I’m ready to be sacked over my stance on the Mau, Ruto declares

You are party to Cabinet and Parliament decisions to remove encroachers out of Mau. Why the about-turn?

It is very erroneous for anyone to allege that the manner in which the evictions are being carried was agreed in Cabinet and approved by Parliament.

What was agreed to by Cabinet and endorsed by Parliament is the taskforce report on Mau and it was qualified by Parliament when it was amended to say that it must comply with the law.

The report is clear that there are several categories of people: squatters who should be removed and people with title deeds who should be compensated according to the law. Some people in Cabinet were opposed to the amendment in order to do what they are doing now. Not following the law is impunity. We are against mistreatment of squatters left on the roadside without food, medication and shelter.

The government is saying that these people should go back to their original homes. What is wrong with that?

This is a nebulous statement which means they should go to hell. If they had other homes, why would they be in Mau? If you tell a group of citizens to go back to where they came from, are we saying people are not supposed to live anywhere in this country? If one extrapolates that statement, it goes to very dangerous extents. These people are Kenyans and it is our responsibility to find them a place to stay.

Specifically, what has the government done wrong?

The Mau must be about conservation. We don’t want it to be used to raise somebody’s profile internationally. We can’t pretend that the only way the forest can be conserved is by criminalising the settlers. We should not use an environmental issue as an excuse to inflict misery on people we have issues with.

The point of departure is the treatment of people leaving the Mau. There are two groups of people in the Mau debate: One that believes the eviction must inflict misery on some people; take them to the roadside, make them suffer hunger and then go to hell.

Then there is the other group where I belong which believes that these people are Kenyans and should be offered alternative land. The document that we are all referring to does not talk about eviction; it talks about relocation and resettlement. Government actions must be informed by the greater good. Our actions must be aimed more at taking people out of the poverty trap than into it. In Mau, we are not doing that.

Do you see a contradiction remaining in government yet you oppose its policies?

Serving in the government does not mean that I support even what has not been agreed. I support the Mau drive to the extent of the agreement in Cabinet. Anything beyond that is what we are against. We agreed on alternative settlement.

On this I am willing to pay any price for my opposition and everything that I believe in. I am prepared to carry my cross on the position I have taken.

Do you sense that a chunk of the country is opposed to your stance on the Mau?

I know the political risk of appearing to oppose environmental conservation but I am ready and willing to pay the price, including being sacked from Cabinet. Looking like you do not support environmental conservation is political suicide. But it is a price I am willing to pay to ensure fairness. I am trying to make a point.

What point?

The point is that, yes, we must conserve Mau but we must not create another pool of IDPs. I am a student of the environment and I know what it means. I know that you can conserve the environment without inflicting misery.

The other point is that 90 per cent of the climate change problem is not caused by Mau or Africa or Kenya. The major culprits are the industrialised nations. They break the ozone layer and emit greenhouse gases, and that is why we have erratic rainfall. We should put more effort in stopping them.

Squatters kicked out of the Aberdares, Mt Kenya and Embobut were not compensated. What is special about the Mau invaders?

Two wrongs never add up to a right. The people evicted from Mt Kenya and Aberdares were treated the way those in Mau are being treated. They camped on the roadside and became a national shame. Before the 2007 elections, the government had to buy Solio Ranch to resettle them. Are we saying those in Mau should also be left on the roadside until the next election?

In Embobut, residents were moved to an identified place in the forest where they are temporarily sheltered as alternative settlement is sought. We are not asking that the Mau settlers be treated differently.

Are we not encouraging a culture where Kenyans will invade water towers and demand to be resettled as a means of acquiring land. Are we not rewarding impunity?

For the government to allow people to invade the forest in the first place is an act of impunity. We should stop the impunity of government officials who abdicated their responsibility of ensuring that the forest was not encroached on. The settlers paid their way into the forest. In any case, if you allow a squatter to settle on your land for 12 years, that fellow legally acquires that land through adverse possession.

MPs in your group such Sammy Mwaita and Zakayo Cheruiyot own land in Mau. Does this not deny you moral authority?

You cannot write off people’s right to fair treatment because of a few others who have land here and there.

Should they be treated the same way as the squatters?

No. If people like Cheruiyot were posing as squatters we could have told them to get the hell out of the forest. But since they have titles, the government will acquire their land through compulsory acquisition. They will be compensated.

Why incite those moving out on their own free will?

I was categorical when I went to Mau. I told the squatters that they did the right thing to move out of the forest. I promised that the government will resettle them.

And what is your best way to conserve the water tower?

We told the Prime Minister that we are willing to participate in the reclamation of the Mau. However, some people thought that if this was done amicably, the international community will not see them as working hard.

The squatters hardly sleep in those camps. Where do they go at night?

The story was cooked up by the same characters using the media. It is a very desperate thing to create an impression that we are manufacturing these displaced persons. Take for instance, the issue of crocodile tears. How can anybody claim that the children and women crying on TV screens are shedding crocodile tears?

You have been accused of using the Mau issue to settle political scores, particularly with the Prime Minister?

What business do I have undermining the PM when I traversed the country campaigning for him? Our position in the Mau is shared by Kenyans across the political divide and that was evident from the harambee we held on Wednesday night.

Are the Kalenjins who supported the PM walking out on him?

Well, let me say there are issues that are clear and have arisen between the PM and the Kalenjin group.

Are you part of the group planning a vote of no-confidence against the PM?

I don’t think that is necessary. It is uncalled for and unhelpful. Differences in opinion do not mean you create unnecessary animosity.

Did the fund signify the launch of KKK alliance?

Anybody trying to introduce politics to the fundraising is trying to sabotage the humanitarian state of those leaving Mau. Harambees for needy Kenyans have been done before.

The issue of Mau has split ODM.

ODM has challenges. But it is normal for parties to have challenges whenever people don’t agree over major issues. But such challenges are reconcilable. If they are not, then time dictates what happens.

There are fears that the Mau will cause tension in the Rift Valley. Word has it that leaflets have been circulated asking some communities to be ready to leave.

Rift Valley is very delicate but all communities must live together. And government must ensure security for all. If anybody is indeed circulating such leaflets, that should be investigated and those found doing so charged in court.