Kitabu cha Saa ya Ukombozi Chapitishwa Kufundishwa Mashuleni

CCM Wanapochomoleana Fyuzi, Walevi Tuchomoe Nini?

Zamani nilidhani ulabu huwalabua walevi nisijue na wanasiasia kadhalika. Juzi nilicheka baada ya kushangaa mbali na kuhuzunika. Sijui ni njaa au ulabu, wala mie sijui. Nilipomsikia Katibu mkuu wa zama wa Numero Uno na Katibu Mkuu Kiongozaji Mstaafu Balozi wa ghafla bin vu Bushir Aliye Kakufurwa, sikushangaaaaaa saana tu mbali na kuchanganyikiwa hata kuudhika. Bushiri––––siyo yule bin Salum–––habithi aliyewatesa na kuwauza babu zetu utumwani, alikaririwa hivi karibuni akiramba matapishiye. Aliporusha mabomu yake, mlevi mmoja alisikika akisema “Msomi gani huyu asosoma alama za nyakati?!!!” Kama mpiga ulabu, nilimjibu “usomi wa mlevi hauondoi ulevi wake. Hivyo, nilitoa hitimisho kuwa huyu Bushiri na yule wa utumwa wote sawa tofauti ni njeo na watokako mbali na. namna wafanyayo wayafanyayo. Yote katika yote, wote ni wauzaji wa roho za walevi. Hivi inakuwaje bata ancheke kuku kuharisha? Inakuwaje ngamia amcheke nungu ng’ombe? Inakuwaje Bushiri awazodoe wenzake huku akijifanya anawapa ushauri walevi waliwaji wanaosifia ulaji wanaopewa na Maza wakati yeye alikuwa akisifia kila alichofanya Mwendazake?  Muda wote wanaliwa wewe ulikuwa wapi kama kweli unawapendaga? Kipindi hiki umenoa na itakula kwako kama siyo kuula wa chuya. Haingizwi mkenge mlevi hapa.
Baada ya kupiga ulabu wa kisiasa na kuutumeshwa na Maza baada ya yule aliyemtengeza kuitwa na Mola wake, Bushiri aliamua kuja na staili yake ya kulipiza kisasi. Alilamua kujitia uchizi kiasi cha kufyatua fyuzi kama wasemavyo wenzake. Akisikia neno kuupiga anaudhika hadi kuanza kupinga kuwa walevi wasiseme Maza anaupiga mwingi. Japo usemayo ni kweli, wewe si mkweli. Si mkweli kwa sababu unajifanya mwenzetu wakati u mwenzao. Unajifanya kutetea walevi kwa uongo huku ukiuficha na kuuepa ukweli. Mbali na kutuambia walevi urongo, unatuhadaa eti unaona haki wakati wewe ndiye kuhani wa kuifuja na kuikanyaga. Unasema watawala ni wanyonyaji wakati ukiwa kwenye utawala na utu wala yaani Uheshimiwa Chawa–––kwa mujibu wa Kibajaji na Msukuma. Siku zote chawa humnyonya binadamu. Okay. Kama maadui zako ni chawa, wewe ni nani? Nani alikupigia kura ya uheshimiwa wako kama siyo Maza kukuepusha aibu na kukupa uheshimiwa ambao sasa hivi wenzako wanauita uchawa?
Sitaki nikuite mnafiki. Wenzako watafanya kazi hiyo barabara  japo ni sifa mbaya sana hata kama unayo. Je imekuwaje ukasahau ulivyokuwa ukisifia kila alichokuwa akifanya mwendazake hata kama hakikuwa sahihi? Ni kwa sababu ya kulinda ulaji wako binafsi au unafiki? Ulipokuwa kwenye ulaji, madhambi ya kusifu na kushukuru uliyatenda vyema. Inakuwaje sasa yawe nongwa yakifanywa na wengine wanaolinda ulaji wao? Ama kweli nonihino haoni nonihino lake. Au teseme ni yale ya mwalimu wangu usinibaini, wajinga ndiyo waliwao. Wajinga wanaweza kuliwa wakiona na kunyamaza lakini si walevi. Walevi lazima watapiga kelele kama unavyowasikia wakimuwakia mlevi mwenzao. Tofauti ya walevi wa ulabu na ule wa maulaji ni kwamba wale wa maulaji wanasahau haraka. Huwa hawana kumbukumbu. Wanachokumbuka ni ndoto na ulaji wao.
Hivi huyu Bushiri huwa ana washauri? Je huwa anapitia taarifa zake za huko nyuma alipokuwa akiteuliwa kila uchao hata bila ya sifa na uzoefu? Namkumbuka akiwa pale Chuo Kikubwa akitema cheche. Hata hivyo, aliporambishwa ulaji si akasahau kila kitu na kupwakia matapishi yake! Hapa ndipo niliona usomi uchwara wa wale waliotumia muda mwingi madarasani wasielimike. Si vibaya kupewa ulaji. Unapoupata, lazima utumie busara. Usipayuke. Ikitokea ukapayuka, ukitimuliwa unauchuna kama siyo wewe na kujifanya kuwa kilichotokea ni ajali kama ajali nyingine. Kwanini Bushiri hakuuchuna kama Porofwedheha Kabundi aliyesifika kujidhalilisha akaishia kuweka kando na akauchuna na kuumia kimya kimya? 
Wahenga walinena. Aliyeko juu mngoje down. Akitua down utamsikia akilalama utadhani hakutokea huko. Ningekuwa Bushiri, ningetafuta chuo kikubwa nikapiga chaki au hata madrasa nikafunza vimamuma badala ya kujivua nguo. Hebu angali anavyoshukiwa na wasaka tonge tena wasiojua hata darasa ni nini. Sijui ndiyo ile dhambi inamtafuna. Hata sijui. Kama kusifia ni sera ya chama, wewe ni nani wa kuionea kichefuchefu wakati ulaji wako wote unatokana na hulka na tabia hii? Inakuwaje uone ubaya wa kushukuru na kusifia baada ya kupunguziwa maulaji kama siyo ujinga na unafiki? Wote waseme. Lakini siyo Nshomile Bushiri Kaakulwa.
Ngoja nikaupige ulabu mwingi. Leo chichemi mengi dugu yangu pendwa sana Bushiri. Nenda kwa Maza omba yeye sahama kabla kukata ile laji yako nakupa kiburi. Veve iko bunge ya kulu. Vako naita veve chawa. Kwanini chomoa fyuzi kufanya ile mingine adui vako nayo chomoa? Chomeka fyuzi dugu yangu kabla mama chomoa veve dugu yangu. Kama veve chomoa fyuzi dugu yangu levi tachomoa nini? Tuonane next time.

