By ndolo asasa Esq.
Introduction:
The Witness Protection Act was introduced and passed in parliament in 2006 and came into effect on 1st September 2008 upon being accenting to by the President and publication in the Kenya Gazette.
This Act inter-alia establishes the Witness Protection Agency, Witness Protection Programme, Witness Protection Advisory Board and Witness Protection Tribunal
The Purpose:
The Witness Protection Agency is established (Article 3B-1 of the Act) to provide the framework and procedures for giving special protection, to persons in possession of important information and who are facing potential risk or intimidation due to their cooperation with prosecution and other law enforcement agencies.
The Agency’s mandate(Article 3C-1 of the Act) thus include;
(a) establish and maintain a witness protection programme;
(b) determine the criteria for admission to and removal from the witness protection programme;
(c) determine the type of protection measures to be applied;
(d) advise any Government Ministry, department, agency or any other person on the adoption of strategies and measures on witness protection; and
To execute its mandate, the Agency has, among others, the following powers (Article 3D-1 of the Act);
1) control and supervise its staff in a manner and for such purposes as may be necessary for the promotion of the purpose and the object for which the Agency is established;
(b) administer the funds and assets of the Agency;
(c) receive any grants, gifts, donations or endowments and make legitimate disbursement therefrom;
(d) enter into association with such other persons, bodies, or organizations within or outside Kenya as it may consider desirable or appropriate in furtherance of its object and purpose;
(e) enter into confidential agreements with relevant foreign authorities, international criminal courts or tribunals and other regional or international entities relating to the relocation of protected persons and other witness protection measures;
(e) open bank accounts for the funds of the Agency;
(f) collect, analyze, store and disseminate information related to witness protection;
(g) give such instructions to a protected person as the Agency may consider necessary;
(h) search the protected person and their property and seize items regarded by the Agency to be a threat to the protected person or another person or the integrity of the programme;
(i) summon a public officer or other person to appear before it or to produce a document or thing or information which may be considered relevant to the functions of the Agency within a specified period of time and in such manner as it may specify;
(j) invest the funds of the Agency not currently required for its purposes.
Article 3G(1) of the Act envisions independence for the Agency and underscores non-interference from ANY authority.
Advisory Board.
The following are designated as Witness Protection Advisory Board Members (Article 3P -1&2)
(a) the Minister (thematically in charge of the programme) as chairman;
(b) the Minister responsible for matters relating to Justice;
(c) the Minister responsible for matters relating to Finance;
(d) the Director-General, National Security Intelligence Service;
(e) the Commissioner of Police;
(f) the Commissioner of Prisons;
(g) the Director of Public Prosecutions; and
(h) the Chairperson on the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.
The said Board shall (Article 3Q-1):
i. Advise on the formulation of witness protection policies in accordance with the current law and international best practices;
ii. Have general oversight on the administration of the Agency;
iii. Approve the budgetary estimates of the Agency.
Protection Regulations:
Witness Protection Regulations were gazetted (Gazette Notice No.10/2009) on 29th January 2009 by the Attorney General as provided for under Article 36 of the Act.
These Regulations focus on;
• Ensuring measures are in place to protect the witnesses
• Assisting witnesses to testify
• Maintain confidentiality
• Act impartially when working with other parties
The Constitution:
Chapter 8 Article 118(1) guarantees public participation and involvement in the legislative and other business of Parliament and its committees.
In addition, Article 119 (1) in the same chapter secures the right of every person to petition parliament to consider any matter within its authority.
The constitution further empowers the judiciary to speedily dispense of justice {Chapter 10 Article 159(2)} as guided by the national principle and values of governance stipulated in Chapter 2, Article 10 of the constitution
Parliamentary Standing Orders
The constitution through Chapter 10 {Article 109(1) and Article 124} empowers parliament to pursue its mandate by its own procedures (read Standing Orders).
The Standing Orders of Parliament (2008), Section 196 provides for the establishment of a Parliamentary Committee on Implementation whose mandate among others include;
• Scrutinise the resolutions of the House (including adopted committeereports), petitions and the undertakings given by the Government on the floor of the House.
• Examine whether or not such decisions and undertakings have been implemented and where implemented, the extent to which they have been implemented;
• Ensure such implementation has taken place within the minimum time necessary;
• Establish whether or not legislation passed by the House has been operationalised and where operationalised, the extent to which such operationalisation has taken place within the minimum time necessary.
• The Committee may propose sanctions to the House on any Minister who fails to implement resolutions of the House.
The Status:
1. The Witness Protection Agency has not yet been established 5 years after being passed by parliament, almost 3 years after being gazette.
