"BABIES FOR CASH" SCHEME IN MUKURWE-INI IS RIDICULOUS & SLANDEROUS- We deserve and Demand an apology!!!

The story in the DN2 of Wednesday, November 24, 2010 page 2 alleging a " cash for babies" scheme in Mukurwe-ini has caught my attention. The number of calls I have answered over the story have triggered this response. From the onset, let me inform you that I was born and bred in Igana Sub-Location, Giathugu Location of Mukurwe-ini District. I also happen to be the Chair of the Board of Governors, Mweru High School which is the largest school in Mukurwe-ini South. I therefore interact with the people of Mukurwe-ini on a regular basis.

The alleged “cash for babies” scheme by the Councillor of my rural ward, Habel Kijana Mutahi is not only ridiculous, nonsensical and misinformed but also offensive and slanderous to the people of Giathugu Location in particular and Mukurwe-ini District in general.

Councilllor Mutahi is seeking cheap publicity by highlighting an issue of population dynamics which he has little or no understanding at all. The population statistics in the area cannot be explained on the mere basis that the number of recorded births is lower than those of the recorded deaths. This would be simplistic and ignorant the demographic dynamism in a growing economy. The fact of the matter is that there is a very high level of rural-urban migration from Mukurwe-ini by the younger generation. It is in fact easier for me and other people of my generation to organise a riika (age-group) meeting in Nairobi, Nyeri, Nakuru or Mombasa Towns than in Mukurwe-ini. Secondly due to the shrinking sizes of land which is reflected by uneconomically viable individual holdings, many of our relatives have migrated from Mukurwe-ini and other parts of Nyeri County to Laikipia, Nakuru and Nyandarua Counties in the last 20 years. These people have bought land and settled in those counties and many have no intention of going back to Mukurwe-ini. Thirdly, it is quite obvious that the net result of this massive migration has affected the productive segment of the population in Mukurwe-ini. My children and those of my age-mates are not born or registered in Mukurwe-ini but in places where we now reside. On the converse wherever my generation is bereaved we return the remains of the deceased home (to Mukurwe-ini) for internment.
The presumed high rate of poverty in Mukurwe-ini only exists in the fertile imagination of Councillor Mutahi. The Constituency Poverty Index is published annually by the National Bureau of Statistics and the Ministry of Planning and is used by the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Board in the distribution of the CDF funds around the country. Mukurwe-ini appears in the group of the top 30 richest constituencies in the country. The high number of Health facilities in Mukurwe-ini and easy access to family planning services is good for the area and will help in population planning for sustainable development and in curbing the spread of the HIV pandemic.

These facts are well known to Councillor Mutahi and other leaders in the area. When this issue was first published by another newspaper, many people from Mukurwe-ini were not amused since it was slanted to project the residents of the district in bad light. It is very sad that the Nation and Councillor Mutahi have again sensationalised a serious matter like this without any statistical basis and with the sole intention of projecting the Mukurwe-ini District and its residents in negative light. It is demeaning and derogatory to project all the men of Mukurwe-ini district as drunkards and irresponsible. We deserve and demand an apology from the Nation and Councillor Mutahi.

MILITARY DISPLAY DID NOT BREACH THE SECURITY OF THE STATE!

Once again I am perturbed by the level of ignorance displayed by Mr. Odipo in his editorial in the The Standard of August 30, 2010. It is amazing that the Standard and other print media often allow their editorial space to be used for publication of commentaries on issues that writers have little knowledge or no understanding about. Mr. Odipo your analysis is wrong but you managed to display your ignorance on a matter which you have little or no understanding about. It is an insult to readers especially those who are trained and experienced on matters military.

For your information the leadership of the Armed forces of the Republic of Kenya is very much aware that our neighbours are constantly engaged in espionage otherwise known as the discrete active search for secret information regarding the state of preparedness of our security forces. This kind of espionage is carried out covertly and not overtly as you seem to suggest. The methods our neighbours use to collect such intelligence is not something I may want to discuss here for obvious reasons.

For intelligence information to be useful to any government, it has to be secret, current and relevant. If such information is readily available to the rest of the world, then it is of absolutely no value to any self-respecting government. What the military displayed on Friday, August 27, 2010 is just but things which any conventional armed force is expected to have. It is nothing new to the likes of President Lt. Gen. Yoweri Museveni, Lt. Gen Paul Kagame and General Omar al Bashir who are decorated soldiers. It was perhaps new only to novices like Mr. Odipo who do not know the standard arms and equipment any Mechanized Brigade or Division of a modern conventional force is required to have. Besides, a search on the Jane's Defence Weekly would have shown that Kenya is known to possess such equipment. It is no secret Mr. Odipo. The same dealers who sell military hardware to Kenya also sell to other countries including our neighbours.

