This was following the 1982 attempted coup in which Kenya Airforce soldiers wanted to overthrow retired President Daniel arap Moi just a few years after taking over from the country's founding President Mzee Jomo Kenyatta. In his autobiography, “Raila Odinga, an enigma in Kenyan Politics,” by Nigerian scholar Babafemi Badejo, Raila admits to playing a central role in the 1982 coup. He was detained by Moi's regime over his alleged role in the coup. After several stints as a political detainee, Raila launched his political career in 1992 when he vied for and won the Lang'ata parliamentary seat. Since then Raila has never looked back. He has consistently played a key role in shaping the direction of Kenyan politics. He vied for the presidency in 1997 on a National Development Party ticket but came a distant third, behind Democratic Party's Mwai Kibaki. In 2002, Raila shelved his presidential ambitions and threw his weight behind opposition leader Mwai Kibaki.
Under the banner of the National Rainbow Coalition which brought together key opposition figures like the late Michael Kijana Wamalwa, Charity Ngilu, the late George Saitoti among others, the opposition beat Moi's preferred candidate Uhuru Kenyatta to second position. This marked the end of Moi's 24-year-old grip on power. Raila was credited for bringing down Moi's long reign with his "Kibaki tosha" declaration. Raila's union with Kibaki did not, however, last long. Acrimony stalked the Narc government right from the outset. Raila fell out with Kibaki following the latter's alleged breach of a memorandum of understanding that stipulated how they were to go about sharing power.
Matters came to a head when Kibaki and his cronies attempted to impose an unpopular constitution on Kenyans in 2005. Raila mobilised other disgruntled political figures to oppose the government-backed 'Wako draft' in the 2005 referendum. And after a vigorous campaign against the draft constitution, Kenyans voted overwhelmingly against it. Smarting from the embarrassment of defeat, President Kibaki, under the pretext of dissolving the Cabinet, dismissed ministers allied to Raila's Liberal Democratic Party. This set the stage for the battle of titans that culminated in the disputed 2007 general election.
The 2007 polls pitted Party of National Unity's Mwai Kibaki and the Orange Democratic Movement's Raila Odinga as front-runners. Following claims of rigging, violence erupted on a massive scale in most parts of the country, taking Kenya right to the brink of a civil war. More than 1,000 people lost their lives and over 600,000 people were displaced from their homes. Raila, who still believes his victory was stolen dismissed pleas from various quarters to go to court. He opined that there was no need to go to courts packed with judicial officers at the beck and call of the Executive.
After about two months of violence, the international community helped broker a truce between Raila and President Kibaki on February 28, 2008. Raila became the Prime Minister in the grand coalition government that was formed while Kibaki retained the presidency. The two shared cabinet positions equally leaving the country with the most bloated cabinet of all time. Shortly after the formation of the coalition government, cracks began to emerge in Raila's side of the government. One of his deputies in the ODM, William Ruto eventually fell out with him. Ruto led a host of Members of Parliament mostly from Rift Valley in rebelling against Raila.
Other key allies of Raila such as Musalia Mudavadi, Najib Balala and Joe Nyaga also shifted their support elsewhere following disagreements with their boss. They blamed Raila of being dictatorial in his way of handling things and stifling democracy in ODM. Matters were not made any better with the indictment of Ruto, Uhuru and four other Kenyans by the International Criminal Court for allegedly bearing the greatest responsibility for the 2007-08 post-election violence. Ruto and Uhuru blamed Raila of being behind their predicament at the ICC. This, they claimed, was a strategy by Raila to get them out of the presidential race and easily make his way to State House.
Raila's attempts to absolve himself of any blame over the duo's case at the ICC fell on deaf ears as most of their supporters believed he was indeed the architect of Uhuru's and Ruto's woes at the court. It is within a background of having lost key allies that Raila contested for the presidency in the March 4 general election. Prior to the March 4 polls, opinion polls rated Raila as the man to beat in the elections. But after about one week of waiting, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission announced Uhuru Kenyatta as the winner of the general election with Raila coming in second.
Raila has since moved to the Supreme Court to dispute the IEBC's announcement. "In this respect, let the Supreme Court determine whether the result announced by IEBC was a lawful one and let us continue to maintain peace," Raila recently tweeted. In his petition Raila argues that Uhuru Kenyatta did not garner the requisite 50 per cent plus one vote threshold. He has also faulted the procurement process of the Biometric Voter Registration machines terming it defective. He's blaming the IEBC for conducting the general election in a manner that ran afoul of the constitution and has also taken issue with the voter register terming it invalid.
