Uhuru’s decision good for him and the country

President Uhuru Kenyatta’s decision to temporarily cede office and attend the International Criminal Court Status Conference as a private citizen marks another milestone in the circuitous trials that seek to put to rest the bitter outcomes of the post-election violence of six years ago.

The Head of State was categorical that he wants to pursue the trial as an individual and avoid dragging the whole nation along with him, and in so doing, protect the country’s sovereignty.

Clearly, he defied the hollow choruses of his loyalists locally, some of whom had threatened to strip naked if he took the Europe-bound flight to answer to the charges.

Similarly, he did not pay heed to the African Union’s resolution last year that decreed that no serving Head of State should face trial at The Hague.

President Kenyatta had only two options – going to The Hague or disobeying the court order and staying put. But he saw the sense in abiding by the resolution of the trial judges because doing anything to the contrary would have been disastrous for him and the country, at large.

For one, Kenya is a signatory to the Rome Statute that gave birth to the ICC. Since the country believes in the rule of law and conformity with international treaties, it would have been wrong for him to turn around and defy the court’s directive.

FUGITIVE

Second, President Kenyatta sought to avoid personal humiliation. Forever, he would have been a fugitive with Kenya turned into a pariah nation. Nobody wants to be in such a distressful situation when, in fact, the case at hand is wobbling and likely to fall on its head any time soon.

At any rate, there is no big deal in going to the court to clear one’s name, especially on charges of crimes against humanity, which carry the heaviest penalty. Deputy President William Ruto has often been there and that has never prevented him from discharging the duties of his high office.

Even so, the challenge remains for Kenya and other African countries to put their acts together and avoid situations where they are unable to resolve internal or electoral differences, necessitating external interventions with the consequent shame.

Violence of the magnitude experienced after the botched 2007 elections is a sad indictment of the country’s electoral and governance structures and must never recur.

Moreover, the plight of the victims of the violence has not been fully addressed. The underlying issues such as historical injustice, socio-economic inequalities, marginalisation and impunity, which led to the flare-up, have not been dealt with exhaustively.

Thus far, President Kenyatta and Mr Ruto have acted with dignity and it behoves the ICC to treat them and the African continent with respect, to disabuse anyone of the the notion that it is a court for poor nations.

In the meantime, life has to continue and the country must steadfastly pursue its agenda of economic development and institutionalising the rule of law and good governance.