It was the late venerated British historian Lord Acton who quipped that, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely". More than a century since his passing on, Lord Acton's words still ring true today as they did when he uttered them.
But nowhere else has the truism of Acton's words been remarkably demonstrated more than in Africa. Nearly all, if not all, African countries have, at some point in time, been led by people who, once in power, got drunk with power to a point of no return. Mesmerised by the trappings of power, these leaders have gone on to reign over their people with an iron fist.
The saving grace has, however, been a few voices of reason who, at the expense of their own lives, have been daring enough to denounce the excesses of tyrants. It is to these gallant sons and daughters of our soil that the oppressed masses have always looked up to to register their disapproval of the sordid acts of the powers that be.
In the US, W.E.B Dubois, the first African-American to graduate with a doctorate from Harvard University, charismatic Baptist preacher Martin Luther King Junior, civil rights icon Rosa Parks and some other activists of note distinguished themselves as windows through which the world could have a glimpse at the plight of African-Americans. Luther paid the ultimate price when he was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
In Nigeria, in the face of the numerous despotic military regimes, the late Chinua Achebe, the late Ken Saro Wiwa, Wole Soyinka and a host of other tenacious Nigerians emerged as voices for the voiceless. Even when Achebe and Soyinka were banished into exile they remained unrelenting in speaking truth to power. They used every forum and their amazing mastery of written word to draw the world's attention to the leadership mess obtaining in their land of nativity.
Kenya has had the likes of Professor Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Koigi Wamwere, Raila Odinga, Dr Willy Mutunga, Kenneth Matiba, the late Prof Wangari Maathai and many others who paid a great price for denouncing the misdeeds of the Jomo Kenyatta and Moi regimes. Not even detentions without trial could dampen their resolve to advocate for good governance. To a large extent, these champions of reforms should be applauded for the relative rights and freedoms that Kenyans and the rest of Africans presently enjoy.
What should, nonetheless, be of concern to us is the alacrity with which hitherto celebrated defenders of human rights are converting themselves into unabashed apologists of the people in power. Kenya in particular, has seen many revered intellectuals transform themselves, overnight, into errand boys and girls of the country's top leadership, once elected to public office.
Take Parliament for instance. The March 4 general election saw some of the most brilliant and respected Kenyans elected to both the National Assembly and the Senate. Kenyans bristled with hope and anticipation when a significant number of men and women famed for their unflagging advocacy for sound governance and respect for human rights were voted to Parliament.
But hardly a year into office, these intellectuals, some of whom are relatively young, are proving to be nothing but messengers of their political masters. Their independence of mind is now a thing of the past. Top on their list of priorities is doing their masters' bidding. The welfare of the electorate and the country are non-issues over which no time should be wasted.
Members of both the Senate and the National Assembly know that to guard against international crimes such as genocide, third world countries still vulnerable to the big man syndrome and whose institutions are still fledgling, need a court like the International Criminals Court. They are also pretty alive to the fact that such international tribunals are normally courts are complementary and hardly intervene in a country's affairs unless the most heinous crimes known to man have been committed and no remedial measures are taken by the country in question.
Despite being in knowledge all these, leading Senators and MPs are at the forefront of the campaign to pull Kenya out of the Rome Statute under which the ICC is formed. Their quest to withdraw from the ICC is informed by nothing but the fact that their bosses are before the court. Hardly a year ago, these are the same people that were shouting from the rooftops that justice for both the victims and perpetrators of the 2007-08 post-election violence should be done. All that is now in the past and what is key is to be seen to shouting loudest in discrediting the ICC so as to curry favour with the President and Deputy President.
That allocating more funds to county governments will bring about much development if the funds are well utilised is not in doubt. This explains why Governor Isaac Ruto's push for increased allocations to county governments is popular with the majority of Kenyans. At the initial stages of this push, some leading senators were also in support of the idea. But when they were summoned by their godfathers and warned against calling for a referendum to increase the allocation from the stipulated minimum of 15 per cent to 40 per cent, they retreated and are now vociferously opposed to the idea just to please their seniors.