These are weighty issues that the Supreme Court is looking into and by close of business today, the court will have rendered the much awaited verdict. Shortly after filing his petition, Raila through his lawyer Senior Counsel George Oraro attempted to introduce a new 900 page affidavit with more evidence to fortify his case but the Supreme Court refused to admit the voluminous document. Reading the court's ruling on the affidavit on behalf if his colleagues Justice Philip Tunoi said that parties are obligated to comply with respective time-lines and should not waste the time of the court and that of other parties to the petition. The court was of the view that the affidavit should have been filed earlier or a fresh application to file it should have been lodged with the court.
Many legal commentators and analysts have termed the court's ruling a blow to Raila's case. Be that as it may, there are two rulings at which the Supreme Court will in all likelihood arrive. The court may either uphold Uhuru's election or it may rule that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission bungled the March 4 general election rendering Uhuru's election invalid. Whichever way the court rules there will be significant concomitant results that will ensue.
If the court reaches a verdict that the president-elect was elected in a fair and transparent election, Uhuru will be sworn in as Kenya's fourth president. This will certainly not be to Raila's liking since it consigns him to political oblivion for another five years or forever if he elects to quit politics. At 69, it means by the time the next general election is held Raila will be way into his mid-seventies. With many Kenyans opting for young leadership, Raila's prospects of being elected at that age are almost remote.
A ruling to the effect that Uhuru was not validly elected presents the most complex scenarios. Such a ruling will mean that a fresh election has to be held within the next 60 days, from the day of the court's ruling. This is according article 140(3) of the constitution which provides for a fresh election and not a run-off as opined by many legal commentators. Contrary to the views advanced by many commentators a run-off can only be held under Article 138 of the constitution.
Article 138(4) of the constitution stipulates that for a president to be validly elected, he or she must garner more than half of the total votes cast in an election and at least 25 per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the 47 counties. If a presidential candidate fails to reach this threshold, Article 138(5) comes into play. It provides that, "If no candidate is elected, a fresh election shall be held within thirty days after the previous election and in that fresh election the only candidates shall be- (a) the candidate, or the candidates, who received the greatest number of votes; and (b) the candidate, or the candidates, who received the second greatest number of votes". The election held under Article 140(3) of the constitution pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling differs from the election contemplated under Article 138(5).
Under Article 140(3), the fresh election has to be held within 60 days from the day of the court's ruling while Article 138(5) provides for an election in 30 days from the day of a declaration by the electoral body that no one has been validly elected. At the same time, while Article 140(3) affords all the presidential candidates in the first round election a chance to run again, Article 138(5) limits the run-off to the two top contenders in the initial election.
Dire consequences are bound to follow a ruling that Uhuru was not validly elected. That will open the door for the six other presidential candidates to vie in the ensuing election if they so wish. If this were to happen, chances are that there might be no outright winner forcing Kenyans to go for a run-off under Article 138(5) of the constitution. The fact that someone may also move to the Supreme Court to challenge the results of a run-off can also not be ruled out.
Meanwhile matters are likely to be complicated further if the court rules that the IEBC conducted the March 4 polls with a defective voter register and equipment. This will mean a fresh registration of voters. This is something that many Kenyans would not even want to think about given the resources and time that will be needed. Right at the centre of this debacle is the Prime Minister. A ruling invalidating Uhuru's election certainly affords him another opportunity to contest for the presidency.
It, nonetheless, bears noting that if the country were to go for a run-off between Raila and Uhuru, the winner need not to garner more than half of the total votes cast. Article 138(7) provides that the candidate who receives the most votes in the fresh election will be declared the winner. With reports that the number of registered voters in Uhuru's strongholds far outweighs that of registered voters in Raila's strongholds casts doubts on the PM's prospects of clinching the presidency even if a run-off were to be held.
But whichever way the court rules, there's no denying the fact that Raila has been the pivot around which Kenyan politics have revolved for close to two decades. His achievements in shaping the Kenyan political landscape are well documented. The tragedy, however, is that he might go down the annals of history as the Kenyan leader who came so close to the country's top office but never got to serve as the president.
This article was published in the Star Newspaper on March 30,2013
No comments:
Post a Comment