Chanzo: Jamhuri

JLAC confirms Kenya’s fake democracy

IEBC commissioners from left: Justus Nyang'aya, Francis Wanderi, Vice-chairperson Juliana Cherera and Irene Masit at Serena Hotel, Nairobi on August 16, 2022. Four petitions were presented to the National Assembly seeking the removal of the four commissioners.

    By Makau Mutua        Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC

In the last four weeks, I’ve published in this column a series on what I’ve called “Kenya’s fake democracy”. American inventor and thinker Benjamin Franklin is known for many great achievements, but one of the pithiest was a saying on democracy and liberty that has stood the test of time. The maestro opined that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor security”.
        I’ve seen a lot of this in Kenya since the August 9 elections as quislings multiply by the second. The last obsequious show of complicity with shameless and incipient fascism has been on full display at the Judiciary and Legal Affairs Committee of the National Assembly.
        JLAC, as the committee is called, is a lynch mob of Kenya Kwanza MPs determined to finish the job of completely making the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) a department in the Office of the President.
        The KK “honourable” members are so zealous that they couldn’t even breathe as they attempted to explain their own charade.I hear the chair of JLAC is a lawyer who even became a partner in a reputable Nairobi firm. But if that man went to law school, then I wonder what he learnt there.
        A layman who’s never gone beyond high school has a better grasp of the rules of natural justice. I attended the hearings and thought he was auditioning to succeed Dear Leader Kim Jong Un.
A simple majority
But I am running ahead of myself. The IEBC is made up of seven commissioners, including the chairman. A simple majority of four makes decisions for the commission. As even the impugned Supreme Court itself ruled, Chairman Wafula Chekubati was in breach of the law and the Constitution when he unilaterally, with a minority of two commissioners, declared UDA’s William Ruto have won the August 9 presidential vote. 

