Signatures drive futile

Collecting signatures from Kenyans for the furtherance of any lawful cause is a constitutional right.

In fact, it is an activity practised by advocacy groups the world over.

So, nobody should quarrel with the idea of the organisation, Gema, launching a two-million signature campaign to urge the International Criminal Court to postpone the trial of four Kenyans accused of crimes against humanity.

But there are two things wrong with this particular campaign.

First, it is being pushed by an ethnic-based outfit whose revival has already raised political temperatures.

The second is that under the Rome Statute, only the ICC prosecution or the defence can petition for a postponement.

The signatures are thus, not likely to have any influence on the ICC’s timetable.

It is possible to sympathise with two of the suspects bound for trial at the Hague.

They have presidential aspirations, and they should not be denied their civic or other rights unless convicted.

But in a situation where a representative of the ICC states clearly that only the court’s judges can make such a weighty decision, what is the use of such a futile exercise?

Could it be that someone is out to collect rent by leading innocent Kenyans on a wild goose chase?