Following the ruling by the Speaker of the National Assembly on the admissibility of the nominees for the position of the Chief Justice, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecution and the Controller of Budget, it is clear that the person Kenyans have had a lot of hopes on decided to be intimidated by threats of a censor motion. It is unfortunate that the good Speaker of the National Assembly, an Advocate of the High Court, is setting a dangerous precedence by making a ruling that is clearly unconstitutional without a blinking of an eye. It is indeed a sad moment for democracy in Kenya as the Speaker has clearly arrogated to himself the position of the Chief Justice, by declaring that even the High Court Ruling is inconsequential in as far as his legal opinion is concerned.
Allow me to shed some light in putting the issue in perspective. The newly promulgated constitution of the Second Republic of Kenya provides for three arms of government, these being the conventional branches of the Executive, legislature and judiciary. Each of these arms has a boundary of where it reaches. The work of the legislature is to make laws and policies, and to provide a checking system of the operations of the executive. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to offer redress whenever justice is denied to any citizen or a section of citizens in Kenya, whether by the state, state agency or a non-state entity. Finally, the executive arm is responsible for the day-to-day operations of state, checked by both the judiciary and the legislature. Plato argued that there can be happiness when each element of the human mind is contended with its position and therefore work in harmony for the fulfilment of state functions.
It therefore came as a surprise that the Speaker of the National Assembly Kenneth Marende, bowing to pressure and threats from the Party of national Unity under the leadership of President Mwai Kibaki, made a ruling as to the admissibility of the irregularly nominated names to the positive. Some members from the President’s side had threaten a censor motion against the speaker should he rule against admissibility of the four names. The whole nation waited with bated breaths for two days to get the speaker’s ruling, at the same time the High Court was to give its ruling on the same issue. Initially, the Judicial Service Commission had cast aspersions on the legality of the President’s move in forwarding the names of the nominated candidates without due consultations as required by the constitution. It has sadly been the practice of President Kibaki to abuse the loopholes in the Constitution whenever his parochial interests are at stake, in total disregard of the spirit and letter of the law. Not so long ago he appointed Keriako Tobiko as the Director of Public Prosecutions. In August last year, Kibaki delayed the promulgation of the Constitution by using frivolous excuses even if form the same constitution. The very president, who is accused of presiding over the country illegitimately, refused the Prime Minister to be Secretary of Cabinet in the spirit of a coalition Government. The appointment of the CID Director was equally controversial as was the appointment of the Leader of Government Business and Chair of the House Business Committee. The President has refused to crack the whip on corrupt elements in his Government, and an excuse on this would be that no cases are ongoing on some of his lieutenants. This means that the President is reactive as opposed to proactive, and that he would wait for others to find fault for him to react.
The ruling of the Speaker is a clear indication of impunity on the legislature. The precedence being set on the basis of “interference from other arms of government” may be applied by the executive arm. It is imperative that the speaker of the national assembly recollects himself and rectify this anomaly before it is too late. The respective parliamentary committees need to be adequately advised, to find flaw in the original ruling by the Speaker. Impunity is simply defined by exercising authority in disregard of the law. It has been a cancer in the governance of Kenya since independence, where government officials in their respective capacities make decisions that are legally questionable, but are let off the hook because the are merely carrying out “orders from above.” This was the excuse given by the individuals netted in the country’s biggest economic sabotage operation, The Goldenberg Affair. It is also evidenced in the police and security forces where extra-judicial killings have been done in the guise of “orders from above.” The new constitutional dispensation is expected to sanitize the governance and politics of Kenya, starting with the highest echelons of power to the grassroots, yet the Speaker of the national Assembly works to retard the advancement already recorded.
In his lopsided ruling, the Speaker claimed to decline to respond to a Constitutional question asked by a Member, on whether it was constitutional for the President to nominate members of the constitutional offices without adequate consultations. By shying away from giving guidance for fear of being censored, the Speaker actually ruled in favour of the President’s unconstitutional nominees. Whether the nomination process was constitutional or not, the four names are already stale, based on the public debate and partisanship that has gone on. The state officers, if appointed, may not carry out their responsibilities with the desired impartiality. A clean set of nominees should be forwarded. In the legal parlance, it is a theory that justice should not only be done, it must be seen to be done. This connotes a political as well as legal process: legal for purposes of balancing and political fro mobilization, and for confidence of the citizenry to the justice system. It is in the public domain that the Attorney General is opposed to the process used by the President to nominate the said officers. The Attorney General is the Government’s chief legal advisor, yet he signed a document critical of acts of the government! Others who questioned the nomination process are the judicial service Commission. Yet despite all these, the Speaker of the National Assembly finds it prudent, in what some media houses have termed “solomonic ruling” of the Speaker. I fault this description, and instead term it as “selfish” ruling.
As the debate on the ensuing events rage, it is important to point out the concept of separation of powers. An ancient Greek philosopher called Plato came up with his argument on what constitutes a just society. He opined that a just society exists where each organ of the society carries out its duties with contentment. He argued that society operates like a human being. The human system, according to him, has three parts: the rational, the spirited and the appetitive elements. For him, there is harmony and inner peace when each of these parts plays their roles. He describes the rational element as the highest, which ought to keep the other two elements under check. However, this element cannot operate in disregard of the other two. There is always a symbiotic relation. The second element, the spirited element, is the element of courage. In a political system, this is the security apparatus. Finally, is the appetitive element, comprising the commoners. Should any of these elements overstep its borders or performs below expectations, then order will be disrupted, to result into anarchy. It happened in the 2007 General Election where the three elements became mixed up with the philosophers, princes and the priests (the three Ps) failed in their societal roles as to take the roles of their fellows. The world witnessed a degeneration of a state into anarchy, throwing into pieces the vested interests of the western economies.
