the strain of a criminal trial – that Ambassador Muthaura would
continue to prefer that this trial before ICC takes place in Kenya or in
Arusha,” his lead counsel Karim Khan submitted.
On behalf of Uhuru, Queen’s Counsel Steven Kay submitted:
“The defence requests the trial to be held in Kenya for reasons of judicial
economy and to ensure the judicial process takes place within the territory
affected.”
Muthaura requested that the governments of Kenya and
Tanzania be invited to address it on the feasibility and willingness of hosting
the ICC. Judges of ICC’s Trial Chamber V are yet to rule on the requests.
The AU meeting comes after President Kibaki told
Parliament in April that the Government is still exploring a local mechanism to
try the post-election violence suspects.
It also follows an earlier resolution by the East African
Legislative Assembly (Eala), sitting in Nairobi, to have the Kenya cases
transferred to the East African Court of Justice.
A draft agenda for the AU assembly includes
“consideration of legal instruments as recommended by the Executive Council and
Ministers of Justice and Attorney Generals”.
Expanded jurisdiction
Also listed is the consideration of the draft African Union model national law on universal jurisdiction over International Crimes and draft Protocol on the African Court of Justice and Human Rights.
Also listed is the consideration of the draft African Union model national law on universal jurisdiction over International Crimes and draft Protocol on the African Court of Justice and Human Rights.
The AU seeks to expand jurisdiction of African Court of Justice
and Human and Peoples’ Rights so that it can deal with international crimes,
which are currently exclusively left to The Hague court.
The African Court of
Justice handles civil matters particularly with regards to the protection of
human rights and consolidation of good governance.Tuesday, June 26, 2012
GG makes peace with Maina Njenga
Photo/FILE Former Cabinet Minister GG Kariuki at a past rally in Nakuru on May 7, 2011.
By NATION REPORTER
Posted Monday, June 25 2012 at 23:30
Posted Monday, June 25 2012 at 23:30
A former Internal Security minister has pleaded with Mungiki founders to continue working with him.
Mr GG Kariuki, the Mkenya Solidarity Movement party leader, denied that he had disowned Mungiki founder Maina Njenga and his followers.
“I have been misquoted. Please ignore the media reports,” said Mr Kariuki on Monday and angrily accused the media of being used by State agents to spread propaganda.
“These people (journalists) should go for refresher courses and learn how not to misquote people,” he told the former Mungiki leaders at a Nairobi Hotel. He had called a crisis meeting to plead with them that he had been misrepresented by media reports.
During a delegates’ meeting at his Rumuruti home on Friday, Mr Kariuki had said Mr Njenga was a not a member or official of the party despite his conspicuous presence at the Kamukunji launch on June 9.
Mr Njenga was not the party’s presidential candidate, he was reported to have said.
Mr Kariuki was apparently pressurised by the delegates to know the influence of Mr Njenga in the party. The former Mungiki leader hit back, saying he had made Mr Kariuki the acting party leader.
Mr GG Kariuki, the Mkenya Solidarity Movement party leader, denied that he had disowned Mungiki founder Maina Njenga and his followers.
“I have been misquoted. Please ignore the media reports,” said Mr Kariuki on Monday and angrily accused the media of being used by State agents to spread propaganda.
“These people (journalists) should go for refresher courses and learn how not to misquote people,” he told the former Mungiki leaders at a Nairobi Hotel. He had called a crisis meeting to plead with them that he had been misrepresented by media reports.
During a delegates’ meeting at his Rumuruti home on Friday, Mr Kariuki had said Mr Njenga was a not a member or official of the party despite his conspicuous presence at the Kamukunji launch on June 9.
Mr Njenga was not the party’s presidential candidate, he was reported to have said.
Mr Kariuki was apparently pressurised by the delegates to know the influence of Mr Njenga in the party. The former Mungiki leader hit back, saying he had made Mr Kariuki the acting party leader.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Kenya PM says rivals should go on trial after polls
NAIROBI, Jun 12 – Kenya’s Prime Minister Raila Odinga said Tuesday that he supported a decision by the International Criminal Court to put two of his rivals on trial after the elections.
The ICC plans to start hearings against four Kenyans over 2007 post-election violence next March, the same month the east African country holds presidential polls.
Among the four are two of Odinga’s chief rivals in that election – Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former minister William Ruto.
An ICC hearing after March 4 – the presumed date of the presidential election in the east African country – would mean both war crimes suspects, Kenyatta and Ruto, would be able to run against Odinga.
Odinga, addressing foreign correspondents on Tuesday, said this would be good for democracy.
“All those competing for the top seat need to be on the ballot,” he said. “This will give Kenyans a right to choose their preferred leaders.”
His opponents have in the past suggested Odinga was using the ICC proceedings to eliminate the challenge posed by Kenyatta and Ruto.
But the premier pledged Tuesday that “there will be no reason for anyone to say that Raila (Odinga) prevented them from vying for an elective seat.”
Odinga was runner-up in the 2007 presidential polls, losing out to current President Mwai Kibaki. The election was highly contested with both camps trading allegations of rigging and fraud.
A political impasse led to violence that left some 1,200 people dead and 600,000 displaced – Kenya’s worst bloodshed since independence in 1963.
The violence ended after the formation of a government that accommodated politicians from both camps.
Odinga has now presented himself as a presidential candidate, while Kibaki is constitutionally barred from running for another term.
The ICC must announce the trial dates for the four Kenyans before it goes on recess after July 13.