2. Parliament is not willing or able to effect the Agency’s establishment. No effort has been made to follow up, especially by the Committee on Implementation as empowered by the Standing Orders (N.196)
3. The Advisory Board if constituted with the current office bearers of constituting the Board will largely destroy credibility and confidence in the agency and its capacity to realize its mandate especially with regard to Post Election Violence and Economic Crimes. The envisioned members would thus include the Minister for Internal Security, Police Commsiioner and Mr. Uhuru Kenyatta the Minister for Finance! All these office bearers have adversely been mentioned in regard to the Post Election Violence of 2007/8 by the Waki Report, KNHRC Report and the ICC Prosecutor.
I Suggested the following redresses:
1. Seek judicial compulsion for the government and parliament to execute their mandate and ensure that the Agency is set up as envisioned and established by law
2. Compel the government, through the court and the relevant parliamentary committee, to make the necessary changes in the office bearers of composite membership of the Advisory Board to eliminate any risk of conflict of interest.
Conclusion:
If so redressed, the following will be realized;
• Institutions of government, more so parliament and the executive will be compelled to execute their mandate
• Witness protection will be secured for local and international use
• The public will be mobilized and energized to participate in the implementation of laws and the constitution.
Saturday, 5 March 2011
Sunday, 27 February 2011
FROM THE COUNTY: A LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR DEVOLUTION PROPOSAL by ndolo asasa Esq.
A presentation to The Task Force on Devolution
at Avugwi Hall, Sabatia – Vihiga County on 25th February 2011
My first take is that this Committee has as the expertise and experience to first have developed a draft framework for national input rather than a blanket collection of ideas. This is because
1. There are a lot of reference materials on devolution as expressed variously over time by Kenyans you would have easily accessed including The Saitoti Report of 1991, CKRC report of 2004, the Bomas Report of 2005 and the CoE report of 2010.
2. The constitution already has outlined devolution, this taskforce has the responsibility to make it mare lucid by availing a framework and collating inputs from the citizenry to gauge if it meets and satisfies the imagination and expectations they have expressed over the years and their desires so far.
3. This would then have served to facilitate civic education on the purpose, mechanism and logistics of devolution as globally espoused and stipulated in the constitution.
All the same, we are here and I have the following suggestions on implementation of the devolved government;
a) Chapter 1 Art. 6 of the constitution states that “The governments at the national and county levels are distinct and inter-dependent and shall conduct their mutual relations on the basis of consultation and cooperation.”
While ‘cooperation’ is sufficiently defined and explained in the constitution (Chapter 11 Art. 189), ‘consultation’ has not been so treated and thus should be explained in the framework.
b) Considering Chapter 1, Art.6, the devolution framework should ensure that even the possibility of leadership is distinct by making it clear that if one contests a for a position in the national government, he/she cannot contest a seat in the county government at the same time. I submit so because nothing in the constitution stops anyone from contesting say Presidency and MP, or for my concern President and Governor! I propose that one be allowed to contest any combination of seats so long as the seats are not straddling national and county governments. This will enhance the envisioned devolution and ‘distinctiveness’ of Chapter 1 Art. 6 of the constitution.
c) That the elaborate standards of accountability at the national level be replicated at the county level including;
i. Impeaching the Governor, just like the President
ii. Recalling the Senator and Ward Representative just as the MPs will be recalled
d) Issues touching on core makeup of the county, people’s participation and principles of devolution should be subjected to county referendum without exception
e) That the standards and principles at the national assembly shall apply at the county assembly
f) That the range of county ward numbers be pre-determined and establish as per local parameters. I suggest that the range be between 30 and 90 wards.
g) That responsibility be followed with adequate funding. I propose that, following the practice elsewhere the actual allocation to the counties be realistically pegged at 50% of total revenue and not the minimalist 15% low end benchmark of 15% as provided for by the constitution.
h) Qualifications to leadership: The counties being a devolution of power and leadership from the national level for more effectiveness, I propose that the same standards of qualifications be applied at the county level. After all we are devolving competence nationally!
i) The framework should expressly provide that the county governments will provide sufficient civic and political education for any laws and policies developed for the counties prior to application.
Thank you and be blessed.
at Avugwi Hall, Sabatia – Vihiga County on 25th February 2011
My first take is that this Committee has as the expertise and experience to first have developed a draft framework for national input rather than a blanket collection of ideas. This is because
1. There are a lot of reference materials on devolution as expressed variously over time by Kenyans you would have easily accessed including The Saitoti Report of 1991, CKRC report of 2004, the Bomas Report of 2005 and the CoE report of 2010.
2. The constitution already has outlined devolution, this taskforce has the responsibility to make it mare lucid by availing a framework and collating inputs from the citizenry to gauge if it meets and satisfies the imagination and expectations they have expressed over the years and their desires so far.