It is this state of affairs foreseen by Plato that Mr. Marende, in his wisdom (or otherwise) wants to bring Kenyans. One unique thing within the legal parlance is that precedence is a source of law. It follows that some elements of Marende’s ruling are fresh entrants in the books of law and some parliaments within the Commonwealth may refer to it. How myopic, then was Speaker Marende as he made his ruling! Kenya has gotten into books of history for initiating a power-sharing governing following a stolen election. It (Kenya) exported a failed system to Zimbabwe, and could do the same to Ivory Coast. Now the Speaker wants to export a selfish ruling to colleagues in the Commonwealth.
It should be remembered that the Speaker’s ruling on the nomination of the leader of Government Business and Chair of the House Business Committee some time back was met with positive comments by all when he (Speaker) declined to be dragged into the wars and power plays within the Executive by declining to make a ruling. He instead took over the leadership of the House Business Committee until the time when the President and the Prime Minister would agree on one name to the position. Indeed, this ruling was not expected. Many had thought the Speaker would rule in favour of his party, the Orange Democratic Movement, whose leader is the Prime Minister himself. Were it constitutional for him to rule in same manner this time round, Marende would have declared himself nominee for the Chief Justice, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Controller of Budget. This indicates that Mr. Marende is power hungry, and a power maximiser per excellence. He has come out on many cases in defence of the independence of the legislature, on many occasions drawing justification from the interference experienced during the Moi era. This is in error because it creates a wrong impression that parliament is the only organ, supreme as to control the other organs. It is indeed abuse of democracy to have Parliament arrogate itself functions of other arms of government. The control of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) by parliamentarians is a sign of deviation and a mockery of democracy. This is an executive function, which should be under check by both the judiciary and legislature. For parliamentarians to take over its management is a political misuse of power as these very managers will use the Fund to further their political ambitions, thus lacking in fairness in distribution of the funds. With the qualifications of some of these members of parliament, anomalies are expected. For one to qualify as a candidate for parliament, literacy is gauged on ability to write and speak in English and Swahili: a standard five dropout, in the Kenyan case is eligible to contest a parliamentary seat, so long as s/he is at least 21 years.
Besides taking over executive functions through resource distribution, the legislature has shown that it can arm-twist the executive to favour the legislature in execution of its responsibilities. This may happen through blackmail from parliament. In the debate over the eviction of squatters in Kenya’s biggest water catchment area, the Mau Forest, the Prime Minister, being the Principal of the two responsible for the conservation of the resource, was threatened of censor by parliamentarians from the Rift Valley region. This is because the eviction was interpreted as a political game by some members of Parliament. It has been a problem in Kenya that the Prime Minister’s moves are seen from the political angle, and from the 2012 succession game tricks as politicians strategise for the General Elections scheduled for 2012. His erstwhile enemies read politics from policies and processes, and strategize on political duel rather than development plans. Parliament thus is reduced to a House to settle political scores both real and imagined. It has led to some members of the executive looking at the government agenda from a point of political mileage rather than development strategy. However, this is not only with regard to the legislature against the executive. Even within the executive itself, it has happened. When Eldoret North MP William Ruto was Minister for Agriculture, his innovativeness and aggressive approach, hands-on style of administration caused his transfer to a less vibrant Ministry of Higher Education. Mr. Ruto solidified his base in the Ministry by moving to all corners of the country in his bid to reform the agricultural sector in Kenya. Some allies of the Prime Minister warned that Ruto’s rising popularity with the people posed a political danger to the Prime Minister. They read sinister motives in Mr Ruto, considering that the Eldoret North MP had fallen out with his party boss. Ruto was disgracefully transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture to a “less prestigious” “white-collar” Ministry of Higher Education, swapping places with the Aldai MP and fellow Kalenjin and diplomatic historian Dr Sally Kosgey.
In conclusion, it is important that state officers consider the larger interests of nation in their actions, decisions and principles. This is the time that Kenyans should be very keen, as it is the formative stages of the implementation of the new Constitution. The nation is still experimenting on the new-found constitution and therefore running a risk of establishing wrong precedence. The actions of the first Chief Justice will be instrumental in the justice system in the country for years to come. This could be the reason why the principals are flexing their muscles to have people who share in their personal philosophies get senior state offices. To give an example, a task force mandated to consider the operations of the county system is chaired by a university don Dr Mutakha Kangu, of Moi University. The law lecturer is an ardent advocate of a federal system of governance, a structure highly regarded by the Prime Minister. The country waits to see the recommendations on the nature of the county governments and how they relate to the centre as proposed by this task force. As the head of the legislature, Speaker Kenneth Marende is yet to make many other rulings, still in line with the process of implementing the Constitution of the Second Republic. Should he mess up as he has done with the present ruling, then the public should demand his replacement, noting that his rulings are for the present generation as well as posterity.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
PREDATORY GOVERNANCE AND QUEST TO JUSTICE: PLACE OF ICC IN NATION STATE AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
COURTESY OF JAVAS ARAFAT BIGAMBO
It is trite law that under international law states ratify or assent to international conventions or treaties in good faith. No state can claim that her ratification of a convention, agreement or declaration is as a result of duress or unorthodox means. It follows then that the adherence to any international instrument is pegged on the principle of Pucta sunt servanda. No country has a right to be involved in the affairs of another otherwise that would amount to abuse of sovereignty. Be it United State of America, Japan or Kenya, international law sees these countries as equals and applies to them in similar manner.
