Recent demands by human rights activists,, among them Maina Kiai, John Githongo and Ndung’u Wainaina for deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP William Ruto not to vie for the presidency in the next elections, confirms a conspiracy that has long existed in civil society.
Their agenda has been that of a regime change through an election in which Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto, leading presidential aspirants, are denied the chance to have their names on the ballot paper on March 4, 2013.
It is instructive that despite all the disturbing issues which have been raised by Miguna Miguna against Prime Minister Raila Odinga, the same activists have not even questioned the suitability of the PM to run for the presidency.
What is stopping Mr Githongo, Mr Kiai, Mr Mugambi Kiai and Mr Wafula Buke from noticing the allegations of sleaze, nepotism, lack of reform credentials and economic crimes raised against the PM?
The same individuals were largely exposed as having contributed largely to the contents of the second version of the Kenya National Human rights Commission report 2008, which largely formed the basis of the Waki post-election violence report.
The existence of the two reports I displayed recently on the popular talk show ‘Crossfire’ demonstrate the extent to which some people are prepared to go to deny Kenyans the democratic right of choosing their leadership in favour of pseudo-reformers.
If Chapter Six of the Constitution were to be strictly followed and applied to the letter, in terms of corruption and economic integrity issues, only Mr Kenyatta, Mr Eugene Wamalwa, Mr Raphael Tuju, Ms Martha Karua and a few others would qualify for nomination to contest for the presidency among all the current aspirants.
To block Mr Kenyatta from running on the basis of allegations of crimes against humanity” is not only dishonest, but also manifestly malicious, considering the genesis of these evil schemes hatched way back with the connivance of their foreign benefactors.
It is significant that Mr Kiai was at the helm of the KNCHR and later with the Human rights watch and KCPTJ who were the primary sources of the Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence (Cipev) report.
It is now coming out clearly that having failed to use the ICC process to deny the two the chance to run for the presidency, the platform of their lobbying has shifted to the local courts.
Their demands that amount to intimidating the Judiciary are meant to convince the courts to rule that the two are not fit to contest the presidency.
For them to invoke the reform credentials of Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, a man of great standing, there can be nothing less than blackmail of people on a journey to destroy the political careers of Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto.
Fortunately, Chapter 99 of the Constitution is very clear and specific about the qualification and disqualification of candidates.
I invite them to read subsection 3 of the chapter, which expressly overrides the provisions of Section 2(h) which makes clear any violation of the chapter on Leadership and Integrity by declaring the assumption of innocence until one has exhausted all avenues of appeal.
This means that until found guilty and all subsequent appeals thrown out, you are presumed innocent.
Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto have religiously honoured all hearings at The Hague. They have been silently incurring huge costs flying to The Hague and back home when the ICC calls.
There is no reason to fear as their bail terms have not been varied. In any case, it is their legal teams who will be arguing out their cases.
They are not in custody of the ICC. Government running does not mean physical presence. A government is an institution, not an individual!
I am disturbed by arguments that if one of them is elected President while still facing charges at the ICC, it will bring dishonour to the office of the President.
To state that mere confirmation of the trumped-up charges against Mr Kenyatta, based on wild allegations raised by the same architects of the case at the ICC disqualifies him from running for President is malicious to the extreme.
The human rights activists of yesteryear cherished the mantra “let the people decide”! What has changed in the case of Mr Kiai and Mr Githongo? Are they saying Kenyans are so unenlightened that they can’t decide for themselves who to elect?
If Kenyans truly believe that Uhuru committed “grave” crimes against humanity, they should be given an opportunity to categorically say so at the ballot.
Mr Gachoka is a media consultant.