22, 2013 - 00:00 -- BY KOIGI WAMWERE
The news that it was Raila Odinga who wrote a letter to the
British Prime Minister David Cameron advising him to politically settle the Mau
Mau case out of court to avoid truth of British atrocities against Mau Mau
splashing international news headlines, “opening up old wounds and whipping up
emotions as the court delves into the details” of colonial horrors against
Kenyans hit me like a thunderbolt.
As a Kenyan Prime Minister I would have thought it was the
duty of Raila Odinga to take a legal or political course that would best serve
Kenyan interests and not advocate measures to save the British from the truth
of their atrocities. Raila was neither employed by Kenya to work for Britain
nor by Britain to work against Kenya.
One would think that as a Kenyan leader, Raila would have
sought an expeditious full trial of the Mau Mau case, to bring out truth that
would have confirmed to Kenyans and the world that both British colonial
occupation and war against independence of Kenya were perpetrated through
torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The truth of British atrocities against Mau Mau would have
legally and morally weakened the British while strengthening Kenya and Mau Mau
in negotiating for a better compensation from Britain.
Shockingly, instead of Raila welcoming the opportunity of
Kenya getting justice from Britain, Raila was worried that details of British
torture would whip Kenyan emotions against Britain and hurt relations between
the two countries.
But can’t relations between Kenya and Britain be based upon
truth and reconciliation, rather than concealment of truth and too many
concessions to Britain.
Having decided to protect relations between Britain and
Kenya that would have suffered from a full trial of the Mau Mau case, it is
logical that Raila would consequently endorse the meager compensation of
Sh350,000 for each Mau Mau for seven years of detention, torture, ruin of
family, loss of health and land.
Though Raila argues good compensation for the Mau Mau was
not fundamental, one wonders, had he not been accommodated by the current
system and sued the State for compensation of eight years of detention and
torture, would he gladly accept less than an MP’s one month salary?
If Raila is seeking justice for Kenya, why did he not push
David Cameron and Britain to pay Kenya Sh420 billion that Muammar Gaddafi pushed Italy to pay
Libya for the same sin of colonial occupation? Does it justify Britain to pay
Mau Mau a partly Sh2 billion merely because they were not fighting for money
but freedom?
What was Raila’s interest in advising an out of court
settlement to save Britain from cases of other Mau Mau that are not included in
the anticipated settlement and similar cases from other former colonies of
Britain?
Clearly, Raila advice in the Mau Mau case is not in the
interests of Kenya or even the Mau Mau. But if Raila was not working for Kenyan
interests and was advancing British interests, was it for money or just
positioning himself to get British acceptance as Kenya's 4th President?
Even if Raila’s involvement in the Mau Mau case was for
political and not monetary gain, he still disappoints because it confirms that
as Prime Minister Raila had been pushing for Mothers of Political Prisoners
whom police brutalised when demanding release of their sons at Uhuru Park, to
be paid old persons’ welfare allowance of Sh2,000 per month instead of suing
the State for higher compensation.
Raila was also rumoured to support an out of court
settlement of uniform compensation of Sh2 million for all victims of past
detentions, political imprisonments and torture in Nyayo House, prisons and
police cells irrespective of nature and period of torture.
The tragedy is that some judges have bought Raila’s thinking
and have been compensating victims of torture minimally, arguing they did not
fight for money but liberty, the freedom they fought for is priceless and their
suffering is beyond compensation.
Be that as it may, it cannot justify minimal, useless and
meaningless under-compensation of those who bore the brunt of torture, economic
and psychological ruin, for Kenyans to be free. Why has Raila changed from a
freedom fighter to a defender of the status quo?
Once I visited Raila’s father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga at his
Kisumu home with my friend the late Mirugi Kariuki. Surprisingly, as we took
our seats, we observed that although the late President Kenyatta and Jaramogi
Oginga Odinga had long fallen out, on the wall of the house hung Kenyatta’s
picture along with those of Julius Nyerere, Kwame Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela, Abdi
Nasser of Egypt and others.
When we asked why Kenyatta’s picture was on the wall, Odinga
told us that the Kenyatta whose picture we saw was his hero, the freedom
fighter who had later become president and metamorphosed into his political
adversary.
As President Kenyatta assumed double identities of hero and
anti-hero, Kenyatta the freedom fighter was the hero while Kenyatta the
President was the anti-hero.
Though Jaramogi said he could not reconcile himself with
President Kenyatta, he said history did not permit him to deny Kenyatta the
freedom fighter the credit of a hero. One wished Kenyatta could be as generous
with Jaramogi but he was not.
Like Jomo Kenyatta, Raila Odinga has become a man of double
identities. The old Raila enjoys the indelible credit of a hero of second
liberation.
