The cat is now out of the bag, courtesy of International Commission of Jurists-Kenya (ICJ-Kenya) executive director George Kegoro in his column last Sunday, October 28, 2012.
Headlined “Hopefuls need to let the people go and face up to the ICC charges” — the International Criminal Court (ICC) charges against Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, former Head of Civil Service Francis Muthaura, Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua Sang were meant to stigmatise them.
But close to two years since they were sensationally named at a press conference streamed online, “the stigma has refused to stick”.
Coming from Kegoro, these are no ordinary revelations. One, the man was a joint secretary of the commission to investigate the post-election violence, popularly called the Waki commission after Court of Appeal Judge Philip Waki who presided over it.
This commission, for those who have forgotten, gave two options in dealing with the crimes committed during the chaos that followed the 2007 General Election – a local tribunal or if Parliament failed to set this up, the matter be referred to the International Criminal Court by none other than mediator and former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan.
Two, Kegoro is a top honcho at ICJ. This is an organisation that is supposed to stand for what is just and every other day pontificates about democracy and the rule of law, among other ideals that are the hallmarks of a progressive society.
But the head of such an outfit has no qualms confessing that a case before an international court was more or less fixed.
Three, Kegoro sits on the board of Open Society of East Africa, an offshoot of the global Open Society whose brainchild and financier is none other than the convicted fraudster George Soros. With Kegoro’s three caps, pray, where did the scheme to stigmatise first six and now four Kenyans begin?
Was it at the Waki commission, the ICJ or at George Soros’ headquarters? Dear Kegoro, is “stigmatisation” equivalent to “fabrication of charges” or better still “trumped up charges”? And is this not a criminal offence by whoever came up with such an agenda?
The originators of the scheme must be very disappointed that the stigma never stuck and Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto’s support from Kenyans continues to grow by the day. But they won’t just stop.
After the stigma, could it be true that the plotters have opted for the courts in an attempt to use a lopsided view of integrity to stop the two presidential aspirants?
But this does not seem credible because the Constitution upholds the cardinal principle of presumption of innocence.
Thus the proliferation of articles in the media by big names in the so-called civil society asking Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto not to vie for the presidency and instead “let the people go”.
Such authors include Makau Mutua, Maina Kiai, Kegoro, Rasna Warah, Ndung’u Wainaina, Muthoni Wanyeki, Hassan Omar et al.
These are people who have espoused democracy at their convenience, but now find it very inconvenient. But what is greater democracy than allowing Kenyans to pick the President of their choice?
Anything else is subversion of the will of the people and bending to the wishes of local and foreign dark forces. It is a hatchet job aimed at poisoning the electorate with one-sided and lopsided commentaries designed to tip the balance in favour of rival camps.
This paranoia is unjustified. Mr Kenyatta, Mr Ruto, Mr Muthaura and Mr Sang have co-operated with the ICC from day one. They acceded to the summons, attended the confirmation of charges hearings, at which Mr Kenyatta offered himself as a witness, and their lawyers have been active at the court.
The court process and the choice Kenyans will make in March are two separate and independent issues – something the ICC has acknowledged.
The people of Kenya have come far since they put colonialism behind them and then fought gallantly against independent Kenya dictatorships.
The enactment of a new Constitution in 2010 is the greatest highlight of their desire to be the drivers of their own fate.
But civil society types are determined to put shackles on the hands and legs of Kenyans. In the second decade of the 21st century, Kenyans won’t accept and the evil society will fail miserably.
March 4 2013 is Kenyans’ date with destiny. Many things are unknown, but one thing is clear – Kenyans will vote for freedom, not serfdom to the parrots of William Hague, Hillary Clinton and Kofi Annan.
The writer is a lawyer and TNA secretary for legal affairs. [email protected]