Defence and prosecution lawyers for Kenyatta and Ruto this week agreed to start off their hearings in March. Prosecutors demanded a “written undertaking” that they would not skip the trial.
The other two men charged are Francis Muthaura and Joshua arap Sang.
Prosecutor Adesola Adeboyejo said Tuesday that the two separate trials for the four be held at roughly the same time.
One trial if for Kenyatta and Muthaura, who supported the then ruling Party of National Unity; the other for Ruto and Sang, who backed the opposition Orange Democratic Movement.
“We propose that the dates for trial be synchronised as closely as possible for both trials… to avoid tensions that would arise if one of the cases is moving faster than the other,” Adeboyejo said.
Source: Capital FM
A Major Demonstration Planned in Nairobi against Kenyan Politicians
Boniface Mwangi, photo-journalist and activist
The MPs also selfishly cushioned themselves against an amendment in the Election Act that would have required a university degree as one of the qualifications to run for parliament. This means MPs without a degree will be eligible to run for parliament in the upcoming elections, despite the fact that other arms of government such as the Executive, Judiciary and Public Service require the office holders to have a degree.
The MPs further amended the clause in Elections Act prohibiting the presidential aspirants and their running mates from running for other seats. In the new amendment, presidential aspirants and their running mates will also be eligible to run for other elective seats. They will also qualify for nomination to parliament.
Boniface Mwangi, a photo-journalist and one of the main organizers of the demonstration, has asked all Kenyans to turn out for the demonstration, which he described as “a peaceful protest by Kenyans from all ages.” Mwangi Mwangi, founder of Picha Mtaani, further said "“If we don't speak now; our kids will be facing the same problems years to come! Let's join hands & speak up...I'm tired of waiting for others to bring change. For me & my family we shall turn actions into words & do a peaceful protest.”
The demonstration will take part at Uhuru Park's Freedom Corner starting at 10 a.m.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Getting to Know Kenya’s Most Dangerous Gangsters
Taliban member Caleb Yare said the Luos were unprepared for armed Mungiki raids in Mathare after the 2007 elections. They fought back with pangas and rocks, sometimes dropping cinder blocks from roofs to thwart assailants.
George Kamande rolled back his sleeves to show the scars.
“You take the oath. I cut myself, you cut yourself, we mix it. I suck your blood, you suck my blood, and then we are linked, and you can never surrender,” he told me.
In Kenya, this is the ritual gangsters go through before they head out on a mission, and it happens all too frequently among the residents of Nairobi’s Mwiki neighborhood in the Kasarani district. It’s one of those obscenely poor, sketchy places where people who know better do not wander around solo. I was there recently, on a screamingly hot afternoon, with an appointment to meet members of the Mungiki, Kenya’s most violent and notorious mafia/cult/political movement, which also might be the largest gang in the world.
It was atop a stool in a reeking pigsty where I first met Kamande, a shoe shiner by day who moonlights doing all sorts of thuggish business for the Mungiki. He was not shy about the particulars of his second job. “We’re just mercenaries,” he said when I asked about his assigned duties, which is exactly the kind of half-true answer I expected.
Founded in the 1980s, the Mungiki (which means “multitude” or “masses”) began as a rural religious movement within the Kikuyu tribe in Kenya’s Rift Valley, with an emphasis on anticolonialism and a return to traditional Kikuyu values. But as it spread to Nairobi, it attracted landless, poverty-stricken young men looking for a little extra cash and respect.
Gangsters in Nairobi generally make their living from exploiting illegal electricity hookups, extorting shop owners and taxi-bus drivers, robbery, and murdering people who cross them. But members of the Mungiki take things to another level. They’re shifty, often hypocritical, and occasionally psychotic, even by the standards of their fellow criminals. When there’s a riot that needs inciting, voters who require intimidation, or crimes against humanity to commit, they are the go-to guys, backing up their reputation with a track record of government manipulation, drinking blood, and beheading their enemies.
Kamande explained the Mungiki’s version of campaigning: For the low cost of 100,000 Kenyan shillings (about $1,000), officials can hire 30 to 50 men who will pay a visit to a neighborhood to exert a brutal form of political influence.
Leading up to the 2002 elections, Kamande was part of a group paid to attack opponents of Njehu Gatabaki, a former MP, in the Kangema district of Murang’a County. According to him, they invaded the homes of Gatabaki’s opponents, armed with clubs and machetes, and collected voter-ID cards.
When I asked whether anyone resisted, Kamande chuckled. “We beat them thoroughly. When you see your friend, your brother, your husband being beaten like a dog, you don’t say no.”
Gatabaki still lost, but the Mungiki continued to be a major player in Kenyan politics through voter intimidation and retaliatory attacks. Things got especially bad after the last general election in December 2007. Incumbent president Mwai Kibaki was declared the winner in a vote that split largely along ethnic and tribal lines, and he was sworn in during a super-secret nighttime ceremony. Meanwhile, opposition candidate Raila Odinga declared himself the victor, saying that the courts shouldn’t decide the election because Kibaki controlled them.
The resulting tension between political parties and tribes quickly boiled over, and soon there were reports of brutal murders and sectarian violence throughout Kenya—usually considered the developed, Westernized hub of East Africa. The Mungiki joined in, of course, and when the dust settled the following February, more than 1,000 people were dead. Four years later, the wounds aren’t even close to healing.