The international community has in history suffered great deal of atrocities, be it racism, terrorism, gender discrimination, apartheid, colonialism, neo- colonialism, genocide, crimes against humanity and many more. It is on this notion that the international community found it necessary to come up with various conventions to counter these atrocities. Raphael Lemkin in coining the term genocide was met with a lot of difficulties as to how the perpetrators of these heinous acts would be punished as justice is given to the victims. The international community therefore set up various tribunals to counter check these acts, the Nuremberg Tribunal was formed and indeed justice was seen to be done. Many of the perpetrators were prosecuted.
Through the years there were many ad hoc tribunals formed to address these atrocities. The Sierra Leone Tribunal, Former Yugoslavia Tribunal and the Rwanda Tribunal were and are still instrumental in curbing these gross violations of human rights. The International Criminal Court (ICC) through the Rome statute was established to prosecute individuals or states or state agencies who commit these atrocities. African states and indeed Kenya having ratified the Rome Statute are not immune to the jurisdiction of the court. It is on this premise that the ICC can at any time intervene in matters that fall within its jurisdiction as long as it is able to prove their commission.
Is ICC a western project? This would be the chicken and egg question; I would sit on the fence when faced with such a quagmire. Reason being that the Western states have always been the ‘big brother’ to African states and therefore dictating whatever they feel deem as long as it serves their interest. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for instance, was violated by the United States of America by having discrimination laws in their national legislation while preaching against the same vice to the developing countries, further, England and other European countries had colonies in many African states: a clear violation of UDHR. ICC may perhaps be another western project in trying to get a grip of African affairs. There have been no prosecutions of George Bush or Tony Blair or any leader who supported war on terror despite it resulting in the deaths of more 48,644 Afghanistan civilians as at 10 the of August, 2010. This in clear terms is violation of the Rome statute but the ICC has closed its eyes and focused on African affairs. The ICC has not prosecuted any government official from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) because the western states are economically gaining from the vast minerals in that country. The ICC has been blind to the mass killings (genocide), rape and persecutions of innocent citizens because it is muzzled in one way or another by the western powers.
On the flip side however, the African states must not be forgiven for the atrocities they commit to their populous. The government of Zimbabwe has through corruption and bad governance neglected its citizens and caused mass deaths of innocent people, Sudan in the Darfur region, Nigeria in the Delta region, Sierra Leone case and of course Kenya in the post election violence are but a few of the African nations that have negated performance of their obligation in the Rome statute. The ICC has been instrumental in ensuring that the perpetrators of these acts are prosecuted. The ICC has been able to instill fear in the governments of the day and in one way or another prevented the violation of these rights.
Kenya must therefore embrace the wrath of ratifying the Rome statute and accept that it has the teeth to bite when the provisions therein are violated. Kenya ratified the Rome statute in good faith and therefore must accept to be bound by its provisions and let the ICC continue with its work. Kenya did not constitute a local tribunal within the given time and therefore indirectly allowed the ICC to take its course, it is further noted that government through its leadership acquiesced to the presence of the ICC prosecutors and even signed various documents giving it the go head in commencing the process. It is critical to note that the lives and properties of many Kenyans were lost, justice must therefore move in with expediency to ensure that those who organized and instigated the violence face the full force of the law. It will be unfair to the victims of the post election violence to be left in limbo without any assistance from the ICC on the guise of sovereignty and territorial integrity by the Kenyan government. The scales of justice must be seen to balance equally.
In conclusion, Africa Union must accept the mandate of ICC and stop inciting its members from abrogating their duty under the Rome Statute, it must instead ensure that its member states do not commit crimes against humanity and then circumvent on technicalities in an effort to derail the process. Kenyan leaders in one way or another are culpable for what happened after the election and therefore must account to the Kenyan citizens. Impunity must never be allowed when it serves the interests of a few well connected political elite rather all must be punished for whatever wrongs they commit despite their social status. As one judge said, no one is too high to be above the law or too low to be beneath the law.
It is trite law that under international law states ratify or assent to international conventions or treaties in good faith. No state can claim that her ratification of a convention, agreement or declaration is as a result of duress or unorthodox means. It follows then that the adherence to any international instrument is pegged on the principle of Pucta sunt servanda. No country has a right to be involved in the affairs of another otherwise that would amount to abuse of sovereignty. Be it United State of America, Japan or Kenya, international law sees these countries as equals and applies to them in similar manner.
The international community has in history suffered great deal of atrocities, be it racism, terrorism, gender discrimination, apartheid, colonialism, neo- colonialism, genocide, crimes against humanity and many more. It is on this notion that the international community found it necessary to come up with various conventions to counter these atrocities. Raphael Lemkin in coining the term genocide was met with a lot of difficulties as to how the perpetrators of these heinous acts would be punished as justice is given to the victims. The international community therefore set up various tribunals to counter check these acts, the Nuremberg Tribunal was formed and indeed justice was seen to be done. Many of the perpetrators were prosecuted.