Intelligence is also classified into various types. Strategic Intelligence is gathered by countries during peacetime to asses the political stability, economic and military capabilities of their neigbours as well as to asses their foreign strategic interest and bilateral relationships. On the other hand military field commanders require tactical or operational intelligence on the weaponry, the deployment and strength of the enemy force when there is war or declared open hostilities. It is also useful for military commanders to know the likely neutral or friendly forces in times of war. Such intelligence cannot surely be gathered in an open place like Uhuru Park!

Mr. Odipo, it is simplistic to suggest that our military commanders have endangered the country by displaying ordinary military equipment last Friday. Kenya has much more and what you saw is just a drop in the ocean and very commonplace. Finally, military intelligence is a function of combat which involves things like gathering, analyzing, and making use of information, including information about the territorial deployment and ground terrain over enemy forces and the ground. It includes espionage, physical observation, technical surveillance equipment, and reconnaissance using military scouts and reconnaissance units. Kenya is not at war with any of its neighbours and hence the display was basically intended to arouse feelings of nationalism among the ordinary citizens.

As a trained military officer who did the ropes and served time at the Kenya Air Force, I would like to urge The Standard and other media in our country to refrain from publishing security matters that may bring our military commanders into contempt or lower their estimation in the eyes of the public. Modern wars are fought not just in the theatre of operation but also in the hearts and minds of the people. Publishing articles which bring our armed forces and the aptitude of their leadership into question and disrepute could lower the morale of the soldiers, create fear and despondency among the civil population and jeopardize our overall national security and defence.

Twitter: @DeCaptainCFE

SECURITY DURING THE REFERENDUM VOTE: Jitters over Police Pay Rise.

“Human security is the primary purpose of organising a state in the beginning”

-Thomas Hobbes

Following concerns that communal and sectarian violence may erupt in some of parts of the country during and after the 4th August referendum vote, President Mwai Kibaki, his Security Minister George Saitoti and the Commissioner of Police Mathew Iteere moved fast to dispel fears of the possibility of any post-referendum violence akin to the January 2008 post-election violence. Despite these assurances five state commissions and a host of NGOs have warned of possible violence owing to what they have termed divisive political messages during the on-going referendum campaigns. But are these concerns and fears genuine?

Freedom from fear is the cornerstone of societal order and social cohesion. Communal and sectarian violence is socially disruptive. It causes communities to lose their traditional values and relationships. Massive human rights violations mostly occur during periods of political strife. Minority ethnic groups and migrant communities in the Rift Valley and Coast Provinces of Kenya are particularly vulnerable. They have recurrently suffered political violence and social displacement during national elections. This is occasioned by wayward politicians who exploit ethnic apprehensions as a basis for political mobilisation and competition. The majority of the areas identified as hot-spots for possible post-referendum violence are in the two provinces. Although communal violence is more likely during highly charged, competitive and divisive general elections, the ongoing referendum debate has turned out to be no different. Some politicians campaigning for or against the draft have used certain sections in the Chapters on Land and Devolution to create fear and despondency meant to demonise, isolate, and ostracise ethnic minorities and “immigrants” in their regions thus raising the prospect of post-referendum violence.

In the past, political violence in the Rift valley and Coast Provinces has been blamed on poverty, socio-economic inequity and lack of state capacity. The Kenya police force is empowered and has a cardinal responsibility to enforce the law, protect property and minimise civil strife. The police occupy a special position in our country since they are authorised to exercise the police power of the state. They enjoy the monopoly of the use of lawful force. It is actually a national honour to serve in the police or any section of the armed forces. Despite massive police deployment in the identified hot-spots, many people are still apprehensive that the officers will not adequately guarantee their security during and after the referendum vote. Is the scepticism justified?