3. This would then have served to facilitate civic education on the purpose, mechanism and logistics of devolution as globally espoused and stipulated in the constitution.
All the same, we are here and I have the following suggestions on implementation of the devolved government;
a) Chapter 1 Art. 6 of the constitution states that “The governments at the national and county levels are distinct and inter-dependent and shall conduct their mutual relations on the basis of consultation and cooperation.”
While ‘cooperation’ is sufficiently defined and explained in the constitution (Chapter 11 Art. 189), ‘consultation’ has not been so treated and thus should be explained in the framework.
b) Considering Chapter 1, Art.6, the devolution framework should ensure that even the possibility of leadership is distinct by making it clear that if one contests a for a position in the national government, he/she cannot contest a seat in the county government at the same time. I submit so because nothing in the constitution stops anyone from contesting say Presidency and MP, or for my concern President and Governor! I propose that one be allowed to contest any combination of seats so long as the seats are not straddling national and county governments. This will enhance the envisioned devolution and ‘distinctiveness’ of Chapter 1 Art. 6 of the constitution.
c) That the elaborate standards of accountability at the national level be replicated at the county level including;
i. Impeaching the Governor, just like the President
ii. Recalling the Senator and Ward Representative just as the MPs will be recalled
d) Issues touching on core makeup of the county, people’s participation and principles of devolution should be subjected to county referendum without exception
e) That the standards and principles at the national assembly shall apply at the county assembly
f) That the range of county ward numbers be pre-determined and establish as per local parameters. I suggest that the range be between 30 and 90 wards.
g) That responsibility be followed with adequate funding. I propose that, following the practice elsewhere the actual allocation to the counties be realistically pegged at 50% of total revenue and not the minimalist 15% low end benchmark of 15% as provided for by the constitution.
h) Qualifications to leadership: The counties being a devolution of power and leadership from the national level for more effectiveness, I propose that the same standards of qualifications be applied at the county level. After all we are devolving competence nationally!
i) The framework should expressly provide that the county governments will provide sufficient civic and political education for any laws and policies developed for the counties prior to application.
Thank you and be blessed.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Is the Task Force on Devolution leading us down a garden path? By ndolo asasa Esq
After attending the Vihiga County public forum of the Task Force on Devolution, presenting my views and staying on, I have concluded that it is a waste of time and funds.
It was not well thought out, participation not informed, poorly attended and militarily controlled.
My take is that it would have been better had it;
i). Developed and presented a draft devolution framework as informed by constitution, their rich experience and successful practices elsewhere for public input.
ii). Conducted prior civic education on the same before collecting the same.
iii). Intentionally and purposefully mobilised the political class, especially parliamentarians in their county areas.
I submit that the consequence of current efforts will;
a). Be rejected at parliament level.
b). Result in demand for a 'people-involvement'
c). Receive a lot more of a unconstitutional submissions than substantive devolution inputs on devolution as provided for in our constitution.
All the same, I call on you to attend and submit your views; after all our constitution calls for people participation in governance at all times and levels, doesn't it?
It was not well thought out, participation not informed, poorly attended and militarily controlled.
My take is that it would have been better had it;
i). Developed and presented a draft devolution framework as informed by constitution, their rich experience and successful practices elsewhere for public input.
ii). Conducted prior civic education on the same before collecting the same.
iii). Intentionally and purposefully mobilised the political class, especially parliamentarians in their county areas.
I submit that the consequence of current efforts will;
a). Be rejected at parliament level.
b). Result in demand for a 'people-involvement'
c). Receive a lot more of a unconstitutional submissions than substantive devolution inputs on devolution as provided for in our constitution.
All the same, I call on you to attend and submit your views; after all our constitution calls for people participation in governance at all times and levels, doesn't it?
Thursday, 10 February 2011
APPOINTMENTS OR APPORTIONMENT By ndolo asasa Esq.
10th February 2010.
Later today, parliament will determine upon being given submissions by 2 parliamentary committees on whether the appointments of the Chief Justice, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions and Controller of Budget were done constitutionally or not. Realisation of constitutionalism only starts with the implementation of a constitution. If we get the implementation wrong, we miss constitutionalism. Meaning we tinker with dictatorship, with bad governance, with jungle rule.
Parliament may well miss the mark today if the question they will be answering is either whether the Principals consulted or not OR whether there was agreement between the Principals or not! Those will be the wrong questions to answer.
What must be determined and insisted not only by parliament but by all Kenyans is that the constitution MUST be truthfully implemented. The correct question to be determined then invariably is; were the appointments constitutionally done or not?
I submit:
1). The Implementation Schedule.