In Kasarani’s Ngomongo neighborhood there’s a bar called the Pentagon Pub that has a portrait of Odinga hanging on the wall. Although Kasarani is a stronghold of the Kikuyu tribe (which counts Kibaki among its ranks), this particular district is dominated by Odinga’s Luo tribe, who consider the Mungiki to be immoral savages.
I strolled through the doors behind a group of well-muscled young men. As we entered, everyone inside came to a dead stop, shook the hands of my chaperones, and then bailed immediately. I was hanging with the Ngomongo’s Taliban, and they owned this joint.
LEFT: The Pentagon Pub is a Taliban stronghold in the Ngomongo neighborhood of Kasarani. Note PM Raila Odinga’s photo on the wall. Folks here are really not fans of the current president, Mwai Kibaki.
RIGHT: At the end of this road lies the dividing line between Luo/Taliban and Kikuyu/Mungiki territory in Kasarani. This was the site of some of the most brutal postelection violence in the region.
The Nairobian Taliban may have appropriated their moniker and hardcore ethos from their Afghan namesake, but they’re more concerned with local politics than religious doctrine. An offshoot of a defunct group known as the Baghdad Boys, the Taliban are the Luo tribe’s answer to the Kikuyu’s Mungiki and have been roving the seedier parts of Kenya for close to a decade.
At the moment, the Taliban’s moneymaking activities aren’t too different from the Mungiki’s: extortion, illegally siphoning and selling electricity, and lots of beat-downs. They are also known for their public executions, during which the culprit is stoned until he’s unable to walk and then burned alive.
“Everyone here knows the rules. Everyone has seen someone burned, even children. This is how it is,” said Joash Oluande, the Taliban’s leader.
Oluande, a born-again Christian despite his employment, told me the Taliban are far superior to the Mungiki because Taliban violence is defensive in nature. “Once you become a Mungiki, you would kill even your own mother,” he said. “Taliban fight when the fight is there. We only defend. We take taxes, but there is no extortion. We will not force you to pay.”
“What happens if a vendor refuses the monthly 200-shilling [about $2] protection tax?”
Oluande looked at me as if I were a complete idiot. “No one says no, of course.”
With the 2012 elections looming, Oluande and the boys expect another round of sectarian violence. They’re hoping their man Odinga will win the presidency this time around, a goal they’re prepared to accomplish by any means necessary. “The campaign is dangerous, more than the elections, even,” Oluande said. “That’s when the politicians are paying for work. Many people will leave for the rural areas, but we will stay.”
People will flee for the country because staying in Nairobi could result in getting caught in a brutal crossfire between factions. Last time around, the Kibera and Mathare slums (among others) became unofficial war zones.
Kibera, which is dominated by Odinga supporters, saw hundreds of Kikuyus driven from their homes, many of whom became victims of widespread assault and murder. In Kikuyu-populated Mathare, it was the Luos who were displaced and killed.
In Kasarani, many residents claim that local police and the Mungiki joined forces following the elections. According to Taliban member Caleb Yare, the Mungiki donned police uniforms and were armed with army-issued rifles when they stormed into Mathare.
“The only way you could tell police from the Mungiki was that the police don’t carry pangas [East Africa’s version of a machete],” Yare said. “It was so bad you couldn’t leave your house for fear of being hacked.” He then demonstrated the Taliban’s patented counterattack, which involves smashing attackers with a rock, followed by a swift slash of a panga.
LEFT: Mungiki member John Njoroge shows off his gang’s signature weapon—the panga. A massive beheading campaign against matatu (minibus) drivers led the government to unleash death squads against the Mungiki in 2008.
RIGHT: Mungiki member Stephen Irungu got his head smashed in by the Taliban in 2008. His home was burned and his family fled, but he is still a gangster who will not hesitate to extort the shit out of anyone
Kenya Police spokesperson Eric Kiraithe assured me that most of what I’d heard from the gangsters was propaganda. “The allegations that the government has used them as mercenaries concern me,” he said. “Anyone who was around knows there are many shocking falsities and fabrications. Individual politicians and people in disputes have employed their services. But these guys have never been used to get votes... although, yes, issues of suppression have happened.”
Officially, the Mungiki are outlawed—no politician wants to be openly associated with a group of murderous gangsters. Still, it’s hard to believe that they’ve been entirely cut out of the political process, and Kiraithe did not deny allegations of Mungiki members disguising themselves in police uniforms as they terrorized the slums. “There are a lot of unconfirmed reports of things like this. To get a police uniform in Kenya is not very difficult,” he said, before suggesting perhaps Kenya’s corrupt political system is more to blame than the police.
The International Criminal Court will soon announce whether it will pursue its case against the Ocampo Six, a group of Kenyan politicians thought to have masterminded much of the postelection violence. In confirmation hearings, Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta was repeatedly accused of using the Mungiki to carry out brutal attacks in Nairobi, Naivasha, and Nakuru.
ICC prosecutors are struggling to make the connection between organized crime and politicians. Of course, it will be difficult to determine the complete truth, owing to the fact that very few who witness Mungiki violence and are willing to testify often perish before they make it to the stand.
The potential ICC showdown is just the latest in a series of efforts by the Kenyan government to finally clamp down on the Mungiki. After the 2007 elections, for instance, Operation Ondoa Kwekwe (“Remove the Weeds”) was initiated, but it resembled a war more than a sanctioned police action. A swarm of plainclothes officers infiltrated Mungiki territory, and a string of mass executions followed. A 2009 UN report accused Kwekwe’s death squads of killing 8,000 Kikuyu youths during the operation.