For starters there is no such thing as absolute security. Security cannot be measured on a scale of quantity. Security is a perception by those who seek and receive protection by the state. Massive deployment of police officers in the identified hot-spots can create a sense of security but this is not sufficient. Policing is not just a function of deployment. It involves a range of activities such as arrest, search and seizure and use of or threat of use of force to preserve order. In a multi-ethnic state such as Kenya the use of deadly force must be applied cautiously since tension can spiral out of control if an officer from one ethnic group kills or harms a suspect from another community. To win the confidence of the consumers of their service, police officers must exercise their power impartially within a distinct and limited legal and territorial area of responsibility. Excessive use of force and overt acts of mutiny or insubordination by security officers creates a sense of fear and despondency among ordinary citizens. It also erodes the citizens’ confidence in the state’s capacity to protect them. This is the reason why the massive deployment of security officers to the identified hot-spots coming in the backdrop of open grumbling by junior police officers over their staggered pay increase is not reassuring enough. Some people have expressed fear that the officers may picket or go-slow during and after the referendum vote. Police officers should know that the majority of Kenyans support their supplication for better pay and working conditions. It is now their turn to reciprocate the enormous public support by selflessly providing security during and after the epic 4th August referendum. They have a sacred duty to ensure that Kenyans will not start fleeing their homes after voting. What the police will do or not do on that day will be of great historical significance. Their actions will either reinforce or shake the very core of our foundation as a modern state.

KADHIS COURTS- MEDIA MISLEADING THE PUBLIC ON THE FLAWED HIGH COURT RULING

I am very disappointed with the print and electronic media today. Reading and listening to their analysis and explanations of the ruling regarding the Kadhis Court by the High Court of Kenya yesterday, it is quite obvious that they are grossly misinforming the public on the ruling's impact on the ongoing review process. There is an obvious attempt by the media to distort facts and derail the ongoing review process.

First, this ruling is related to section 66 of the current constitution and has absolutely nothing to do with section 170 of the Draft Constitution. The ruling was against the defunct Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) which is moribund and it does not affect or in any way bind the Committee of Experts which is the body seized of the current review process.

Yesterday’s ruling was against the independence constitution which was not enacted by the people of Kenya. It was imposed on the country in 1962 after the Lancaster Conference. The High Court is a creation of that constitution and has no power to declare its provisions or another body created by the same law unconstitutional. By declaring the Kadhis’ Courts Act unconstitutional, the High Court in effect opened an avenue for other parties to challenge the constitutionality of the African Christian Marriage Act, Cap 151 and the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Act, Cap 157. The saving grace is that the days of the current constitution are numbered. The first chapter, section 1 of the draft constitution declares that the people are sovereign and the enactment of the draft on August 4 will be the expression of the collective and supreme will of the people of Kenya. In contemporary constitutional jurisprudence, no court or state organ has the power or authority to usurp the supreme will of the people.

The ruling by the three judges is belated and just as flawed as the constitution which the people are hoping to repeal on August 4, 2010. It is not anything for the "NO" side to celebrate about, it was made without the presentations of the Muslim people in court yet they are the ones who stood to loose in the event of an adverse ruling as happened yesterday. It flies in the face of the principles of natural justice and cannot stand in the court of public opinion. It is foolhardy for any court to make such a novel ruling without according a hearing to the party(ies) that stand to be so adversely affected by the decision. Such a ruling lacks the legitimacy and moral force to elicit voluntary compliance from the Muslims of Kenya. It is the kind of ruling that could alter the socio-legal relations between the Muslims and Christians; the main faiths in Kenya. It should be dismissed or ignored at best by all Kenyans who have the interest of this country at heart.

WHY I WILL VOTE YES!

Good arguments for and against the draft constitution are likely to be lost in the mire of sensational politics, pious dogmatism, outright lies and use of excessive legalese by politicians, the clergy and legal experts supporting either side. I will attempt to climb down from the tower of legalese and explain in simple (lawyers say pedestrian) terms why I will vote “YES” in the referendum. For starters, a constitution is the mother of all laws and the basis of any political system. It regulates the rights of the citizens and the powers of those elected to govern them and should therefore express the will, interests, aspirations and expectations of all; workers, peasants, intellectuals and people of all nationalities and ethnic groups.

The impending referendum will be the most serious attempt to establish an autochthonous (home-grown) constitution by and for the people of Kenya . Chapter One of the draft entrenches the people’s supremacy and for the first time decrees that the three arms of government; the executive, parliament and the judiciary are subordinate to the sovereign will of the citizens. Officers and organs of the state at national and county level will henceforth exercise delegated authority for and on behalf of the people. Chapter Nine of the draft will fundamentally change the way state power is exercised in Kenya . Cabinet will be composed of professionals who owe their allegiance to the people. Currently, elected politicians appointed on the basis of perceived loyalty to the president serve in cabinet. They are not accountable to the people and their judgements are often blurred by the interests of their ethnic and geographical constituencies. Parliament (the Senate and the National Assembly) has been granted the power to vet and approve cabinet and virtually all other state appointments. Currently Parliamentary Standing Committees merely audit the process of exercise of power by the Executive and their perfunctory interventions are often a “mere act after the fact”. The right of recall in Chapter Eight; section 104 gives the people the right to sanction members of Parliament who act against the wishes of their constituents.