        Imagine that – even the Supreme Court, itself a central cog of Kenya’s fake democracy – censured Mr Chebukati. ow surreal then it is the four valiant commissioners, and not the law-breaking chairman, whom JLAC is investigating? Very simple. On instructions from the UDA regime, JLAC has been detailed to remove the four commissioners.
        In my eyes, and those of a majority of Kenyans, the so-called IEBC Four – Vice Chair Juliana Cherera, Irene Masit, Francis Wanderi, and Justus Nyang’aya – are the heroes in our struggle to defeat the authors of fake democracy. They stood tall and firm against Mr Chebukati and his two minions as they rammed through a fake election result. Even a fool knows Chief Justice Martha Koome and a tiny minority of two judges cannot render a ruling of the Supreme Court with the other four justices on the side opposite.
        CJ Koome and her two comrades would be the “dissenters” in the majority ruling of the four others. That’s black letter law that is not open to any other interpretation.
        That’s why I don’t – and no rational person can – understand the universe in which JLAC investigates the majority in an independent constitutional commission for doing their work in good faith.
The only conclusion is that the four refused a sham process to declare Mr Ruto the winner, and for that the UDA regime seems determined to remove and replace them with Mr Ruto’s compliant appointees in readiness for the 2027 elections.
        JLAC wants to win the 2027 election for Mr Ruto in 2022. The KK members of JLAC have given up their liberty for whatever “security” they’ve been given by the state. They will live in infamy for abdicating their oversight role, and becoming poodles of the executive.
        On Thursday, after it became clear that JLAC was on a terror mission against the IEBC Four, Azimio MPs, led by Minority Whip Junet Mohamed and MP TJ Kajwang, stormed out of the sham proceedings. Similarly, the eminent lawyers for the IEBC Four stormed out rather than lend credence to a kangaroo court, a slaughterhouse on which the blood of democracy would be spilt to feed the monster of fascism.
Big Brother
As in George Orwell’s 1984, what you see isn’t real — because Big Brother knows everything and has started telling you what to think and believe.
        No democrat worth the name can sit and watch such a brazen departure from decency and civilisation. JLAC has become the latest institution to affirm Kenya’s fake democracy. Apart from all the fatal defects of the JLAC process, the committee simply lacks jurisdiction to conduct an investigation of the IEBC Four. The law provides for other legal forums where petitioners can lodge complaints against any commissioner.
        JLAC isn’t the port of first call. I want to warn JLAC and the UDA regime. Going forward with the persecution of the IEBC Four is a red line for Kenyan democrats, no matter their party affiliation.
It will lead to a constitutional crisis and deepen the suffering of our people. Let those with ears hear. It’s an unacceptable power grab. I urge the state to step back.
Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School, The State University of New York. @makaumutua.

Source: Sunday Nation tomorrow.

JUDGE YOURSELF MY GOD

 

THE STORY OF THE TANZANIA PARLIAMENT : FROM THE COLONIAL ‘LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL’ TO THE POST-INDEPENDENDE ‘PARLIAMENT’.

 This  is  a  continuation  of  my  presentation  titled  “the  Story  of  the  Tanzania  Parliament”,  which  we  commenced  last  week;   when  we  discussed  the   origins  of  our  Parliament,  or BUNGE;   which,  during   the  period  of   the   colonial  Administration  of  Tanganyika  Territory,  was  known  as  the  “Legislative  Council”  (LEGCO),  established  in  1926.  This  Legislative  Council   was  created  by    the  British   House  of  Commons,  through  legislation  cited  as   the  Tanganyika  Legislative  Council  (Order– in Council,  of  1926.                                                            
        In   today’s presentation,   we   will   focus  on  the  ‘Independence   Parliament  (1960 – 1965).   The  change  of  designation,  from  Legislative  Council, to  Parliament,   should  be  noted.  There  is  a  similar  distinction  regarding   the  citation  of  the  laws  enacted.  Whereas  the  laws     enacted  by  the  colonial  Legislative  Council  are  cited  as  “Ordinances”;    those  enacted  by  Parliament   are  cited  as  “Acts”.
 The  composition  of  the   colonial    Council.  

The  colonial  Legislative   Council  was  presided  over  by   a   Chairman,  who  was   the  Governor  himself;   and  all  its  Members,  numbering  20,  were  nominated  by  the  Governor.    No   Africans  were  nominated. According  to  available  records,  the  first  two   African  nominated  Members,  Chief  Abdiel  Shangali  and  Chief  Kidaha   Makwaia,  entered  LEGCO  on  24th  November,  1945.  Two   other  African  Members,   Chief  Adam  Sapi  Mkwawa,   and  Mr.  Juma  Mwinadi,  were  nominated  in  June  1947 and  April  1948  respectively. The  first  significant  change  was  introduced  on  1st  November, 1953;  when  the   governor  ceased  to  preside  over  the  LEGCO  proceedings,  and  was  replaced  by  the  Speaker,  Brigadier  Sir  William  Scuphum.                                   

         Another  significant  change   was  introduced  in  April  1955,  with  the  entry  of  the  first  women   Members :   Ms  Elifuraha  Mkamangi  Marealle,  Ms  K.F.  Walker,  and  Mis   S  Keeka.
The  major  change  in  the  composition  of  LEGCO  during  that  period,  was   introduced  in  1957/58;  with  the  entry  of  the  first  elected  Members  from    10  constituencies;  with  the  participation  of   three  newly  formed  political  parties:   the  Tanganyika  African  National  Union  (TANU),   the  United  Tanganyika  Party  (UTP)  and  the  African  National  Congress  (ANC).   But  the  TANU  sponsored  candidates  were  the  winners  in  all  the  10  constituents.                         