Kiraithe was unapologetic: “It’s not like you were executing people who were innocent. The Mungiki were committing many murders viciously. You couldn’t get a single person to testify. The operation lasted three months, and in my opinion it was highly successful.”
Regardless of its tactics, the crackdown certainly forced the Mungiki underground. Where members were once easily identified by their dreadlocks, many have shaved their heads in an attempt at anonymity. Low-level foot soldiers have taken up day jobs, returning to the grinding poverty that led them to join the Mungiki in the first place.
Some gangsters see the politicians’ hardline response as a betrayal. James Njuguna, another Mungiki member in Mwiki, told me that officials frequently promised them high-paying government jobs and political power in exchange for their violent persuasion of voters, and then turned on them after the elections. “In 2012 they will need us again,” he said. “This is the routine every election and then, afterward, they dump us. We are tired of this routine.” Yet they’re also wary of speaking out too forcefully. None of the men in Mwiki would let me photograph them without putting on sunglasses and a hat, and they refused to discuss who provided them with police uniforms in 2007.
Stephen Irungu, another Mungiki member, was nearly beaten to death by Taliban members while fighting against them in 2008. Half his forehead was caved in and his legs were completely mangled, and he told me that the 3,000 shillings (about $30) he was paid by the government did little to cover his medical expenses. He now works with the Taliban to prevent future violence, but he’s still Mungiki, still a gangster, and still broke. When I attempted to photograph his arsenal of guns, I was suddenly told I would have to pay an outrageous sum for the shots due to “security concerns.” Then a group of much younger, tougher-looking men materialized, demanding money for interviews I didn’t want. When I tried to leave, I was told that I would have to pay for that too. Fucking gangsters.
Irungu laid it out for me plain and simple: “We want peace, we want the fighting to stop... but more than that, we want money. This issue is about poverty more than anything else.”
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Muthaura's Lawyer Takes On US-Based Kenyan Don at the ICC
Prof Makau Mutua
During Tuesday’s status conference, one of Muthaura’s lawyers Karim Khan asked the chamber to order the prosecution to disclose Mutua’s role.
“We also ask the bench to order the prosecution to disclose the role of this individual, Makau Mutua with the office of the prosecution and to detail any and all contact they have had with this person,” Khan said and expressed fears the prosecution may have been dealing with intermediaries in discharging its functions.
“Your honours, I would like to be answered by the prosecution and answer whether or not he (Mutua) is or is not an intermediary and otherwise the nature of the relationship, and your honours I would also like to know whether or not the OTP has heard in relation to his articles because he is a weekly columnist or even more than that adverse notice any of the publications that he has put online and which has been published in the newspapers in Kenya because that will assist the defence to know more about this individual who we say should be approached with caution and for reasons which I don’t need to enter at the moment we have misgivings regarding his role,” Khan said.
One of the judges Christine van den Wyngaert said the chamber was duty bound to protect the right of the defence as well as the witnesses as stipulated in the Rome statute.
“This has nothing to do with what the newspapers say,” Wyngaert said and asked the lawyer to provide facts and details about the matter in writing.
The bench also asked the lawyer to address the matter to the prosecution in writing.
“I don’t think the status conference which is to resolve basically logistical issues for the trial, is a proper forum to deal with those kind of issues,” the judge said.
A member of the prosecution Adesola Adeboyejo said they will respond if the defence puts the submissions in writing. “We will respond, based on the timelines your honour will give to us,” she said.
Khan has pledged to make the submissions in writing, but expressed concerns that the prosecution has a tendency of failing to respond to issues raised even when it is put in writing.
Muthaura’s lead lawyer also raised concerns over what he termed “the use of intermediaries to contact defence witnesses.”
“It is in the press in Kenya that one individual David Matsanga is under investigations… I won’t touch on that, but a very worrying trend and a very troubling trend in this case is about one individual Makau Mutua. This individual we say appears a friend to the prosecution,” Khan said.
“And we say for good reason, if one looks at the Buffalo university website of March 2010, and I quote, in mid March; did Mutua travel to the Hague, the Netherlands to train investigators of the ICC who were seeking evidence and it goes on,” Khan explained.
Based on the information on the Buffalo university website, Khan said, Mutua had likely trained ICC investigators.
“So this individual has trained it seems members of the OTP, December 16, 2011 this individual was to take part in a town hall style forum with the prosecutor in New York, this is another press report,” he said.
“This individual in his newspaper articles dated March 9, 2011, and March 17, 2012 talks about this witness to the extent of even giving a purported pseudo name when he travelled, it said on a UN passport,” Muthaura’s lawyer said.
The defence team of the former head of the civil service told the bench it was extremely worried that individuals it described as intermediaries are most likely in possession of information the defence does not have, which is a threat to the ICC case and against the Rome Statute.
“He (Mutua) is privy to information that we don’t have,” Khan said, and added “We also received information that the prosecutor was using intermediaries to contact our defence witness, and we wrote to the prosecution to ask about it, it is unbelievable.”
Last month, the Criminal Investigations Department Director Ndegwa Muhoro wrote to Attorney General Githu Muigai asking him to institute an investigation from the OTP on Mutua’s involvement in witness interference and if he had any involvement with the OTP in The Hague.
The CID has indicated they are investigating if Mutua was involved in witness interference through articles he published in a local daily earlier this year.