Chapter Eleven on devolution establishes the division of powers between the central government and devolved units. It recognises that there is considerable amount of diversity in respect of language, religion and culture among Kenyans and seeks to promote democracy, equity and national unity among regions and sections with varying geographical and economic characteristics. Chapter Seven; section 85 allows independent candidates to run for office both at national and county governments. These provisions and the history of President Barrack Obama should inspire economically and socially disadvantaged Kenyans who have historically been shut out of competitive parliamentary politics. County Assemblies and Executives will make it easier for marginalised groups and individuals to seek and access state power and cultivate national profiles just like President Obama did. The devolved governments will also replace the unelected, unresponsive and unaccountable provincial administration which has bestrode Kenya like a colossus since the colonial days. This will give people at the grassroots the taste of real power.

Chapter Two declares that Kenya is a republic where state power can only be assumed through successful competitive politics and not feudal antecedents. It stipulates that Kenya is a secular state where there is no state religion. Those arguing that the draft elevates Islam above other religions are mistaken. The entrenchment of the Kadhis’ Courts is not fundamentally a matter of faith but one of nationhood. The Muslim populations of the 10 mile Coastal strip-mwambao (then governed by the Sultan of Zanzibar) and the Sultanates/Chieftaincies of the former Northern Frontier District (NFD) were not fully administered as parts of the Kenya Colony prior to June 1963. They had an option to join the territory of an independent Kenya or other states. During the 1961-62 constitutional conferences to negotiate the independence of Kenya they lobbied for the insertion of the Kadhis’ courts inter alia as a condition precedent to joining Kenya . The Lancaster Conference of 1962 which drafted the Kenya Independence Constitution entrenched this right to scuttle the secessionist elements in the NFD and Mwambao. That constitution was and still is highly steeped with Judaeo-Christian philosophy of law and hence the entrenchment of the Muslims’ right to be specifically protected as a minority was legitimate. This is based on the principle of inclusiveness which did not diminish or reduce the rights of Christians or other groups in the law.

Chapter Three permits dual nationality thus allowing a Kenyan who is a citizen by birth to lawfully acquire the citizenship of another country. This will solve the problems faced by many Kenyans in the Diaspora and assist those who wish to export their labour resources to foreign countries.

Chapter Five establishes a framework to ensure that the process of allocation, adjudication, consolidation and registration of land is done equitably, transparently and sustainably. Section 68 seeks to regulate the minimum and maximum land holding acreages thus promoting sustainable use of land resources, inter-generational equity and conservation. It will prevent a few individuals from hoarding arable land to the exclusion of the majority. Young Kenyans who often claim to have been disinherited and de-franchised by the current ruling elite should be enthusiastic about this clause because it will guarantee them, their progeny and the future generations of Kenyans access to a place they can call home.

Finally, the Bill of Rights is very innovative. It elevates the basic freedoms and rights of a citizen above the interests of the state and or government. Section 23(2) spreads the jurisdiction of determining cases relating to violation of rights and freedoms to subordinate courts. This will ease the search for justice by economically disadvantaged people in rural areas.

The draft is passionately pro-life contrary to assertions that it will legalise abortion. Section 26 declares that life begins at conception and expressly criminalises the termination of such life unless there is need for emergency treatment or where the life of the mother is in danger. Criminal abortion does not happen because there is a law allowing it; but rather due to moral depravity or desperation. Whereas the clergy can legitimise their dislike for abortion on faith and morality, a sick woman, accident victim, survivor of rape, defilement and incest does not have that pleasure; it is often about their own life or dignity. In such situations abortion ought to be a legitimate choice and its morality or otherwise is not a matter for religious or cultural conjecture. It is a very personal choice and it is not a matter for religious zealots to decide but one that is entirely for the victim to make. The exceptions in section 26 (4) are therefore not matters of religion or morality; but rather medico-legal issues which the clergy should leave to health professionals who understand how best to save life in the event of an emergency.