The new Raila is like Uhuru or Ruto, a defender of status
quo and economic interests of Britain and the West for ideological acceptance.
Raila the anti-hero must not be confused with Raila the hero.
A Tale Of Two Jomo Kenyattas And Two Raila Odingas
The
news that it was Raila Odinga who wrote a letter to the British Prime
Minister David Cameron advising him to politically settle the Mau Mau
case out of court to avoid truth of British atrocities against Mau Mau
splashing international news headlines, “opening up old wounds and
whipping up emotions as the court delves into the details” of colonial
horrors against Kenyans hit me like a thunderbolt.
As a Kenyan Prime Minister I would have thought it was the duty of Raila Odinga to take a legal or political course that would best serve Kenyan interests and not advocate measures to save the British from the truth of their atrocities. Raila was neither employed by Kenya to work for Britain nor by Britain to work against Kenya.
One would think that as a Kenyan leader, Raila would have sought an expeditious full trial of the Mau Mau case, to bring out truth that would have confirmed to Kenyans and the world that both British colonial occupation and war against independence of Kenya were perpetrated through torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The truth of British atrocities against Mau Mau would have legally and morally weakened the British while strengthening Kenya and Mau Mau in negotiating for a better compensation from Britain.
Shockingly, instead of Raila welcoming the opportunity of Kenya getting justice from Britain, Raila was worried that details of British torture would whip Kenyan emotions against Britain and hurt relations between the two countries.
But can’t relations between Kenya and Britain be based upon truth and reconciliation, rather than concealment of truth and too many concessions to Britain.
Having decided to protect relations between Britain and Kenya that would have suffered from a full trial of the Mau Mau case, it is logical that Raila would consequently endorse the meager compensation of Sh350,000 for each Mau Mau for seven years of detention, torture, ruin of family, loss of health and land.
Though Raila argues good compensation for the Mau Mau was not fundamental, one wonders, had he not been accommodated by the current system and sued the State for compensation of eight years of detention and torture, would he gladly accept less than an MP’s one month salary?
If Raila is seeking justice for Kenya, why did he not push David Cameron and Britain to pay Kenya Sh420 billion that Muammar Gaddafi pushed Italy to pay Libya for the same sin of colonial occupation? Does it justify Britain to pay Mau Mau a partly Sh2 billion merely because they were not fighting for money but freedom?
What was Raila’s interest in advising an out of court settlement to save Britain from cases of other Mau Mau that are not included in the anticipated settlement and similar cases from other former colonies of Britain?
Clearly, Raila advice in the Mau Mau case is not in the interests of Kenya or even the Mau Mau. But if Raila was not working for Kenyan interests and was advancing British interests, was it for money or just positioning himself to get British acceptance as Kenya's 4th President?
Even if Raila’s involvement in the Mau Mau case was for political and not monetary gain, he still disappoints because it confirms that as Prime Minister Raila had been pushing for Mothers of Political Prisoners whom police brutalised when demanding release of their sons at Uhuru Park, to be paid old persons’ welfare allowance of Sh2,000 per month instead of suing the State for higher compensation.
Raila was also rumoured to support an out of court settlement of uniform compensation of Sh2 million for all victims of past detentions, political imprisonments and torture in Nyayo House, prisons and police cells irrespective of nature and period of torture.
The tragedy is that some judges have bought Raila’s thinking and have been compensating victims of torture minimally, arguing they did not fight for money but liberty, the freedom they fought for is priceless and their suffering is beyond compensation.
Be that as it may, it cannot justify minimal, useless and meaningless under-compensation of those who bore the brunt of torture, economic and psychological ruin, for Kenyans to be free. Why has Raila changed from a freedom fighter to a defender of the status quo?
Once I visited Raila’s father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga at his Kisumu home with my friend the late Mirugi Kariuki. Surprisingly, as we took our seats, we observed that although the late President Kenyatta and Jaramogi Oginga Odinga had long fallen out, on the wall of the house hung Kenyatta’s picture along with those of Julius Nyerere, Kwame Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela, Abdi Nasser of Egypt and others.
When we asked why Kenyatta’s picture was on the wall, Odinga told us that the Kenyatta whose picture we saw was his hero, the freedom fighter who had later become president and metamorphosed into his political adversary.
As President Kenyatta assumed double identities of hero and anti-hero, Kenyatta the freedom fighter was the hero while Kenyatta the President was the anti-hero.
Though Jaramogi said he could not reconcile himself with President Kenyatta, he said history did not permit him to deny Kenyatta the freedom fighter the credit of a hero. One wished Kenyatta could be as generous with Jaramogi but he was not.