Through the years there were many ad hoc tribunals formed to address these atrocities. The Sierra Leone Tribunal, Former Yugoslavia Tribunal and the Rwanda Tribunal were and are still instrumental in curbing these gross violations of human rights. The International Criminal Court (ICC) through the Rome statute was established to prosecute individuals or states or state agencies who commit these atrocities. African states and indeed Kenya having ratified the Rome Statute are not immune to the jurisdiction of the court. It is on this premise that the ICC can at any time intervene in matters that fall within its jurisdiction as long as it is able to prove their commission.
Is ICC a western project? This would be the chicken and egg question; I would sit on the fence when faced with such a quagmire. Reason being that the Western states have always been the ‘big brother’ to African states and therefore dictating whatever they feel deem as long as it serves their interest. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for instance, was violated by the United States of America by having discrimination laws in their national legislation while preaching against the same vice to the developing countries, further, England and other European countries had colonies in many African states: a clear violation of UDHR. ICC may perhaps be another western project in trying to get a grip of African affairs. There have been no prosecutions of George Bush or Tony Blair or any leader who supported war on terror despite it resulting in the deaths of more 48,644 Afghanistan civilians as at 10 the of August, 2010. This in clear terms is violation of the Rome statute but the ICC has closed its eyes and focused on African affairs. The ICC has not prosecuted any government official from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) because the western states are economically gaining from the vast minerals in that country. The ICC has been blind to the mass killings (genocide), rape and persecutions of innocent citizens because it is muzzled in one way or another by the western powers.
On the flip side however, the African states must not be forgiven for the atrocities they commit to their populous. The government of Zimbabwe has through corruption and bad governance neglected its citizens and caused mass deaths of innocent people, Sudan in the Darfur region, Nigeria in the Delta region, Sierra Leone case and of course Kenya in the post election violence are but a few of the African nations that have negated performance of their obligation in the Rome statute. The ICC has been instrumental in ensuring that the perpetrators of these acts are prosecuted. The ICC has been able to instill fear in the governments of the day and in one way or another prevented the violation of these rights.
Kenya must therefore embrace the wrath of ratifying the Rome statute and accept that it has the teeth to bite when the provisions therein are violated. Kenya ratified the Rome statute in good faith and therefore must accept to be bound by its provisions and let the ICC continue with its work. Kenya did not constitute a local tribunal within the given time and therefore indirectly allowed the ICC to take its course, it is further noted that government through its leadership acquiesced to the presence of the ICC prosecutors and even signed various documents giving it the go head in commencing the process. It is critical to note that the lives and properties of many Kenyans were lost, justice must therefore move in with expediency to ensure that those who organized and instigated the violence face the full force of the law. It will be unfair to the victims of the post election violence to be left in limbo without any assistance from the ICC on the guise of sovereignty and territorial integrity by the Kenyan government. The scales of justice must be seen to balance equally.
In conclusion, Africa Union must accept the mandate of ICC and stop inciting its members from abrogating their duty under the Rome Statute, it must instead ensure that its member states do not commit crimes against humanity and then circumvent on technicalities in an effort to derail the process. Kenyan leaders in one way or another are culpable for what happened after the election and therefore must account to the Kenyan citizens. Impunity must never be allowed when it serves the interests of a few well connected political elite rather all must be punished for whatever wrongs they commit despite their social status. As one judge said, no one is too high to be above the law or too low to be beneath the law.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
ABUSE OF KENYA'S SOVEREIGNTY
The International Criminal Court has mentioned six potential Kenyan suspects of the heinous killings pursuant to the 2007 post election violence that cost lives of more than1,300 people, destroying property worth billions of Kenya shillings and displacing over 600,000 Kenyans. Indeed the events leading to the political crisis need a critical mind to accord justice not only to the victims but to the facilitators of the violence as well. Justice should not only be done, it should be seen to be done. Justice however applies both ways, both to the offender and the offended. Public opinion may stand an obstacle to the way of justice, as evidenced by the acts of mob injustice. Though a majority of Kenyans seem to be supporting the International Criminal Court in its pursuits of Kenyans who sponsored and financed the post 2007general election violence, various issues need attention as we consider the course of action.
The International Criminal Court itself is an institution established on the principles of international law. As this institution is under consideration, caution should be taken in understanding the operations of the court. In expressing the standpoint of the United States of America in relation to international law, former envoy John Bolton stated categorically that international law is subservient to the law of the United States, and that it is merely international morality, and not obligation. Should this be considered as a reason as to why the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, of which it is the reason, then equality principle of states in the international arena should be reconsidered. China and Israel are other notable states not signatory to the Rome Statute. This means that the most powerful states of the world are not party to the Rome Statute. It leaves the grand institution expected to accord justice internationally to armature states of Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. Logically, it follows that the institution is a tool of the central powers to force the periphery to submission. Stated differently, it is a form of neo-colonialism of the west to impose decisions on the peripheral states.
Several facts have to be stated clearly to shed light on the argument. This argument begins with the disputed presidential result of the 2007 general election. It was a surprise that despite the reports by the international observers that the declaration of the election results by the electoral commission was suspect as to who really won, the American envoy in Nairobi congratulated Kibaki for the ill-gotten victory. Whereas Ranneberger was busy congratulating the incumbent for the stolen victory, the United Kingdom parliament decried the declaration of the presidential result. After wide international outcry, the United States changed its position to question the presidential result. The then Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice called for a real power-sharing deal between the contending parties, that of the Orange Democratic Movement of Raila Odinga and the incumbent Mwai Kibaki’s Party of National Unity. Rice called for a real power-sharing deal, a position that was shared by the European Union. Actually Dr Rice was for the interests of the United States, and not for the suffering masses in Kenya. Kenya is a centre for many American interests in eastern, central and the Horn of Africa, and so the United States could not sit back as they watch Kenya deteriorating into chaos. The coordination of Somali and Sudan offices could be thrown into disarray. Besides, the piracy business in the Indian Ocean coast would thrive.