Source: Capital FM
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Why Njenga’s transformation from Mungiki to pastor is not convincing
How do you solve a problem like Maina Njenga? When he was Mungiki leader, his boys raped the conscience of Central Kenya and parts of Nairobi.
Mungiki killed, maimed and extorted money from businesspeople and peasants alike. In a sense, Mungiki ran a parallel rogue state.
And when he renounced the sect, the killings stopped but the extortion continues. In between the atrocities, Maina was arrested and charged with possession of illicit arms, among other crimes.
He was bundled into prison, and there started his transformation from a suspect to Maina Njenga the nationalist.
As the post-election clashes intensified in 2008, politicians across the divide fell over themselves to curry favour with him.
Mr Raila Odinga, whose supposed ODM supporters were being killed in Naivasha by Mungiki, sent him Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power and even pledged to facilitate his release.
The head of the most murderous gang in recent history suddenly became a cog in the political wheel of reconciliation.
When he was freed, Maina cast his spell on more people. As the politicians courted him, he struck a national chord and capped it all with benediction.
Out went Maina Njenga the notorious Mungiki leader and in came James Maina Njenga the prophet. Many dismissed this as just another circus, but again we had terribly underestimated this man’s genius.
And so when he renounced the Mungiki, we believed him. Wasn’t he just “born-again” the other day? Soon, the focus shifted from Mungiki and its atrocities to its political benefactors.
The killers became political lambs, and their masters national chaperons for security.
As Saul (Maina) became Paul (Maina), he got another revelation — different from the one that supposedly struck him as a teenager to drop all things Western, including Christianity, and embrace the deadly dogma that fertilised his violent mind.
The spirit, he said, had told him to found a church to save the souls of youths led to crime by poverty and politicians. Maina the layman became Maina the pastor. The transition was not difficult, for he had long been the spiritual leader of Mungiki
And not surprisingly, his church has stood out for two things. First, the profile of the average faithful is a perfect fit for Mungiki. Second, it is the only church where police responding to a distress call have been beaten up.
From the pulpit, Maina has become a nationalist. He castigates politicians for misusing youths for violence and has vowed to lead a generational change in Central Kenya leadership.
The people who only five years ago condemned Mungiki are now courting him with unprecedented lust. Maina has become a trophy spouse for politicians proclaiming their love for youth.
But he has not apologised for atrocities committed in his name. You cannot talk reconciliation when you have murderers and politicians cutting deals among themselves.
Reconciliation is a factor of honest dialogue and integrity, not expediency. This is why I am afraid, very afraid, of this man and his wiles.
I shudder every time I see human rights activists like Hassan Omar and Paul Muite hug Maina with the exuberance only seen among freedom fighters.
I worry even more when Mr Odinga’s allies fall over themselves to entertain Maina. I fear that to our politicians, victory at the ballot box is more sacred than life.
The politicians love him for the votes (and the violent edge) he brings to the campaign trail, giving him a perfect insurance against his sordid past. The so-called human rights activists love him for the cash-cow his ilk present.
At times like this, I realise that it’s not only the law that is an ass. The politics, the economy, the church — the whole society sucks.
I don’t hate Maina, I just love life more. It’s sacrilegious to cheer him on as he dances on the graves of Mungiki victims.
Maina could be “born-again”, but he’s yet to demonstrate he’s not Mungiki. Finding the Lord was a personal journey, now he must not turn the pulpit into a convenient guise for spawning a more virulent enemy of the people.
Nation
Mungiki killed, maimed and extorted money from businesspeople and peasants alike. In a sense, Mungiki ran a parallel rogue state.
And when he renounced the sect, the killings stopped but the extortion continues. In between the atrocities, Maina was arrested and charged with possession of illicit arms, among other crimes.
He was bundled into prison, and there started his transformation from a suspect to Maina Njenga the nationalist.
As the post-election clashes intensified in 2008, politicians across the divide fell over themselves to curry favour with him.
Mr Raila Odinga, whose supposed ODM supporters were being killed in Naivasha by Mungiki, sent him Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power and even pledged to facilitate his release.
The head of the most murderous gang in recent history suddenly became a cog in the political wheel of reconciliation.
When he was freed, Maina cast his spell on more people. As the politicians courted him, he struck a national chord and capped it all with benediction.
Out went Maina Njenga the notorious Mungiki leader and in came James Maina Njenga the prophet. Many dismissed this as just another circus, but again we had terribly underestimated this man’s genius.
And so when he renounced the Mungiki, we believed him. Wasn’t he just “born-again” the other day? Soon, the focus shifted from Mungiki and its atrocities to its political benefactors.
The killers became political lambs, and their masters national chaperons for security.
As Saul (Maina) became Paul (Maina), he got another revelation — different from the one that supposedly struck him as a teenager to drop all things Western, including Christianity, and embrace the deadly dogma that fertilised his violent mind.
The spirit, he said, had told him to found a church to save the souls of youths led to crime by poverty and politicians. Maina the layman became Maina the pastor. The transition was not difficult, for he had long been the spiritual leader of Mungiki
And not surprisingly, his church has stood out for two things. First, the profile of the average faithful is a perfect fit for Mungiki. Second, it is the only church where police responding to a distress call have been beaten up.
From the pulpit, Maina has become a nationalist. He castigates politicians for misusing youths for violence and has vowed to lead a generational change in Central Kenya leadership.
The people who only five years ago condemned Mungiki are now courting him with unprecedented lust. Maina has become a trophy spouse for politicians proclaiming their love for youth.
