Four questions for the Cabinet team

• Waki is a competent Judge. But has it occurred to you that he could be wrong?

This is a letter to the Cabinet. Greetings and good health to the 43 of you.

I will go straight to the point: there are warmongers amongst you. Some are on the Waki List, others are not. But I am not worried by those on the Waki List.

The gods have a way of dealing with such thugs through disease, and related calamities. My problem is with the ‘‘holy Joes’’ within your ranks: those calling for the uncritical implementation of the Waki Report.

These, in my view, are the real warmongers. They might not bear arms, or supply poisoned arrows to the youths. But their ignorance and non-reflective ways poison the country little by little.

And this type of leaders, who think with their mouths open, is more dangerous than the arrow-carrying type.

NOW I MUST ASK YOU FOUR questions.

One, has it occurred to you that Justice Waki could be wrong? Yes, the man is a competent judge, but we have seen judges like him conduct incompetent investigations.

Take Justice Aaron Ringera for instance. In 2003, he told us in a similar report that he had discovered major corruption in the judiciary. He proceeded to generate a ‘‘Ringera List’’ of 23 judges to be investigated and fixed.

Justice Waki was on this ‘‘list of shame’’ and was disgraced for a while. But, as it turned out to be, Justice Ringera was wrong on this account.

As the Cabinet, therefore, you must interrogate the Waki Report before you crucify your colleagues. It is possible that the man is wrong!

My second question regards the Waki List. Last time I checked, the 43 of you made up government. If this has not changed, how come the Waki List was handed over to a foreigner and not to you?

You were the appointing authority, the investigation happened in Kenya, and you funded its operations.

HOW COME THE LIST WAS GIVEN to someone else? In my view, this was a breach of ‘‘contract’’ on the part of Justice Waki and his colleagues.

Or was it? Maybe the good judge was telling you this: you might not be on the list, but you are all suspects of sorts as Cabinet!

And this is why he preferred to hand over the list to a ‘‘reliable’’ foreigner than to you.

What you have, therefore, whether you are on the list or not, is a ‘‘bastard’’ government. Not trusted, not credible and not legitimate enough!

But then you must ask the question: who is saying this? Is it the people of Kenya or the international community out there?

This brings me to the third question to you. What is Mr Kofi Annan still doing in town? And why is he appointing people to our commissions and receiving secret ‘‘lists’’ meant for government? Hasn’t he outlived his usefulness?

In my view, this man is too much on our face. He is beginning to sound like a retired old man looking for relevance.

But this is not fully true: peace-making is more political than war. As such, a peace-maker like Mr Annan is a skilful operator and a foremost politician.

As Cabinet, therefore, you must not embrace the man uncritically. He is not a priest or a traditional medicine man. At the core, the man is a raw politician with an agenda and interests to serve.

And this is why you must question the ‘‘envelope wisdom’’ of the Waki commission. But you must also question Mr Annan’s eagerness to go The Hague way!

My fourth question is about The Hague. How many of you are conversant with this international criminal court? My bet is that most of you are not.

BUT AS A PROFESSIONAL WHO works in conflict countries, I can confirm to you that this is not a tested path. In fact almost all the Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commissions (TJRC) I have visited across Africa have been a flop.

Similarly, the idea of The Hague and the Special Tribunals suggested by Justice Waki are old school and driven by international interests. In other words, dignified nations do not take their suspects to The Hague.

This is a court used by ‘‘banana republics’’ arm-twisted by the West. As Cabinet, you must therefore spare the nation from the indignity of this process.

But you have one problem. According to the Waki Report, if you botch the establishment of a Special Tribunal, Mr Kofi Annan has to take the ‘‘envelope’’ to The Hague. This means that the process is unstoppable.

What is more: it has to happen by a certain date.

But if you are convinced about the folly of this process, you can stop it. And this is how.

Mr Annan is involved in our politics because you invited him. Without this invitation, he would have to return the ‘‘envelope’’ and go back to Kumasi in Ghana or wherever he came from.

That is, he cannot hand over the Waki List to The Hague if he ceases to be the chief mediator.

Otherwise he would be handing it over as who? In my view, therefore, you as Cabinet must terminate our relationship with Mr Annan.

Now that the country has stabilised, we do not need a prefect financed by the West and whose mandate is vague. You must therefore close his secretariat in Nairobi and disengage from his initiative.

This way, we can deal with the Waki recommendations internally.

Similarly, this will divert our energies to constitutional review as a way of dealing with impunity once and for all. What do you think?

Mutahi Ngunyi is a political scientist with The Consulting House, a policy and security think-tank for the Great Lakes region and West Africa.