It is a strategic choice for the developed world to subject the developing world into a state of perpetual poverty and dependence through conditional loans and donations. Should the developing world empower its citizens to self sufficiency, then the North, as the industrialised world is known in International Relations would loose its influence.
The Ocampo six comprise of the head of Kenya’s civil service and secretary to the cabinet Ambassador Francis Muthaura, who mention is an assault to the Presidency of the Republic of Kenya. Due to lack of a strong sense of nationalism by the Kenyan citizenry and the effects of brainwashing through the undiplomatic activities and tendencies of western diplomats notably Mr Michael Ranneberger, a majority of Kenyans believe that the acts of Moreno Ocampo the ICC Chief prosecutor are for the good of Kenya and Kenyans. It is an assault on Kenya’s sovereignty, condemning the state into a failed pariah entity, comparing it to Somalia. By negatively mentioning the secretary to the Kenyan cabinet is a clear indication that the whole structure of Kenya is ailing. Mr Francis Muthaura, alongside former police commissioner Major General Hussein Ali, and a journalist are three non-politicians in the list. This balances three other politicians, Cabinet minister Henry Kosgei, the Chairman of the Orange Democratic Party and Minister for Industrialisation, a close confidant of the Prime Minister. Another notable personality is Uhuru Kenyatta, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, son to the founding President of Kenya and presidential contender in 2012. He comes from President Kibaki’s Kikuyu ethnic group. The third politician is William Samoei Ruto, deputy party leader of the Orange Democratic Party, and a nemesis of the Prime Minister, from the Kalenjin community like Henry Kosgei. From this list, the ICC Prosecutor made calculations to have three pro-ODM and three pro-PNU personalities.
Mr Moreno Ocampo vowed to make Kenya an example of how effective the International Criminal Court can operate. This pronouncement should cautiously be understood as a case where Kenya is made a laboratory specimen for a trial and error experiments. A state celebrating a peaceful constitutional transition giving birth to a Second Republic at a time of peace and stability cannot be a specimen for international political power plays and desire for personal ends of individuals like Ocampo and his ilk. It should be borne in mind that Ocampo himself is a tainted prosecutor scandalled in his efforts to deny justice to suspects appearing before the international criminal court. If he had a clear conscience, it could be expected that he could have investigated two individuals, George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Others to be questioned would include Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powel, Dr Condoleezza Rice, among other people to be implicated in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fact that Moreno Ocampo did not conduct his own investigations is an indication that he relied heavily on the disputed list compiled in an atmosphere of political intrigues and favouritism. The public mentioning of the names in public is a case of lack of professionalism that results in denial of justice to the potential suspects. It would be advisable to take the names to the pre-trial chambers for them to be approved as suspects before mentioning them in public. Alternatively, the suspects could be informed by the prosecutor in a private manner so that they prepare themselves psychologically without affecting their public reputation. What the ICC has done through its prosecutor is to subject innocent Kenyans into psychological torments, as these individuals have families, friends and relatives who would be disturbed with the mention of the names. It is clear that Ocampo is playing into western politics to bar some powerful individuals from free association. In a leaked cable published by the Wikileaks outlet, the American Government has laid strategies to empower the youths in Kenya to oust the incumbent regime. Several individuals have also been banned from visiting the United States on allegations that they are anti-reformists. It is no surprise then that the ICC is an appendage of the United States congress, up to further the interests of the United States around the world.
The invitation of President Omar Hassan El Bashir of the Sudan to Kenya during the promulgation of the new constitution of the Second Republic of Kenya was highly criticised by the western world as the height of impunity on the side of Kenya. Civil society organisations, sponsored by western nations demonstrated in the streets against the invitation, calling for the Government to arrest El Bashir. It is regrettable that the demonstrators were doing so from the viewpoint of the United States and not the regional circumstances. The invitation was in order for two reasons: Kenya is a custodian of the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Accord, an agreement signed in phases in Kenya to end the decades long civil in the northern neighbour. Kenya could not have invited other countries leaving out one of its neighbours. Secondly, there is no morality in international politics, and this the western world knows pretty well. Kenya had its own security and economic interests in inviting Bashir on this very important and historic occasion. It was a way of telling the world that Kenya is an independent state, fully sovereign, able to make decisions without unnecessary interference from outside. If Kenya committed a crime in international law, then legal procedures could be resorted to rather than diplomatic bickering. Suffice to mention that the United States has flouted myriad of international obligations, and would comply after considering political and economic consequences, not legalese. In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States went against every provision of international law by unilaterally attacking the gulf state in an effort to unseat [resident Saddam Hussein. Undiplomatic language was used to put off ardent opposition to the planned invasion. A case in point is the exchange between then US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and the French President Jacques Chirac, when the former told off the latter that France may as well through its UN veto power to the toilet. This was amid diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State Colin Powel who was silently opposed to the war, and later admitted that there were intelligence errors leading to the war. It is the same United States that went against international human rights provisions by establishing concentration camps for terror suspects. The Guantanamo Bay case is a clear indication of this, where terror suspects are incarcerated without trial.