This is comprehensively provided for in the 6th Schedule of the New Constitution. True, it provides for timed suspension of immediate application of parts of the new constitution. But this parts are unequivocally specific and the duration of suspension given. These are expressly provided for in Schedule 6 Section (2) and (3) that specifies the Suspension of Provisions for the New Constitution and Extenstion of Application of Provisions of the Former Constitution respectively;
SUSPENDED:
(i) On Elections
“(a) Chapter Seven, except that the provisions of the Chapter shall apply to the first general elections under this Constitution.
(b) Chapter Eight, except that the provisions of the Chapter relating to the election of the
National Assembly and the Senate shall apply to the first general elections under this
Constitution; and
(c) Articles 129 to 155 of Chapter Nine, except that the provisions of the Chapter
relating to the election of the President shall apply to the first general elections under
this Constitution.
(ii) On Devolved Government
“The provisions of this Constitution relating to devolved government, including Article 187, are suspended until the date of the first elections for county assemblies and
governors held under this Constitution.”
(iii) Exemptions
“(a) elections for county assemblies and governors shall be held in accordance with Articles 177 and 180 of this Constitution; and
(b) the laws relating to devolved government, required by this Schedule and Chapters
Eleven and Twelve of this Constitution, shall be enacted within the period stipulated in
the Fifth Schedule.”
(iv) On Land
“Article 62 (2) and (3) is suspended until the National Land Commission is established.”
EXTENDED:
(v) On Citizenship
“Until Parliament passes the Act anticipated in Articles 15 and 18, section 93 of the former Constitution continues to apply.”
(vi) On Composition of Parliament, Voter Registration, Membership of National Assembly,
Parliamentary Service, Parliamentary Service Commission, Exercise of Parliamentary Power and legislation and Procedure in National Assembly EXCEPT prorogation of Parliament and The National Accord.
Sections 30 to 40, 43 to 46 and 48 to 58 of the former Constitution, the provisions of the
former Constitution concerning the executive, and the National Accord and
Reconciliation Act, 2008 (No.4 of 2008) shall continue to operate until the first general
elections held under this Constitution, but the provisions of this Constitution concerning
the system of elections, eligibility for election and the electoral process shall apply to that
election.
(vii) On Police
Until the National Police Service Commission referred to in Article 246 is established, section 108(2) of the former Constitution applies to appointments, discipline and the
removal of persons from office in the National Police Service.
Chief Justice:
Section 24 (2) of the 6th Schedule expressly provides for the appointment of the New Chief Justice without exempting the process of his/her appointment to the substantive provisions on Judicial appointments of the New Constitution. Section 24(2) of the 6th Schedule provides that “A new Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, and after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly.”
Chapter 10 Article 166(1) provides that “The President shall appoint—
(a) the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice, in accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, and subject to the approval of the National Assembly; and
(b) all other judges, in accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission.”
This in no uncertain terms provides for the appointment procedure and the role of the various institutions thus. It is cognizant to note here that the powers of the President are exercised subject to the National Accord and not the National Accord replacing the full constitutionally sanctioned procedure!
Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions:
This is particularly provided for in Chapter 9 Article 156(2) and 157(2) respectively that the President will appoint with approval of the National Assembly. Of course remembering that as at now the President exercises his authority as provided for in the National Accord.
Controller of Budget:
Shall be appointed by the President with the approval of the National Assembly. This is provided for on Chapter 12 Article 228(1)
The Role of the National Assembly.
It is key to note the important role the National Assembly plays in the appointments by way of approval. The approval is not blank trading cheque for the National Assembly to make deals for themselves with the executive, but it is to ensure that the Constitution is fully adhered to in spirit and letter especially in reference to basic qualifications, Chapter 6 (Leadership and Ethics) and the Bill of Rights as emphasized in Chapter 4 Article 19(1), 20(1)& (4), Article 21(1,2&3) with special emphasis Article 27 of the Bill of Rights (Chapter 4).
I, like many Kenyan, have more hope than confidence that as this matter is disposed off and course of constitutionalism determined in Kenya by parliament, LEADERSHIP and NOT DEALERSHIP shall be tipping factor.
By the way, how did the Parliament, the commissioners to boot and seemingly ‘we the people’ accept Mr. Charles Nyachae to be the Chairperson on the Constitution Implementation Commission when the Principals disregarded the laid down procedure to appoint the Chair? Did we start on a wrong footing and subsequently miss the moral high ground to demand full, truthful and faithful implementation of the New Constitution?