Could it be true that Parliament has turned out to be a graveyard for the independent minded?
This article was published in the Star Newspaper on September 21, 2013
Wednesday, 18 September 2013
Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Parliament's move will hurt Kenyan cases at the ICC
The indictment of President Uhuru Kenyatta, Deputy President William Ruto and Journalist Joshua Sang by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity is a matter that has been at the centre of Kenyan politics for quite a while. Hardly a day goes without the imminent trial of the three Kenyans in The Hague being talked about.
Suffice it to note that Uhuru and Ruto are presently the country's top leaders. The interest their impending trial has touched off is therefore quite understandable, even in order. But in what I can only term as an attempt to discredit the Hague-based court, Parliament has been recalled to discuss a Bill by the National Assembly Majority Leader Adan Duale to pull Kenya out of the Rome Statute.
In vouching for his Bill, Duale argues that with the commencement of the trial, it is not so much the interests of Uhuru and Ruto that are at stake but the sovereignty of Kenya. Duale further argues that his Bill has nothing to do with the case facing Uhuru, Ruto and Sang. The question that Duale should, nonetheless, answer is, why did he not introduce this Bill long before the start of the trials? Few Kenyans, if any, are convinced that Parliament's move to reconvene has anything to do with the sovereignty of the country.
Be that as it may, Parliament should not lose sight of the fact the Kenyan cases at the ICC are at an advanced stage and any attempt to scuttle them is an exercise in futility. To start with withdrawal from the Rome Statute is not a moment's affair. A state party keen on pulling out of the statute has to write to the UN Secretary General notifying him of its intentions. It will then take a whole year before the withdrawal is effected. Ongoing cases are, however, not affected by withdrawal. They must, of necessity, run their full course.
At the same time, Parliament's move amounts to an illegality. As per the provisions of the Treaty Making and Ratification Act of 2012, it is the Cabinet and not Parliament that should initiate the withdrawal of Kenya from international treaties to which it is a party. Section 17(1) of the said Act stipulates that, "Where Kenya wishes withdraw from a treaty, the relevant Cabinet Secretary shall prepare a cabinet memorandum indicating the reasons for such an intention".
In line with the provisions of this statute, the person mandated to initiate the process of withdrawal from a treaty is the Attorney General. He has to do this by drafting a memorandum and tabling it before Cabinet for deliberation and approval. After the Bill is discussed and approved by the Cabinet, it should then be forwarded to Parliament, both the National Assembly and the Senate, for debate. Parliament may pass or reject the draft Bill.
One therefore fails to understand why the National Assembly Majority Leader is arrogating himself powers that he doesn't have. Perhaps it is the zeal to endear himself to the President and his deputy that is propelling Duale. The MP should, however, be reminded that rather than help Uhuru and Ruto, his action may harm their case at the ICC.
Those familiar with the operations of courts of law, the world over, will tell you that nothing infuriates judicial officers more than casting improper motives on their court(s). In referring to the ICC as an instrument being used by western countries to punish their perceived enemies, Duale and his colleagues are consciously or unconsciously disparaging the judges serving in this court, some of whom will be presiding over the Kenyan cases. Judges are as human as anyone of us and to assume that they are wholly impervious to conventional human prejudices is far from the truth. For anyone appearing before a court of law and keen to draw the mercy of the judicial officers, deference to the court is not an option but a must. In the Kenyan case, matters are not made any better by the fact that Uhuru and Ruto are doing nothing to stop their lieutenants from treading this dangerous path.
It should also be clear to legislators that their move to withdraw from the Rome Statute paints Kenya in a very bad light. The message this sends out is that while the rest of the world is doing everything within its ability to bid farewell to impunity, Kenya is one of those few countries that are inextricably wedded to impunity. The Kenyan Parliament is telling the world that the high and mighty can do no wrong and hauling them before a court of law is unorthodox and reprehensible.