Conclusion
The realist approach to international politics holds that states exist to further their own interests. In his Politics among Nations, Hans Morgenthau argues that interest drive the behaviour of states in their international relations. The United States and other European powers are right to force their desires on the developing world. It is the responsibility of the developing world to find ways to counter these forces in an effort to demand relative fairness.
Moreno Ocampo is striving to justify his position and to build his own name internationally. That is why he engages in public diplomacy and politics rather than in curving out ways of countering international crime. Kenya being a regional force ought to lead by example by emphasising its sovereignty. The conduct of foreign envoys in Kenya should be under radar, and any diplomat flouting or interfering with Kenya’s sovereign status should be deported immediately.
The International Criminal Court itself is an institution established on the principles of international law. As this institution is under consideration, caution should be taken in understanding the operations of the court. In expressing the standpoint of the United States of America in relation to international law, former envoy John Bolton stated categorically that international law is subservient to the law of the United States, and that it is merely international morality, and not obligation. Should this be considered as a reason as to why the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, of which it is the reason, then equality principle of states in the international arena should be reconsidered. China and Israel are other notable states not signatory to the Rome Statute. This means that the most powerful states of the world are not party to the Rome Statute. It leaves the grand institution expected to accord justice internationally to armature states of Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. Logically, it follows that the institution is a tool of the central powers to force the periphery to submission. Stated differently, it is a form of neo-colonialism of the west to impose decisions on the peripheral states.
Several facts have to be stated clearly to shed light on the argument. This argument begins with the disputed presidential result of the 2007 general election. It was a surprise that despite the reports by the international observers that the declaration of the election results by the electoral commission was suspect as to who really won, the American envoy in Nairobi congratulated Kibaki for the ill-gotten victory. Whereas Ranneberger was busy congratulating the incumbent for the stolen victory, the United Kingdom parliament decried the declaration of the presidential result. After wide international outcry, the United States changed its position to question the presidential result. The then Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice called for a real power-sharing deal between the contending parties, that of the Orange Democratic Movement of Raila Odinga and the incumbent Mwai Kibaki’s Party of National Unity. Rice called for a real power-sharing deal, a position that was shared by the European Union. Actually Dr Rice was for the interests of the United States, and not for the suffering masses in Kenya. Kenya is a centre for many American interests in eastern, central and the Horn of Africa, and so the United States could not sit back as they watch Kenya deteriorating into chaos. The coordination of Somali and Sudan offices could be thrown into disarray. Besides, the piracy business in the Indian Ocean coast would thrive.
It is a strategic choice for the developed world to subject the developing world into a state of perpetual poverty and dependence through conditional loans and donations. Should the developing world empower its citizens to self sufficiency, then the North, as the industrialised world is known in International Relations would loose its influence.
The Ocampo six comprise of the head of Kenya’s civil service and secretary to the cabinet Ambassador Francis Muthaura, who mention is an assault to the Presidency of the Republic of Kenya. Due to lack of a strong sense of nationalism by the Kenyan citizenry and the effects of brainwashing through the undiplomatic activities and tendencies of western diplomats notably Mr Michael Ranneberger, a majority of Kenyans believe that the acts of Moreno Ocampo the ICC Chief prosecutor are for the good of Kenya and Kenyans. It is an assault on Kenya’s sovereignty, condemning the state into a failed pariah entity, comparing it to Somalia. By negatively mentioning the secretary to the Kenyan cabinet is a clear indication that the whole structure of Kenya is ailing. Mr Francis Muthaura, alongside former police commissioner Major General Hussein Ali, and a journalist are three non-politicians in the list. This balances three other politicians, Cabinet minister Henry Kosgei, the Chairman of the Orange Democratic Party and Minister for Industrialisation, a close confidant of the Prime Minister. Another notable personality is Uhuru Kenyatta, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, son to the founding President of Kenya and presidential contender in 2012. He comes from President Kibaki’s Kikuyu ethnic group. The third politician is William Samoei Ruto, deputy party leader of the Orange Democratic Party, and a nemesis of the Prime Minister, from the Kalenjin community like Henry Kosgei. From this list, the ICC Prosecutor made calculations to have three pro-ODM and three pro-PNU personalities.
Mr Moreno Ocampo vowed to make Kenya an example of how effective the International Criminal Court can operate. This pronouncement should cautiously be understood as a case where Kenya is made a laboratory specimen for a trial and error experiments. A state celebrating a peaceful constitutional transition giving birth to a Second Republic at a time of peace and stability cannot be a specimen for international political power plays and desire for personal ends of individuals like Ocampo and his ilk. It should be borne in mind that Ocampo himself is a tainted prosecutor scandalled in his efforts to deny justice to suspects appearing before the international criminal court. If he had a clear conscience, it could be expected that he could have investigated two individuals, George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Others to be questioned would include Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powel, Dr Condoleezza Rice, among other people to be implicated in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fact that Moreno Ocampo did not conduct his own investigations is an indication that he relied heavily on the disputed list compiled in an atmosphere of political intrigues and favouritism. The public mentioning of the names in public is a case of lack of professionalism that results in denial of justice to the potential suspects. It would be advisable to take the names to the pre-trial chambers for them to be approved as suspects before mentioning them in public. Alternatively, the suspects could be informed by the prosecutor in a private manner so that they prepare themselves psychologically without affecting their public reputation. What the ICC has done through its prosecutor is to subject innocent Kenyans into psychological torments, as these individuals have families, friends and relatives who would be disturbed with the mention of the names. It is clear that Ocampo is playing into western politics to bar some powerful individuals from free association. In a leaked cable published by the Wikileaks outlet, the American Government has laid strategies to empower the youths in Kenya to oust the incumbent regime. Several individuals have also been banned from visiting the United States on allegations that they are anti-reformists. It is no surprise then that the ICC is an appendage of the United States congress, up to further the interests of the United States around the world.