Chapter 1 Article 1 of the Constitution is emphatic that “All sovereign authority belongs to the people of Kenya…” and that “we the people, may exercise our sovereign authority either DIRECTLY or through our democratically elected representatives”. Kindly note that direct exercise of sovereign authority is the PRINCIPAL way to be exercised! Meaning, we the people have an unalienable role to provide LEADERSHIP should our representatives seek dealership as is substitute to leading.
Over to parliament, on this path to constitutionalism in Kenya are you going to LEAD or DEAL?
Later today, parliament will determine upon being given submissions by 2 parliamentary committees on whether the appointments of the Chief Justice, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions and Controller of Budget were done constitutionally or not. Realisation of constitutionalism only starts with the implementation of a constitution. If we get the implementation wrong, we miss constitutionalism. Meaning we tinker with dictatorship, with bad governance, with jungle rule.
Parliament may well miss the mark today if the question they will be answering is either whether the Principals consulted or not OR whether there was agreement between the Principals or not! Those will be the wrong questions to answer.
What must be determined and insisted not only by parliament but by all Kenyans is that the constitution MUST be truthfully implemented. The correct question to be determined then invariably is; were the appointments constitutionally done or not?
I submit:
1). The Implementation Schedule.
This is comprehensively provided for in the 6th Schedule of the New Constitution. True, it provides for timed suspension of immediate application of parts of the new constitution. But this parts are unequivocally specific and the duration of suspension given. These are expressly provided for in Schedule 6 Section (2) and (3) that specifies the Suspension of Provisions for the New Constitution and Extenstion of Application of Provisions of the Former Constitution respectively;
SUSPENDED:
(i) On Elections
“(a) Chapter Seven, except that the provisions of the Chapter shall apply to the first general elections under this Constitution.
(b) Chapter Eight, except that the provisions of the Chapter relating to the election of the
National Assembly and the Senate shall apply to the first general elections under this
Constitution; and
(c) Articles 129 to 155 of Chapter Nine, except that the provisions of the Chapter
relating to the election of the President shall apply to the first general elections under
this Constitution.
(ii) On Devolved Government
“The provisions of this Constitution relating to devolved government, including Article 187, are suspended until the date of the first elections for county assemblies and
governors held under this Constitution.”
(iii) Exemptions
“(a) elections for county assemblies and governors shall be held in accordance with Articles 177 and 180 of this Constitution; and
(b) the laws relating to devolved government, required by this Schedule and Chapters
Eleven and Twelve of this Constitution, shall be enacted within the period stipulated in
the Fifth Schedule.”
(iv) On Land
“Article 62 (2) and (3) is suspended until the National Land Commission is established.”
EXTENDED:
(v) On Citizenship
“Until Parliament passes the Act anticipated in Articles 15 and 18, section 93 of the former Constitution continues to apply.”
(vi) On Composition of Parliament, Voter Registration, Membership of National Assembly,
Parliamentary Service, Parliamentary Service Commission, Exercise of Parliamentary Power and legislation and Procedure in National Assembly EXCEPT prorogation of Parliament and The National Accord.
Sections 30 to 40, 43 to 46 and 48 to 58 of the former Constitution, the provisions of the
former Constitution concerning the executive, and the National Accord and
Reconciliation Act, 2008 (No.4 of 2008) shall continue to operate until the first general
elections held under this Constitution, but the provisions of this Constitution concerning
the system of elections, eligibility for election and the electoral process shall apply to that
election.
(vii) On Police
Until the National Police Service Commission referred to in Article 246 is established, section 108(2) of the former Constitution applies to appointments, discipline and the
removal of persons from office in the National Police Service.
Chief Justice:
Section 24 (2) of the 6th Schedule expressly provides for the appointment of the New Chief Justice without exempting the process of his/her appointment to the substantive provisions on Judicial appointments of the New Constitution. Section 24(2) of the 6th Schedule provides that “A new Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, and after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly.”
Chapter 10 Article 166(1) provides that “The President shall appoint—
(a) the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice, in accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, and subject to the approval of the National Assembly; and
(b) all other judges, in accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission.”
This in no uncertain terms provides for the appointment procedure and the role of the various institutions thus. It is cognizant to note here that the powers of the President are exercised subject to the National Accord and not the National Accord replacing the full constitutionally sanctioned procedure!
Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions:
This is particularly provided for in Chapter 9 Article 156(2) and 157(2) respectively that the President will appoint with approval of the National Assembly. Of course remembering that as at now the President exercises his authority as provided for in the National Accord.
Controller of Budget:
Shall be appointed by the President with the approval of the National Assembly. This is provided for on Chapter 12 Article 228(1)
The Role of the National Assembly.