But he has not apologised for atrocities committed in his name. You cannot talk reconciliation when you have murderers and politicians cutting deals among themselves.
Reconciliation is a factor of honest dialogue and integrity, not expediency. This is why I am afraid, very afraid, of this man and his wiles.
I shudder every time I see human rights activists like Hassan Omar and Paul Muite hug Maina with the exuberance only seen among freedom fighters.
I worry even more when Mr Odinga’s allies fall over themselves to entertain Maina. I fear that to our politicians, victory at the ballot box is more sacred than life.
The politicians love him for the votes (and the violent edge) he brings to the campaign trail, giving him a perfect insurance against his sordid past. The so-called human rights activists love him for the cash-cow his ilk present.
At times like this, I realise that it’s not only the law that is an ass. The politics, the economy, the church — the whole society sucks.
I don’t hate Maina, I just love life more. It’s sacrilegious to cheer him on as he dances on the graves of Mungiki victims.
Maina could be “born-again”, but he’s yet to demonstrate he’s not Mungiki. Finding the Lord was a personal journey, now he must not turn the pulpit into a convenient guise for spawning a more virulent enemy of the people.
Nation
Mungiki founder to launch new outfit
The battle for political supremacy in central Kenya is expected to intensify when a group opposed to Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta officially launches a political party.
The group, led by former Mungiki leader Maina Njenga will unveil its party next Saturday at Kamukunji grounds in Nairobi.
The launch comes as the police issued a security alert claiming that the outlawed Mungiki sect planned a series of violent activities.
The party’s membership is mainly drawn from former adherents of the outlawed Mungiki sect led by Mr Njenga, and several human rights activists.
It has settled on Mkenya Solidarity Movement, a party founded by former minister GG Kariuki, as its political vehicle.
It has also loped in more educated youth, some still at university.
A cross section of religious leaders and children of Mau Mau freedom fighters are also in what they are calling the Mkenya bus.
The group plans to mobilise around the themes of a youthful challenge to an elite they claim has dominated central politics.
Mkenya was first registered by Laikipia politician GG Kariuki, a powerful Cabinet minister during the Moi era.
Investigation by the Nation further reveals that the party has quietly been mobilising youths in closed door forums in different parts of the country.
The chairman of the party Watson Simiyu said Saturday’s launch will be “unique” and will be done in an open air field and “not hotel ballrooms where access is hindered.”
The party secretary is Joyce Mwambingu while the acting treasurer and organising-secretary is Mr Peter Njoroge, Mr Njenga’s older brother.
“It is a political leftist party which makes it a natural opponent to the region’s rightist TNA party,” said Mr Ngunjiri Wambugu of the Change Associates lobby.
Why Kenya Chief Justice Willy Mutunga Holds Key to Uhuru, Ruto Dreams
Much attention in the debate on whether the two, who face crimes against humanity charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC), can run in the next General Election has focused on events in the international arena.
But the pair’s biggest challenge will be to convince Kenya’s reforming judiciary that they – and many other politicians with integrity questions hanging over their heads – can contest seats in the light of the high bar set by the Constitution.
And it is a fight that will greatly test the mettle of the revamped judiciary and in particular that of Dr Mutunga who has already warned politicians of questionable integrity against offering themselves for leadership positions.
Last week the four suspects, Mr Kenyatta, Mr Ruto, former head of public service Francis Muthaura and radio journalist Joshua arap Sang, lost their appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the ICC to hear their cases.
The decision paves the way for the start of their trials because they have now exhausted all avenues of stopping their cases from proceeding.
The last remaining option is for the government to obtain a deferral at the United Nations Security Council or for the government to set up a local tribunal that would satisfy the ICC that it is capable of serving justice, forcing it to suspend trial at The Hague.
The suspects are set to attend a status conference slated for June 11 and 12 in which, among other things, the date for the start of their trials will be discussed and rules of engagement set.
Despite the millstones around their necks, Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto have continued laying elaborate campaign plans in their bid to succeed President Kibaki.
The ICC has stated that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether the two suspects can vie for the presidency, therefore leaving the matter to local courts.
Given a recent surge in public-interest litigation driven by newfound belief in the judiciary, it is inevitable interested groups will seek to have the two barred from running.
One such case is already under way. Mr Patrick Njuguna, Mr Agostinho Neto, Mr Charles Omanga, the Kenya Youth Parliament, and Kenya Youth League went to court earlier this year seeking to bar the two from running for president.
It is envisaged that many more similar cases will be filed by other interested groups and that the matter might end up in the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, where Dr Mutunga sits as its president.
“This is an obviously interesting issue for many interested groups,” said international law expert Dr Kithure Kindiki. “It will definitely be fought very passionately and very hard every inch of the way, up to the highest court.”
All eyes now will focus on Dr Mutunga who will be mandated to set up the benches that will hear the case at different stages as it winds up the legal system, perhaps up to the very top where he will sit with six other colleagues to make the historic ruling.
In March, Dr Mutunga issued a warning that must have rung alarm bells in the political arena by declaring that he will not hesitate to use Chapter Six of the Constitution on Leadership and Integrity to prevent politicians of questionable integrity from seeking elective office in the General Election.
“Being Kenyan is a full-time commitment. This country needs citizens who are Kenyans all the time; not those who are vernacular Kenyans most of the time. Just in case you forgot, Chapter Six is partly intended to eliminate this breed,” the CJ said.