The invitation of President Omar Hassan El Bashir of the Sudan to Kenya during the promulgation of the new constitution of the Second Republic of Kenya was highly criticised by the western world as the height of impunity on the side of Kenya. Civil society organisations, sponsored by western nations demonstrated in the streets against the invitation, calling for the Government to arrest El Bashir. It is regrettable that the demonstrators were doing so from the viewpoint of the United States and not the regional circumstances. The invitation was in order for two reasons: Kenya is a custodian of the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Accord, an agreement signed in phases in Kenya to end the decades long civil in the northern neighbour. Kenya could not have invited other countries leaving out one of its neighbours. Secondly, there is no morality in international politics, and this the western world knows pretty well. Kenya had its own security and economic interests in inviting Bashir on this very important and historic occasion. It was a way of telling the world that Kenya is an independent state, fully sovereign, able to make decisions without unnecessary interference from outside. If Kenya committed a crime in international law, then legal procedures could be resorted to rather than diplomatic bickering. Suffice to mention that the United States has flouted myriad of international obligations, and would comply after considering political and economic consequences, not legalese. In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States went against every provision of international law by unilaterally attacking the gulf state in an effort to unseat [resident Saddam Hussein. Undiplomatic language was used to put off ardent opposition to the planned invasion. A case in point is the exchange between then US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and the French President Jacques Chirac, when the former told off the latter that France may as well through its UN veto power to the toilet. This was amid diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State Colin Powel who was silently opposed to the war, and later admitted that there were intelligence errors leading to the war. It is the same United States that went against international human rights provisions by establishing concentration camps for terror suspects. The Guantanamo Bay case is a clear indication of this, where terror suspects are incarcerated without trial.
Conclusion
The realist approach to international politics holds that states exist to further their own interests. In his Politics among Nations, Hans Morgenthau argues that interest drive the behaviour of states in their international relations. The United States and other European powers are right to force their desires on the developing world. It is the responsibility of the developing world to find ways to counter these forces in an effort to demand relative fairness.
Moreno Ocampo is striving to justify his position and to build his own name internationally. That is why he engages in public diplomacy and politics rather than in curving out ways of countering international crime. Kenya being a regional force ought to lead by example by emphasising its sovereignty. The conduct of foreign envoys in Kenya should be under radar, and any diplomat flouting or interfering with Kenya’s sovereign status should be deported immediately.
ABUSE OF SOVEREIGNTY
The International Criminal Court has mentioned six potential Kenyan suspects of the heinous killings pursuant to the 2007 postelection violence that cost lives of more than1,300 people, destroying property worth billions of Kenya shillings and displacing over 600,000 Kenyans. Indeed the events leading to the political crisis need a critical mind to accord justice not only to the victims but to the facilitators of the violence as well. Justice should not only be done, it should be seen to be done. Justice however applies both ways, both to the offender and the offended. Public opinion may stand an obstacle to the way of justice, as evidenced by the acts of mob injustice. Though a majority of Kenyans seem to be supporting the International Criminal Court in its pursuits of Kenyans who sponsored and financed the post 2007general election violence, various issues need attention as we consider the course of action.
The International Criminal Court itself is an institution established on the principles of international law. As this institution is under consideration, caution should be taken in understanding the operations of the court. In expressing the standpoint of the United States of America in relation to international law, former envoy John Bolton stated categorically that international law is subservient to the law of the United States, and that it is merely international morality, and not obligation. Should this be considered as a reason as to why the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, of which it is the reason, then equality principle of states in the international arena should be reconsidered. China and Israel are other notable states not signatory to the Rome Statute. This means that the most powerful states of the world are not party to the Rome Statute. It leaves the grand institution expected to accord justice internationally to armature states of Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. Logically, it follows that the institution is a tool of the central powers to force the periphery to submission. Stated differently, it is a form of neo-colonialism of the west to impose decisions on the peripheral states.
Several facts have to be stated clearly to shed light on the argument. This argument begins with the disputed presidential result of the 2007 general election. It was a surprise that despite the reports by the international observers that the declaration of the election results by the electoral commission was suspect as to who really won, the American envoy in Nairobi congratulated Kibaki for the ill-gotten victory. Whereas Ranneberger was busy congratulating the incumbent for the stolen victory, the United Kingdom parliament decried the declaration of the presidential result. After wide international outcry, the United States changed its position to question the presidential result. The then Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice called for a real power-sharing deal between the contending parties, that of the Orange Democratic Movement of Raila Odinga and the incumbent Mwai Kibaki's Party of National Unity. Rice called for a real power-sharing deal, a position that was shared by the European Union. Actually Dr Rice was for the interests of the United States, and not for the suffering masses in Kenya. Kenya is a centre for many American interests in eastern, central and the Horn of Africa, and so the United States could not sit back as they watch Kenya deteriorating into chaos. The coordination of Somali and Sudan offices could be thrown into disarray. Besides, the piracy business in the Indian Ocean coast would thrive.
It is a strategic choice for the developed world to subject the developing world into a state of perpetual poverty and dependence through conditional loans and donations. Should the developing world empower its citizens to self sufficiency, then the North, as the industrialised world is known in International Relations would loose its influence.