It is key to note the important role the National Assembly plays in the appointments by way of approval. The approval is not blank trading cheque for the National Assembly to make deals for themselves with the executive, but it is to ensure that the Constitution is fully adhered to in spirit and letter especially in reference to basic qualifications, Chapter 6 (Leadership and Ethics) and the Bill of Rights as emphasized in Chapter 4 Article 19(1), 20(1)& (4), Article 21(1,2&3) with special emphasis Article 27 of the Bill of Rights (Chapter 4).
I, like many Kenyan, have more hope than confidence that as this matter is disposed off and course of constitutionalism determined in Kenya by parliament, LEADERSHIP and NOT DEALERSHIP shall be tipping factor.
By the way, how did the Parliament, the commissioners to boot and seemingly ‘we the people’ accept Mr. Charles Nyachae to be the Chairperson on the Constitution Implementation Commission when the Principals disregarded the laid down procedure to appoint the Chair? Did we start on a wrong footing and subsequently miss the moral high ground to demand full, truthful and faithful implementation of the New Constitution?
Chapter 1 Article 1 of the Constitution is emphatic that “All sovereign authority belongs to the people of Kenya…” and that “we the people, may exercise our sovereign authority either DIRECTLY or through our democratically elected representatives”. Kindly note that direct exercise of sovereign authority is the PRINCIPAL way to be exercised! Meaning, we the people have an unalienable role to provide LEADERSHIP should our representatives seek dealership as is substitute to leading.
Over to parliament, on this path to constitutionalism in Kenya are you going to LEAD or DEAL?
Friday, 21 January 2011
THE KANU RACERS
By ndolo asasa Esq.
In 1996 at the Rahimtulla Library, the evergreen Oby Obyerrodhiambo and Odera Aghan superbly presented a narrative, the canoe racers! In the narrative, oarsmen summon and apply all their skills and tactics to win this regular but once in a while competition. They need team work to surmount the massive challenges that include violent sea waves, marauding floating islands and energy sapping sea waters. So as not to re-tell this story, and re-tell it badly as I hardly command the talent and skill of the duo … the winner is always a canoe racer!
Is 2012 going to be our equivalent? A KANU race?
KANU is the party on which Kenya rode to independence. Kenya was under its watch, or is it stare, for a whooping 39 years uninterrupted! During which our own rising political stars were systematically murdered, the economy was put on test as if to establish if it could really ground, many more Kenyans were detained without trial as if to hoist a novel oppression culture to international acclaim!
In anticipation of old age change or worse demise; the KANU system regenerated itself by creating fresh high achievers in subservience, economic ruin and tribal jingoism. And not to be sitting ducks, the KANUlets were dispersed to go and establish safety havens. It is with the benefit of this hindsight that former President Daniel Toroitich arap Kimoi proclaimed that KANU will rule Kenya for 100 years while being cheered on by Sharrif Nassir to the effect that this will be ‘wapende wasipende’!
The KANUlets.
Emilio Mwai Kibaki, Raila Amollo Odinga, Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, Willaim Samoie arap Ruto, Uhuru Muigei Kenyatta, Musalia Mudavadi, Henry Kosgey, Dalmas Otieno, Simeon Nyachae, Gedion Moi have all learnt and sharpened their political skills from the KANU academy. They done it so well that they have driven psyche on leadership to literally start and end with them or their proteges’. So much such that averagely if you convincingly challenge their credentials to lead as a group or individually, you will most probably be asked by many Kenyan ‘so who is the alternative’ or a claimant to reformism or progressiveness will inform you that ‘at least he is better’ and premise that being in KANU was a necessity or a tactic!
It is in this context that the political motions (there is no movement from KANU) we are subjected should be viewed. We are quickly being offered the choices of either KANU or KANU for 2012.
I predict that in the buildup 2012;
1. Raila, Kalonzo, Ruto or Uhuru will only choose a verified KANUlet to be their running-mate should they contest for the Presidency or any other senior political position
2. The many committees that are to be formed to actualize the constitution before 2012 will be populate and or led by scions, associates and brotherhoods of KANUlets
3. Strategic de-campaigns and political harassments are going to intensify against KANUlet outsiders
4. There is going to be a lot of feel-good public make-ups between and amongst KANUlets.
5. The middle class is going to dig in to sustain the status quo through the rebranded KANUlets
My take?
Kenyan must remain vigilant against cheering on the KANU Racers. KANU took away from the people political authority and legal authority, but failed to take moral authority. Over the last 20 or so years, as evidenced in last year’s referendum, Kenyans have reclaimed legal authority.
Now we must reclaim our political authority. This must be done quickly, sharply and clinically, all else the KANUlets will use it (as they still have it) to roll back the legal authority we just secured a few months ago. The arena of this take-over is the political field. Persistently demand political accountability in media, in churches, in funerals, in the morning, evening and night. Thoroughly organise politically. Join political parties. Hold political rallies. Contest elections. Create and mobilize votes. Vote
This is their last bastion. Expect a hell of a fight!