Like Jomo Kenyatta, Raila Odinga has become a man of double identities. The old Raila enjoys the indelible credit of a hero of second liberation.
The new Raila is like Uhuru or Ruto, a defender of status quo and economic interests of Britain and the West for ideological acceptance. Raila the anti-hero must not be confused with Raila the hero.
As a Kenyan Prime Minister I would have thought it was the duty of Raila Odinga to take a legal or political course that would best serve Kenyan interests and not advocate measures to save the British from the truth of their atrocities. Raila was neither employed by Kenya to work for Britain nor by Britain to work against Kenya.
One would think that as a Kenyan leader, Raila would have sought an expeditious full trial of the Mau Mau case, to bring out truth that would have confirmed to Kenyans and the world that both British colonial occupation and war against independence of Kenya were perpetrated through torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The truth of British atrocities against Mau Mau would have legally and morally weakened the British while strengthening Kenya and Mau Mau in negotiating for a better compensation from Britain.
Shockingly, instead of Raila welcoming the opportunity of Kenya getting justice from Britain, Raila was worried that details of British torture would whip Kenyan emotions against Britain and hurt relations between the two countries.
But can’t relations between Kenya and Britain be based upon truth and reconciliation, rather than concealment of truth and too many concessions to Britain.
Having decided to protect relations between Britain and Kenya that would have suffered from a full trial of the Mau Mau case, it is logical that Raila would consequently endorse the meager compensation of Sh350,000 for each Mau Mau for seven years of detention, torture, ruin of family, loss of health and land.
Though Raila argues good compensation for the Mau Mau was not fundamental, one wonders, had he not been accommodated by the current system and sued the State for compensation of eight years of detention and torture, would he gladly accept less than an MP’s one month salary?
If Raila is seeking justice for Kenya, why did he not push David Cameron and Britain to pay Kenya Sh420 billion that Muammar Gaddafi pushed Italy to pay Libya for the same sin of colonial occupation? Does it justify Britain to pay Mau Mau a partly Sh2 billion merely because they were not fighting for money but freedom?
What was Raila’s interest in advising an out of court settlement to save Britain from cases of other Mau Mau that are not included in the anticipated settlement and similar cases from other former colonies of Britain?
Clearly, Raila advice in the Mau Mau case is not in the interests of Kenya or even the Mau Mau. But if Raila was not working for Kenyan interests and was advancing British interests, was it for money or just positioning himself to get British acceptance as Kenya's 4th President?
Even if Raila’s involvement in the Mau Mau case was for political and not monetary gain, he still disappoints because it confirms that as Prime Minister Raila had been pushing for Mothers of Political Prisoners whom police brutalised when demanding release of their sons at Uhuru Park, to be paid old persons’ welfare allowance of Sh2,000 per month instead of suing the State for higher compensation.
Raila was also rumoured to support an out of court settlement of uniform compensation of Sh2 million for all victims of past detentions, political imprisonments and torture in Nyayo House, prisons and police cells irrespective of nature and period of torture.
The tragedy is that some judges have bought Raila’s thinking and have been compensating victims of torture minimally, arguing they did not fight for money but liberty, the freedom they fought for is priceless and their suffering is beyond compensation.
Be that as it may, it cannot justify minimal, useless and meaningless under-compensation of those who bore the brunt of torture, economic and psychological ruin, for Kenyans to be free. Why has Raila changed from a freedom fighter to a defender of the status quo?
Once I visited Raila’s father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga at his Kisumu home with my friend the late Mirugi Kariuki. Surprisingly, as we took our seats, we observed that although the late President Kenyatta and Jaramogi Oginga Odinga had long fallen out, on the wall of the house hung Kenyatta’s picture along with those of Julius Nyerere, Kwame Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela, Abdi Nasser of Egypt and others.
When we asked why Kenyatta’s picture was on the wall, Odinga told us that the Kenyatta whose picture we saw was his hero, the freedom fighter who had later become president and metamorphosed into his political adversary.
As President Kenyatta assumed double identities of hero and anti-hero, Kenyatta the freedom fighter was the hero while Kenyatta the President was the anti-hero.
Though Jaramogi said he could not reconcile himself with President Kenyatta, he said history did not permit him to deny Kenyatta the freedom fighter the credit of a hero. One wished Kenyatta could be as generous with Jaramogi but he was not.
Like Jomo Kenyatta, Raila Odinga has become a man of double identities. The old Raila enjoys the indelible credit of a hero of second liberation.
The new Raila is like Uhuru or Ruto, a defender of status quo and economic interests of Britain and the West for ideological acceptance. Raila the anti-hero must not be confused with Raila the hero.
No comments:
Post a Comment