Uhuru and Ruto have maintained that they are wrongly before the court and it is just a matter of time before they are acquitted. The law also presumes them innocent until proven otherwise. Luckily the ICC, contrary to what MPs would have us believe, is a patently impartial court whose key motivation nothing but justice. Kenyan MPs should stop behaving badly. To paraphrase the late Nigerian literary icon Chinua Achebe, there's nothing noble in mourning more than the bereaved.
Suffice it to note that Uhuru and Ruto are presently the country's top leaders. The interest their impending trial has touched off is therefore quite understandable, even in order. But in what I can only term as an attempt to discredit the Hague-based court, Parliament has been recalled to discuss a Bill by the National Assembly Majority Leader Adan Duale to pull Kenya out of the Rome Statute.
In vouching for his Bill, Duale argues that with the commencement of the trial, it is not so much the interests of Uhuru and Ruto that are at stake but the sovereignty of Kenya. Duale further argues that his Bill has nothing to do with the case facing Uhuru, Ruto and Sang. The question that Duale should, nonetheless, answer is, why did he not introduce this Bill long before the start of the trials? Few Kenyans, if any, are convinced that Parliament's move to reconvene has anything to do with the sovereignty of the country.
Be that as it may, Parliament should not lose sight of the fact the Kenyan cases at the ICC are at an advanced stage and any attempt to scuttle them is an exercise in futility. To start with withdrawal from the Rome Statute is not a moment's affair. A state party keen on pulling out of the statute has to write to the UN Secretary General notifying him of its intentions. It will then take a whole year before the withdrawal is effected. Ongoing cases are, however, not affected by withdrawal. They must, of necessity, run their full course.
At the same time, Parliament's move amounts to an illegality. As per the provisions of the Treaty Making and Ratification Act of 2012, it is the Cabinet and not Parliament that should initiate the withdrawal of Kenya from international treaties to which it is a party. Section 17(1) of the said Act stipulates that, "Where Kenya wishes withdraw from a treaty, the relevant Cabinet Secretary shall prepare a cabinet memorandum indicating the reasons for such an intention".
In line with the provisions of this statute, the person mandated to initiate the process of withdrawal from a treaty is the Attorney General. He has to do this by drafting a memorandum and tabling it before Cabinet for deliberation and approval. After the Bill is discussed and approved by the Cabinet, it should then be forwarded to Parliament, both the National Assembly and the Senate, for debate. Parliament may pass or reject the draft Bill.
One therefore fails to understand why the National Assembly Majority Leader is arrogating himself powers that he doesn't have. Perhaps it is the zeal to endear himself to the President and his deputy that is propelling Duale. The MP should, however, be reminded that rather than help Uhuru and Ruto, his action may harm their case at the ICC.
Those familiar with the operations of courts of law, the world over, will tell you that nothing infuriates judicial officers more than casting improper motives on their court(s). In referring to the ICC as an instrument being used by western countries to punish their perceived enemies, Duale and his colleagues are consciously or unconsciously disparaging the judges serving in this court, some of whom will be presiding over the Kenyan cases. Judges are as human as anyone of us and to assume that they are wholly impervious to conventional human prejudices is far from the truth. For anyone appearing before a court of law and keen to draw the mercy of the judicial officers, deference to the court is not an option but a must. In the Kenyan case, matters are not made any better by the fact that Uhuru and Ruto are doing nothing to stop their lieutenants from treading this dangerous path.
It should also be clear to legislators that their move to withdraw from the Rome Statute paints Kenya in a very bad light. The message this sends out is that while the rest of the world is doing everything within its ability to bid farewell to impunity, Kenya is one of those few countries that are inextricably wedded to impunity. The Kenyan Parliament is telling the world that the high and mighty can do no wrong and hauling them before a court of law is unorthodox and reprehensible.
Uhuru and Ruto have maintained that they are wrongly before the court and it is just a matter of time before they are acquitted. The law also presumes them innocent until proven otherwise. Luckily the ICC, contrary to what MPs would have us believe, is a patently impartial court whose key motivation nothing but justice. Kenyan MPs should stop behaving badly. To paraphrase the late Nigerian literary icon Chinua Achebe, there's nothing noble in mourning more than the bereaved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)