The Supreme Court judges are Dr Mutunga, his deputy Lady Justice Nancy Baraza who is currently suspended, Justice Philip Tunoi, Justice Jackton Boma Ojwang’, Justice Mohamed Ibrahim, Justice Smokin Wanjala and Lady Justice Njoki Ndung’u.
Ms Baraza’s suspension, however, places the court in a tricky position should a matter be brought before it urgently due to the even number of judges. They ought to be an odd number to prevent the possibility of a tie when delivering a ruling.
In the US, the Supreme Court has played a crucial role in shaping national values through its judgment on weighty national issues such as the legality of abortion and ending of racial segregation in public schools.
There, the Supreme Court judges are closely scrutinised for their professional and personal opinions on key issues of the day and are consequently categorised conservatives or liberals.
“It might be too premature to start categorising our judges in this fashion since we have little information about their stand on several issues,” said Dr Kindiki.
Chapter Six of the Constitution requires, among other standards, that State officers must not have behaved in a manner, “demeaning the office the officer holds” and must bring “honour to the nation and dignity to the office” they hold.
Clause 35 of the proposed Leadership and Integrity Bill states: “A person seeking to be appointed or elected as a State officer may not be eligible for appointment or to stand for election to such office if that person has, as a State officer, contravened the Leadership and Integrity Code under this Act or, while serving as a public officer, has contravened a Code of Ethics and Integrity applicable to that officer”.
Although still undergoing drafting the Bill, as it is, cannot bar anyone who is seeking the presidency from running, but only those who have been convicted.
The Leadership and Integrity Bill also empowers the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to bar those seeking to be elected or appointed to office if they have contravened the law.
“These bodies (including the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission) will be required to make their decisions regarding the matter even before it goes to court and it is important to see how they will decide,” said lawyer George Kegoro.
Clause 43(1) of the Bill reads: “The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and the responsible commission may, on application by any person, issue a certificate to that person or any other interested person or institution, confirming that a particular State officer is compliant or not compliant with some or all of the provisions of Chapter Six of the Constitution or this Act.”
While saying that there is little in law that bars the two from running because of a clause in the Constitution which requires that a suspect should have exhausted all options of appeal to be barred from seeking office, Dr Kindiki said that the suspects run the risk of being impeached immediately after being sworn into office.
“The Constitution demands that the Senate start impeachment proceedings against the President and his deputy if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed a crime under national and international law. And if the Senate refuses to do so, then any one can petition the courts to do so,” he explained.
However, Mr Kegoro said that such a move might take a while until a ruling is made by the ICC and all appeals exhausted.
“I don’t think the decision will be made in such a short time, going by past examples of how long it has taken the court to deliver a judgment,” he said.
Source: Daily Nation
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Njenga promises Uhuru rough time in Central
Former Mungiki leader Maina Njenga is ready to stop Uhuru Kenyatta’s political bus in its tracks and has warned the Deputy Prime Minister to prepare for the mother of all battles.
Maina Njenga claimed that he supported the DPM’s presidential campaign in 2002, when Uhuru was Kanu’s and former President Moi’s preferred choice for State House
At the time, Maina Njenga was the leader of the Mungiki (loosely translated to mean ‘multitude’ or ‘a united people’).
“I know Uhuru very well. In 2002, I championed his campaigns as I went to every part of the country lobbying for his presidency. He can still come we sit down and bury the hatchet,” said Njenga.
But contacted on Sunday on phone, Uhuru’s spokesman Mr Munyori Buku refused to comment on the allegations by Njenga.
Njenga accused Uhuru of failing to address challenges facing the youth in Central Kenya, adding that this led him (Uhuru) to lose their support.
“I want to remind him that charity begins at home, so Uhuru should not jeopardise his youth support base in Central,” said Maina.
Njenga, who declared that he would be seeking a political seat in the coming general election, has vowed to engage Uhuru in a political supremacy battle in his Central Province backyard to the end.
planned meeting
He said he plans to attend a meeting in Limuru on Wednesday dubbed Limuru 2B, to be addressed by among others, retired Anglican Church Archbishop Dr David Gitari.
The meeting is to counter an earlier one organised by leaders of the Gikuyu Embu and Meru Association (Gema) that endorsed Uhuru to carry the presidential torch for Central Kenya in the coming general election.
A previous Limuru 2B meeting organised by Njenga and others aborted after police blocked youth and organisers from the venue citing security concerns, drawing heavy criticism from Uhuru’s political rivals and a section of civil society.
Njenga said on Sunday that he hoped the police would allow them to exercise their constitutional right to assemble and chart their political destiny in Limuru on Wednesday.
One of the organisers of the meeting, Mr Wambugu Ngunjiri revealed that in addition to Rev Gitari as the key speaker, others expected to address the meeting include senior counsel and former Kabete MP Paul Muite, Imenti Central MP Gitobu Imanyara and his Igembe South counterpart Mithika Linturi.
Urging his supporters to attend the meeting without fear of the police, Njenga said the forum would lay the ground for his political journey.
“After there we will go to Mombasa and even engage the MRC (Mombasa Republican Council) that everyone is rushing to talk to. We will tell them that the problems they have are similar to what we have in Central and so they should not speak of secession,” said Njenga.
Speaking at his Hope International Ministries church, Njenga said he would organise a meeting at Nairobi’s Kamukunji grounds to declare the party on which he will contest a political seat, and guide his supporters on whom to back in the next elections. He did not, however, name the seat he would vie for.We saw Uhuru launch his party the other day and we also want to tell him that we will soon be launching ours. I will come back here and also tell you where we will stand come the next polls,” said Maina.