The Ocampo six comprise of the head of Kenya's civil service and secretary to the cabinet Ambassador Francis Muthaura, who mention is an assault to the Presidency of the Republic of Kenya. Due to lack of a strong sense of nationalism by the Kenyan citizenry and the effects of brainwashing through the undiplomatic activities and tendencies of western diplomats notably Mr Michael Ranneberger, a majority of Kenyans believe that the acts of Moreno Ocampo the ICC Chief prosecutor are for the good of Kenya and Kenyans. It is an assault on Kenya's sovereignty, condemning the state into a failed pariah entity, comparing it to Somalia. By negatively mentioning the secretary to the Kenyan cabinet is a clear indication that the whole structure of Kenya is ailing. Mr Francis Muthaura, alongside former police commissioner Major General Hussein Ali, and a journalist are three non-politicians in the list. This balances three other politicians, Cabinet minister Henry Kosgei, the Chairman of the Orange Democratic Party and Minister for Industrialisation, a close confidant of the Prime Minister. Another notable personality is Uhuru Kenyatta, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, son to the founding President of Kenya and presidential contender in 2012. He comes from President Kibaki's Kikuyu ethnic group. The third politician is William Samoei Ruto, deputy party leader of the Orange Democratic Party, and a nemesis of the Prime Minister, from the Kalenjin community like Henry Kosgei. From this list, the ICC Prosecutor made calculations to have three pro-ODM and three pro-PNU personalities.
Mr Moreno Ocampo vowed to make Kenya an example of how effective the International Criminal Court can operate. This pronouncement should cautiously be understood as a case where Kenya is made a laboratory specimen for a trial and error experiments. A state celebrating a peaceful constitutional transition giving birth to a Second Republic at a time of peace and stability cannot be a specimen for international political power plays and desire for personal ends of individuals like Ocampo and his ilk. It should be borne in mind that Ocampo himself is a tainted prosecutor scandalled in his efforts to deny justice to suspects appearing before the international criminal court. If he had a clear conscience, it could be expected that he could have investigated two individuals, George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Others to be questioned would include Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powel, Dr Condoleezza Rice, among other people to be implicated in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fact that Moreno Ocampo did not conduct his own investigations is an indication that he relied heavily on the disputed list compiled in an atmosphere of political intrigues and favouritism. The public mentioning of the names in public is a case of lack of professionalism that results in denial of justice to the potential suspects. It would be advisable to take the names to the pre-trial chambers for them to be approved as suspects before mentioning them in public. Alternatively, the suspects could be informed by the prosecutor in a private manner so that they prepare themselves psychologically without affecting their public reputation. What the ICC has done through its prosecutor is to subject innocent Kenyans into psychological torments, as these individuals have families, friends and relatives who would be disturbed with the mention of the names. It is clear that Ocampo is playing into western politics to bar some powerful individuals from free association. In a leaked cable published by the Wikileaks outlet, the American Government has laid strategies to empower the youths in Kenya to oust the incumbent regime. Several individuals have also been banned from visiting the United States on allegations that they are anti-reformists. It is no surprise then that the ICC is an appendage of the United States congress, up to further the interests of the United States around the world.
The invitation of President Omar Hassan El Bashir of the Sudan to Kenya during the promulgation of the new constitution of the Second Republic of Kenya was highly criticised by the western world as the height of impunity on the side of Kenya. Civil society organisations, sponsored by western nations demonstrated in the streets against the invitation, calling for the Government to arrest El Bashir. It is regrettable that the demonstrators were doing so from the viewpoint of the United States and not the regional circumstances. The invitation was in order for two reasons: Kenya is a custodian of the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Accord, an agreement signed in phases in Kenya to end the decades long civil in the northern neighbour. Kenya could not have invited other countries leaving out one of its neighbours. Secondly, there is no morality in international politics, and this the western world knows pretty well. Kenya had its own security and economic interests in inviting Bashir on this very important and historic occasion. It was a way of telling the world that Kenya is an independent state, fully sovereign, able to make decisions without unnecessary interference from outside. If Kenya committed a crime in international law, then legal procedures could be resorted to rather than diplomatic bickering. Suffice to mention that the United States has flouted myriad of international obligations, and would comply after considering political and economic consequences, not legalese. In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States went against every provision of international law by unilaterally attacking the gulf state in an effort to unseat [resident Saddam Hussein. Undiplomatic language was used to put off ardent opposition to the planned invasion. A case in point is the exchange between then US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and the French President Jacques Chirac, when the former told off the latter that France may as well through its UN veto power to the toilet. This was amid diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State Colin Powel who was silently opposed to the war, and later admitted that there were intelligence errors leading to the war. It is the same United States that went against international human rights provisions by establishing concentration camps for terror suspects. The Guantanamo Bay case is a clear indication of this, where terror suspects are incarcerated without trial.
Conclusion
The realist approach to international politics holds that states exist to further their own interests. In his Politics among Nations, Hans Morgenthau argues that interest drive the behaviour of states in their international relations. The United States and other European powers are right to force their desires on the developing world. It is the responsibility of the developing world to find ways to counter these forces in an effort to demand relative fairness.
Moreno Ocampo is striving to justify his position and to build his own name internationally. That is why he engages in public diplomacy and politics rather than in curving out ways of countering international crime. Kenya being a regional force ought to lead by example by emphasising its sovereignty. The conduct of foreign envoys in Kenya should be under radar, and any diplomat flouting or interfering with Kenya's sovereign status should be deported immediately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)