MPs’ onslaught on Britain was cleverly plotted and executed

Hawkish backbenchers carefully planned and executed their onslaught against the British government in the debate over the controversial document detailing an alleged foreign conspiracy of an investigation against President Kibaki.

Anyone wired in Parliament that Thursday would have marvelled at the pin-point political efficiency with which the ordinarily disjointed backbench worked to ensure the details of the privileged document were submitted far and wide. (READ: UK accused of seeking Kibaki trial at ICC)

First, they alerted journalists that they expected an important ministerial statement on the visit of British Foreign Secretary William Hague. Saboti MP Eugene Wamalwa had sought the statement but he was not in the House. However, that did not stop Foreign Affairs minister Moses Wetang’ula from prosecuting the matter.

There were calls galore, extra-ordinary lobbying and hushed caucusing inside and outside Parliament’s Old Chambers moments before the matter was brought to the floor of the House.

Media operatives and spinmasters of some of the presidential hopefuls allied to the G7 political outfit, to which Mr Wamalwa belongs, were seen hovering around Parliament, anxiously walking in and out of the media centre.

There were whispers that the operatives had called major TV stations to get the feed of the live proceedings from the digital channel of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit. The publicity campaign meant that there was a grand scheme afoot.

Indeed, some operatives kept calling the officialdom in Parliament to get the national broadcaster, the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, back on air to show the House proceedings on that matter. But KBC had already wound up the live broadcasts, which normally end at 4.30 pm, unless otherwise instructed by Parliament.

Parliament pays Sh10 million per month for the broadcasts.

In the House, Mr Charles Keter (Belgut) signalled the planned ambush when he rose to cut short Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka, saying the VP ought to “save time” for MPs to discuss other “vital” issues that were pending in the House.

That aimed at the Leader of Government Business in Parliament, an influential position that rivals that of the Prime Minister, was a pointer that the backbench was ready to strike. Mr Musyoka acquiesced.

The MPs then sat and listened attentively as Mr Wetang’ula gave a chronology of Mr Hague’s visit. But as soon as Mr Wetang’ula was done, it was the mastermind of the plot, Yatta MP Charles Kilonzo, who rose. His first order of business was to introduce the leaked document, which the UK has since termed as “not genuine”. (READ: UK denies Kibaki ICC plot)

Two Ocampo guests

The Yatta MP went on to quote from the document, informing the House and the republic, that there was a “conspiracy” by the British government to ensure that “two Ocampo guests bearing presidential ambitions” (Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP) ought to be detained, because if they ascend to power, they’re likely to obstruct the International Criminal Court.

“The way forward is to push for detention during the mention at the court on the pretext that they are a security threat through public utterances in the political/prayer alliances,” said Mr Kilonzo.

The long and short of the political rigmarole in the House was to show that the UK was silently pushing for Prime Minister Raila Odinga to get into State House, so as to “increase chances of (President) Kibaki being indicted as a former Head of State”.

Deputy Speaker Farah Maalim who had replaced Speaker Kenneth Marende on the chair, had a tough task: to authenticate a document from a foreign government tabled in the House. That is usually easy for official government documents. He checked for the signature and the date. He ruled that the document was inadmissible.

The backbenchers, almost in unison, stood up and asked him to “check page four”. “It is signed at the bottom”. Mr Maalim, had to agree. He had no grounds to reject the document. But there are those outside Parliament, who insist they had the document three weeks ago and it wasn’t signed. The veracity of the signature, at this point, does not matter, because the document as it is, remains a privileged record of the National Assembly, unless the Speaker expunges it.

But even with that, Mr Maalim was uncomfortable that MPs were discussing “a foreign friendly government” without a substantive Motion, as required by the Standing Orders. The backbenchers, most of them allied to the G7 outfit, pushed him, saying that the Standing Order was “unconstitutional” to the extent that it was “discriminatory”.

The Deputy Speaker noted that he had allowed some “leeway” because the whole matter touched on “sovereignty and security”.

“If we have to discuss the British Government, which is a friendly country or a representative of that country domiciled in the country or on a visit or representing that country itself, we cannot do so without a substantive Motion, which also requires a minimum of three days’ notice to the House,” said Mr Maalim.

The backbenchers, would hear none of that. But the Deputy Speaker stood his ground.

With that, MPs rejected a motion that would have seen Parliament take a break until April 10. They insisted that they were going to stay until they were done with the UK.