Security team bent on silencing dissenting voices

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

inShare

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