Who is with me?
In 1996 at the Rahimtulla Library, the evergreen Oby Obyerrodhiambo and Odera Aghan superbly presented a narrative, the canoe racers! In the narrative, oarsmen summon and apply all their skills and tactics to win this regular but once in a while competition. They need team work to surmount the massive challenges that include violent sea waves, marauding floating islands and energy sapping sea waters. So as not to re-tell this story, and re-tell it badly as I hardly command the talent and skill of the duo … the winner is always a canoe racer!
Is 2012 going to be our equivalent? A KANU race?
KANU is the party on which Kenya rode to independence. Kenya was under its watch, or is it stare, for a whooping 39 years uninterrupted! During which our own rising political stars were systematically murdered, the economy was put on test as if to establish if it could really ground, many more Kenyans were detained without trial as if to hoist a novel oppression culture to international acclaim!
In anticipation of old age change or worse demise; the KANU system regenerated itself by creating fresh high achievers in subservience, economic ruin and tribal jingoism. And not to be sitting ducks, the KANUlets were dispersed to go and establish safety havens. It is with the benefit of this hindsight that former President Daniel Toroitich arap Kimoi proclaimed that KANU will rule Kenya for 100 years while being cheered on by Sharrif Nassir to the effect that this will be ‘wapende wasipende’!
The KANUlets.
Emilio Mwai Kibaki, Raila Amollo Odinga, Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, Willaim Samoie arap Ruto, Uhuru Muigei Kenyatta, Musalia Mudavadi, Henry Kosgey, Dalmas Otieno, Simeon Nyachae, Gedion Moi have all learnt and sharpened their political skills from the KANU academy. They done it so well that they have driven psyche on leadership to literally start and end with them or their proteges’. So much such that averagely if you convincingly challenge their credentials to lead as a group or individually, you will most probably be asked by many Kenyan ‘so who is the alternative’ or a claimant to reformism or progressiveness will inform you that ‘at least he is better’ and premise that being in KANU was a necessity or a tactic!
It is in this context that the political motions (there is no movement from KANU) we are subjected should be viewed. We are quickly being offered the choices of either KANU or KANU for 2012.
I predict that in the buildup 2012;
1. Raila, Kalonzo, Ruto or Uhuru will only choose a verified KANUlet to be their running-mate should they contest for the Presidency or any other senior political position
2. The many committees that are to be formed to actualize the constitution before 2012 will be populate and or led by scions, associates and brotherhoods of KANUlets
3. Strategic de-campaigns and political harassments are going to intensify against KANUlet outsiders
4. There is going to be a lot of feel-good public make-ups between and amongst KANUlets.
5. The middle class is going to dig in to sustain the status quo through the rebranded KANUlets
My take?
Kenyan must remain vigilant against cheering on the KANU Racers. KANU took away from the people political authority and legal authority, but failed to take moral authority. Over the last 20 or so years, as evidenced in last year’s referendum, Kenyans have reclaimed legal authority.
Now we must reclaim our political authority. This must be done quickly, sharply and clinically, all else the KANUlets will use it (as they still have it) to roll back the legal authority we just secured a few months ago. The arena of this take-over is the political field. Persistently demand political accountability in media, in churches, in funerals, in the morning, evening and night. Thoroughly organise politically. Join political parties. Hold political rallies. Contest elections. Create and mobilize votes. Vote
This is their last bastion. Expect a hell of a fight!
Who is with me?
Thursday, 6 January 2011
A CASE FOR KISWAHILI
By ndolo asasa Esq.
In the year that Kiswahili got recognized at the highest legal level, constitutionally, for the first time in Kenya, it also got the poorest performance trend not only measured versus itself but also versus the other subjects at basic education examination level! This is both a big shame and a sharp wake up call to the nation Kenya.
My take is that the pupils performed poorly. It is not the marking that was poor.
This conclusion is premised on the reality that;
1. Teachers are pumping the pupils with kiswahili terminologies (istilahi) in the name of teaching msamiati.
2. Time allocated to teaching and use Kiswahili language both in class and outside class been kept to below bare minimum.
3. No extra-curricula activity is conducted in Kiswahili in addition to the expectation that only Kiswahili teachers should be speaking the language and only during Kiswahili classes.
4. The instructional and teaching books are almost exclusively developed by graduates and post-graduates – who do not and may never have taught pupils in their career development.
