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

• Agriculture minister WILLIAM RUTO, who is leading the crusade against what he calls inhumane evictions from the Mau, spoke to Saturday Nation’s Emeka-Mayaka Gekara

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.