But Maina said he does not support political violence and urged youth in Central Kenya to restrain themselves from acts of political violence.
The former Mungiki leader also appeared to extend an olive branch to Uhuru, his alleged friend-turned-foe, saying despite their differences he was willing to talk with him and chart a common political destiny.
He said that contrary to allegations made in some quarters, his supporters had not planned to disrupt Uhuru’s political functions.
disbanded group
“If I am the one who led Uhuru’s campaign in 2002, how can I now be on the forefront to disrupt his meetings?” he posed?
He also took issue with those claiming that the proscribed Mungiki group, which he led, was regrouping and planning violence in the country saying the illegal outfit had long been disbanded.
He claimed those behind the allegations fear losing their political clout to the youth.
Njenga particularly took issue with Laikipia East legislator Mwangi Kiunjuri, claiming the legislator is responsible for the claims about the resurgence of the outlawed group linked in various reports in the recent past to extortion and murder as well as the 2008 post-election violence.
“These reckless statements from Kiunjuri must be investigated so that he can tell Kenyans what he knows. But if he has his own problems with the youth in Laikipia he should not blame us, let him wage his battle without invoking our names,” he said.
He added: “I personally have my own issues to worry about including fabricated court cases, so let him and Uhuru fight their battles without involving us. I personally have no war with anyone.”
Maina Njenga claimed that he supported the DPM’s presidential campaign in 2002, when Uhuru was Kanu’s and former President Moi’s preferred choice for State House
At the time, Maina Njenga was the leader of the Mungiki (loosely translated to mean ‘multitude’ or ‘a united people’).
“I know Uhuru very well. In 2002, I championed his campaigns as I went to every part of the country lobbying for his presidency. He can still come we sit down and bury the hatchet,” said Njenga.
But contacted on Sunday on phone, Uhuru’s spokesman Mr Munyori Buku refused to comment on the allegations by Njenga.
Njenga accused Uhuru of failing to address challenges facing the youth in Central Kenya, adding that this led him (Uhuru) to lose their support.
“I want to remind him that charity begins at home, so Uhuru should not jeopardise his youth support base in Central,” said Maina.
Njenga, who declared that he would be seeking a political seat in the coming general election, has vowed to engage Uhuru in a political supremacy battle in his Central Province backyard to the end.
planned meeting
He said he plans to attend a meeting in Limuru on Wednesday dubbed Limuru 2B, to be addressed by among others, retired Anglican Church Archbishop Dr David Gitari.
The meeting is to counter an earlier one organised by leaders of the Gikuyu Embu and Meru Association (Gema) that endorsed Uhuru to carry the presidential torch for Central Kenya in the coming general election.
A previous Limuru 2B meeting organised by Njenga and others aborted after police blocked youth and organisers from the venue citing security concerns, drawing heavy criticism from Uhuru’s political rivals and a section of civil society.
Njenga said on Sunday that he hoped the police would allow them to exercise their constitutional right to assemble and chart their political destiny in Limuru on Wednesday.
One of the organisers of the meeting, Mr Wambugu Ngunjiri revealed that in addition to Rev Gitari as the key speaker, others expected to address the meeting include senior counsel and former Kabete MP Paul Muite, Imenti Central MP Gitobu Imanyara and his Igembe South counterpart Mithika Linturi.
Urging his supporters to attend the meeting without fear of the police, Njenga said the forum would lay the ground for his political journey.
“After there we will go to Mombasa and even engage the MRC (Mombasa Republican Council) that everyone is rushing to talk to. We will tell them that the problems they have are similar to what we have in Central and so they should not speak of secession,” said Njenga.
Speaking at his Hope International Ministries church, Njenga said he would organise a meeting at Nairobi’s Kamukunji grounds to declare the party on which he will contest a political seat, and guide his supporters on whom to back in the next elections. He did not, however, name the seat he would vie for.We saw Uhuru launch his party the other day and we also want to tell him that we will soon be launching ours. I will come back here and also tell you where we will stand come the next polls,” said Maina.
But Maina said he does not support political violence and urged youth in Central Kenya to restrain themselves from acts of political violence.
The former Mungiki leader also appeared to extend an olive branch to Uhuru, his alleged friend-turned-foe, saying despite their differences he was willing to talk with him and chart a common political destiny.
He said that contrary to allegations made in some quarters, his supporters had not planned to disrupt Uhuru’s political functions.
disbanded group
“If I am the one who led Uhuru’s campaign in 2002, how can I now be on the forefront to disrupt his meetings?” he posed?
He also took issue with those claiming that the proscribed Mungiki group, which he led, was regrouping and planning violence in the country saying the illegal outfit had long been disbanded.
He claimed those behind the allegations fear losing their political clout to the youth.
Njenga particularly took issue with Laikipia East legislator Mwangi Kiunjuri, claiming the legislator is responsible for the claims about the resurgence of the outlawed group linked in various reports in the recent past to extortion and murder as well as the 2008 post-election violence.
“These reckless statements from Kiunjuri must be investigated so that he can tell Kenyans what he knows. But if he has his own problems with the youth in Laikipia he should not blame us, let him wage his battle without invoking our names,” he said.
He added: “I personally have my own issues to worry about including fabricated court cases, so let him and Uhuru fight their battles without involving us. I personally have no war with anyone.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)