In addition, the larger population has urged on Kiswahili to mediocrity by;
a. Lowering the threshold of speaking Kiswahili. When someone, be it a child or adult, speaks in poor Kiswahili it is considered comedy; but if the same person does so in English or French, we frown, reprimand and effortlessly correct them!
b. Poor Kiswahili is accepted as being social, ya kuomba maji, and Kiswahili sanifu (good Kiswahili) is considered ya insha (for exams)!
c. The myriad radio stations, including, KBC-Idhaa ya taifa, churn out taarifa scripted in bad Kiswahili (news reports); conduct interviews in bad Kiswahili and take pride in playing and replaying songs and political statements made in bad Kiswahili. ACTUALLY, they seem to have a policy not to showcase good Kiswahili speeches and oratory!
d. The biggest barbs go to our political and administrative leadership.
I propose;
1) The starting point be that the new constitution be applied to the letter.
That Kiswahili being constitutionally THE ONLY NATIONAL language and the FIRST official language, all national occasions including holidays, state of the nation address, national communications by the President, Prime Minister, Speaker of the National Assembly, Constitutional Offices and Ministers be addressed in Kiswahili and the off-cuff remarks made in English!
2) All instructional materials for pupils be re-evaluated and revised accordingly.
3) The basic education curriculum be revised anon to take into cognizant and reflect the status of Kiswahili as envisioned and recognized in the new constitution.
4) Set-up and fund a Kiswahili Institute as a national responsibility. This has successfully been done by France, Saudi Arabia, China, Italy among others for the promotion of French, Arabic, Chinese and Italiano respectively.
I will be listening for the first state-of-the-nation address parliament by President Kibaki when it reconvenes for the first time under the New Constitution that puts Kiswahili on an unprecedented high national and official pedestal
Kiswahili Kitukuzwe, au sio? Tujivunie lugha yetu ya pekee ya Kitaifa na awali katika urasmi nchini Kenya!
http://ndoloasasa.blogspot.com/
6th January 2011.
In the year that Kiswahili got recognized at the highest legal level, constitutionally, for the first time in Kenya, it also got the poorest performance trend not only measured versus itself but also versus the other subjects at basic education examination level! This is both a big shame and a sharp wake up call to the nation Kenya.
My take is that the pupils performed poorly. It is not the marking that was poor.
This conclusion is premised on the reality that;
1. Teachers are pumping the pupils with kiswahili terminologies (istilahi) in the name of teaching msamiati.
2. Time allocated to teaching and use Kiswahili language both in class and outside class been kept to below bare minimum.
3. No extra-curricula activity is conducted in Kiswahili in addition to the expectation that only Kiswahili teachers should be speaking the language and only during Kiswahili classes.
4. The instructional and teaching books are almost exclusively developed by graduates and post-graduates – who do not and may never have taught pupils in their career development.
In addition, the larger population has urged on Kiswahili to mediocrity by;
a. Lowering the threshold of speaking Kiswahili. When someone, be it a child or adult, speaks in poor Kiswahili it is considered comedy; but if the same person does so in English or French, we frown, reprimand and effortlessly correct them!
b. Poor Kiswahili is accepted as being social, ya kuomba maji, and Kiswahili sanifu (good Kiswahili) is considered ya insha (for exams)!
c. The myriad radio stations, including, KBC-Idhaa ya taifa, churn out taarifa scripted in bad Kiswahili (news reports); conduct interviews in bad Kiswahili and take pride in playing and replaying songs and political statements made in bad Kiswahili. ACTUALLY, they seem to have a policy not to showcase good Kiswahili speeches and oratory!
d. The biggest barbs go to our political and administrative leadership.
I propose;
1) The starting point be that the new constitution be applied to the letter.
That Kiswahili being constitutionally THE ONLY NATIONAL language and the FIRST official language, all national occasions including holidays, state of the nation address, national communications by the President, Prime Minister, Speaker of the National Assembly, Constitutional Offices and Ministers be addressed in Kiswahili and the off-cuff remarks made in English!
2) All instructional materials for pupils be re-evaluated and revised accordingly.
3) The basic education curriculum be revised anon to take into cognizant and reflect the status of Kiswahili as envisioned and recognized in the new constitution.
4) Set-up and fund a Kiswahili Institute as a national responsibility. This has successfully been done by France, Saudi Arabia, China, Italy among others for the promotion of French, Arabic, Chinese and Italiano respectively.
I will be listening for the first state-of-the-nation address parliament by President Kibaki when it reconvenes for the first time under the New Constitution that puts Kiswahili on an unprecedented high national and official pedestal
Kiswahili Kitukuzwe, au sio? Tujivunie lugha yetu ya pekee ya Kitaifa na awali katika urasmi nchini Kenya!
http://ndoloasasa.blogspot.com/
6th January 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)