What Hassan wrote was in the public domain

Permit me, good people, to comment on last week’s arraignment of Mr Omar Hassan before the Dr Mzalendo Kibunjia-led National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) to answer to what I would call a charge of hate commentary.

I describe hate commentary as the deliberate publication or broadcast of material that despises and denigrates, negatively profiles and presents a people as to elicit disfavour, suspicion and anger against them by the rest of the country.

In my view, the best way to look at Mr Hassan’s commentary in The Standard on Sunday of November 27 is to begin by asking the following questions:

• Should we debate the likelihood of a Kikuyu succeeding President Kibaki and should we subsequently draw conclusions?

• Is there an authentic study that has been published by a reputable institution that details the domination of Kenya’s public sector by any one community and should its findings be debated?

• Is the fear of the possible domination of the leadership of the security apparatus by people from a particular region justifiable and should this be debated?

May I submit that the matter of the Kibaki succession is debated in houses and hovels, at bus stops and in buses, in matatus and markets, in hotel saunas and salons and in stadia and on the streets. The question of whether a Kikuyu could succeed the President is naturally debated and conclusions drawn.

Now, is it in order then for Mr Hassan to bring this debate to the pages of a newspaper thereby elevating it to a national and international platform? Again, my humble submission is that the columnist is perfectly in order and within his constitutional rights to do so.

Is his conclusion that it is highly unlikely that a Kikuyu will succeed President Kibaki sound and defensible? Would the conclusion that it is highly likely that a Kikuyu could succeed the President be sound and defensible? May I return a “Yes” verdict to both questions.

But is it possible these discussions will cause political temperatures to rise, tempers to flare and emotions to bubble? Of course they will. But does that mean we should not have these discussions? Absolutely not; we must discuss without going hammer and tongs at each other.

A certain region

It was the NCIC that commissioned and published a report which pointed out that the public service is dominated by people from a certain region. Was that in order? I believe it was especially because Dr Kibunjia’s aim was to not only address, but cause redress of this anomaly.

This is as it should be not only because we desire to see equity in the service, but also especially because this state of affairs breeds animosity and despondence which do not augur well for a harmonious co-existence of Kenyan peoples.

This is a matter of massive national importance and, I concede, discussion of it in all those places mentioned above happens and does cause heated exchanges. It is up to us to kupingana bila kupigana.

Last, which could well be first, let me turn to the matter of the security apparatus and its leadership.

In my view and with hindsight, Kenyans are bound to be fearful and suspicious of security machinery whose top brass — the men and women who give the orders — hail from one region.

This, may I say upfront, has nothing to do with the professionalism and competence of the leadership.

Our political and electoral history has something to do with it because regular police have been used to defeat the popular will, ditto the Provincial Administration backed by the Administration Police.