By MACHARIA GAITHO
Posted Sunday, March 24 2013
In Summary
- The public exchanges between supporters of Mr Odinga and Mr Kenyatta were heating up when on Wednesday, Chief Justice and Supreme Court President Willy Mutunga ordered a halt to canvassing of the case outside the courtroom
- Almost immediately Mr Odinga cancelled his rallies, reportedly on advise from his lawyer
- Despite Mr Odinga taking the initiative to call off the rallies, Mr Kimemia still found it fit to call a late-night session of the security committee to address a supposed emergency0
The
statement released late on Wednesday night by Public Service Head
Francis Kimemia might have seemed like a routine advisory, but it
signalled an impending crackdown on dissenting voices.
That
an urgent meeting of the National Security Advisory Council can be
called late in the night to address ‘increasing tension’ would suggest
an imminent threat to national security.
On closer
scrutiny, however it emerges that the ‘threat’ necessitating an
emergency late-night meeting was not the danger of a major new terrorist
attack, a military invasion by a neighbouring country or the outbreak
of major civil strife.
The threat lay in the impasse
over the presidential election results after the Cord alliance
candidate, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, challenged in court the
electoral commission’s verdict that the winner was Deputy PM Uhuru
Kenyatta who contested on the Jubilee coalition ticket.
From
the moment Mr Odinga said he would challenge the presidential election
result in court, he embarked on a series of public activities designed
to bolster his support base.
He continued with his
public campaign even after filing is petition before the Supreme Court
on March 16, and towards the end of last week was organising a series of
countrywide rallies to drum up his case.
Taking his
campaign to the public was a risky and unwise strategy in a climate
where any moves towards mobilising the public are weighed against the
events of five years ago, where protests against President Kibaki’s
disputed re-election escalated into the bloodbath that almost
dismembered the nation.
Indeed Mr Odinga opened himself
up to attacks from the Kenyatta camp alluding to the ‘mass action’ he
called after losing a suspect count in 2007 spiralled out of control.
Mr Odinga’s claims that he was the winner of the March 4 elections provoked a response from President-elect Kenyatta.
The
public exchanges between supporters of Mr Odinga and Mr Kenyatta were
heating up when on Wednesday, Chief Justice and Supreme Court President
Willy Mutunga ordered a halt to canvassing of the case outside the
courtroom.
Almost immediately Mr Odinga cancelled his rallies, reportedly on advise from his lawyers.
Despite
Mr Odinga taking the initiative to call off the rallies, Mr Kimemia
still found it fit to call a late-night session of the security
committee to address a supposed emergency.
A statement
that came out of the meeting, released by government spokesman Muthui
Kariuki, came up with a raft of measures to address the supposed
security threat, most notably a blanket ban on processions and rallies
organised by the PM.
Considering that Mr Odinga had
already cancelled his planned rallies, it appears the intention of the
tough warning was to signal to the public that it was the security
committee that had forced him to back down.
The
badly-crafted statement read, in part: “Such meetings could obsolete
(sic) gains made from the peaceful conduct of elections which
demonstrated to the world that Kenya’s democracy had matured and
investors were already releasing investment capital”.
Another
intention of the message was to send the signal that Mr Odinga was
Prime Minister in name only; that he was no longer part of the command
structure that was now reporting to President-elect Kenyatta
irrespective of the fact that a Supreme Court decision was awaited to
determine the electoral outcome.
In direct reference to
the court hearing, the government statement issued a stern warning to
Mr Odinga’s supporters, referring to them as “idle, noisy mobs
congregating outside Supreme Court of Kenya…any attempts to disrupt,
discredit or intimidate the Courts, IEBC or other institutions of the
State will not be tolerated.”
But as Mr Kimemia was
issuing this warning, it was clear that he chose to ignore a move to
intimidate the Judiciary by Mr Kenyatta’s supporters.
This was in the form of a public campaign on social media
targeting Justice Mutunga and other Supreme Court judges the Kenyatta
camp is apparently nervous about.
After the election
petition was filed, bloggers and social media activists known to work
for the Kenyatta campaign machine under the ‘Team Uhuru’ banner started
posting on social media a harsh campaign seemingly aimed at setting the
ground for a move to force the CJ out of the case on grounds that he was
close to Mr Odinga, and to civil society groups that had filed their
own petition.
The main evidence’ was past remarks by Mr Mutunga, before he joined the Judiciary, expressing admiration for Mr Odinga.
The
campaign also drew links between Mr Mutunga and various key players in
civil society groups dating back to his time as founder-director of the
Kenya Human Rights Commission and later as a key local official of the
Ford Foundation.
The intention was to place the Chief
Justice at the centre of what was projected as a grand conspiracy
involving western nations and their development agencies operating in
Kenya together with major civil society groups that have benefited from
funding.
The online campaign soon moved to the
mainstream newspapers with a series of Opinion articles in the past week
echoing the same theme.
What caught suspicion,
however, was that most of the articles were reaching the newspapers
through circuitous routes, but ultimately were traceable to the same
grouping of operatives serving as media liaisons for political
campaigns. In tone, style and content they were remarkably similar,
almost as if written by the same person. The biggest giveaway was that
they were nearly all written under fictitious names.
All
claimed in similar fashion that the petitions against Mr Kenyatta’s
electoral victory were inspired by western countries through local civil
society groups; that the CJ had close links to such groups and was a
known admirer of Mr Odinga; and therefore must be removed from the
Supreme Court panel that will hear the election petition.
Some
of the social media postings went further to demand the removal of
Justice Jackton B Ojwang’ on claims that his wife was associated with
ODM. Others listed the judges ‘suitable’ to hear the petition.
The
Supreme Court presently has six judges pending the swearing-in of
Deputy Chief Justice Kalpana Rawal. The Court must have a quorum of no
less than five judges, so if two are removed, it would not be able to
hear the case.
There is no indication, however that the
Mr Kenyatta’s legal team is linked to or at all aware of the campaign
against the Chief Justice. There has also been no hint as of yet that a
formal application will be launched to have him withdraw.
Mr Gaitho is Managing Editor Special Projects, Daily Nation
No comments:
Post a Comment