         A  second  parliamentary  election  was  held  in  September  1960,  when  the  number  of constituencies  had  been  increased  to  71.  This  was  the  election  that  ushered  Tanganyika  into  independence;  in  which,  once  again,  TANU  candidates  won  unopposed   in  58  constituencies,  and  won  all  the  contested  seats,  except  one,  which  however  was  won  by  a  TANU  member,   who  had   stood  as  an  independent  candidate;   which  thus  became  a  de  facto  one-party  Parliament  which,  in  the  parliamentary  records,  is    designated  as   the  “Independence  Parliament”,  of  1960-1965.
Enter  the   Independence  Parliament.
.The  most   notable  events  in  the  performance  the  ‘Independence  Parliament’, are  in   relation  to  two  issues:    (a) enacting  legislation  to  rapidly  dismantle  all  the  harmful  governance   structures  that  had  been  created and  left  behind    by  the  colonial  Administration;  and  (b)  the  establishment  of  new  structures  appropriate  for  an  independent,   self- governing  nation.                     

         But  the  traditional   parliamentary  symbols   which  are  used  in  the  British  Parliament,   whose   use    had  been  transferred  to  the  Tanganyika  Legislative  Council,    were  inherited  wholesale  by  the  Independent  Parliament.   These  were  the  Mace, (the  symbol  of  the  Speaker’s  authority),  and  the  Speaker’s  regalia.  Because  these  symbols  were  not  harmful  in  any  way,  they  were  retained  unchanged,  during   the  first  year  of  the  post-independence  period.    
The  dismantling  process.
The  harmful  governance  structures  that  had  to  be   quickly  dismantled,   included  the  disgusting   system   of  racial  segregation  in the  provision  of  essential  public   social  services,  such  as  education  and  health;  and   other  structures  that   threatened  to   create impediments  to  the  efforts  to  achieve  national  unity  and  coherence   among  the  country’s  scattered   numerous  ethnic  or  tribal  groups.
        The  first   such  governance  structure  that   had  to  be  immediately  reformed,   was  the  country’s   constitution.    The  Tanganyika  independence  constitution  was,  actually,   a  creation  of  the  British  House  of  Commons, which  was  brought   to  Tanganyika   in  the  form  of   legislation  enacted  by  the  British  Parliament,  cited  as  The  Tanganyika (Independence)  Order-in-Council,  of  1961.      It  was  thus   negatively  viewed   by  the  ruling  party  TANU,  as  “an  embodiment  of  colonial,  or  neocolonial,   paternalism”.  It  was  therefore  necessary  to  devise  a  new  constitution   which  was  more  appropriate  for  an  independent  State,  and  was  more  capable  of  inspiring  a  sense  of  loyalty  in  the  people  of  the  new  nation   of  Tanganyika.  

        The  task  of  making    this  new  constitution  was  carried  out  and  completed  during  1961, the  first  year  of  independence;    and   the  product  was  the  Republican  constitution  of  1962.

Dismantling  the   other  harmful  colonial  structures. The  next  immediate  preoccupation  of  the  Independence  Parliament,  was  the  dismantling  of  the  other  harmful  governance  structures,  and  their  replacement  with  more  appropriate  ones.   I  was  the  Clerk  (CEO)  of  the  National  Assembly  at  the  material  time,  and  can  vividly  remember  the  hectic  steps  which  were  taken  in  carrying  out  that  task.    For  example,  the  Standing  Rules  of  the  National  Assembly  require  that  a  Bill  proposing  the  enactment  of  any  law,   must  be  published  in  the  official  government  Gazette,  not  less  than  21  days  before  it  can  be  introduced  for  First  Reading  in  that   House.    However  due  to  the  urgent  nature  of  implementing  this  task,   that   particular  Rule  was  routinely   waived    in  very  many  cases;   and  instead,   the  relevant  Bills  were  introduced  under  “certificate  of  urgency”;   and  were  passed  through  all  the  three  stages  of  First  Reading,   Second  Reading,  Committee  Stage  and  Third  Reading,   in  one  Sitting,  i.e.   in   only   one  day.     A  practical  demonstration  of  Mwalimu   Nyerere’s   slogan  of  “we  must  run   while  others  walk”.   
        This  legislative    dismantling  (and  reform)  process  covered  many  areas,  but  those  that  needed  the  most  urgent  reform   were:    (i)  the  Court  system;  (ii)   the  Education  system;  (iii)  the  Local  government  system;  and  (iv)   the   Land  tenure  system.   All  the  necessary  legislative  reforms  were  undertaken  and  completed  in  1963,  which  was   the  first  year  of   Mwalimu  Nyerere’s  Presidency.  
        The  reforms  in  the  Court  system  involved  the  repeal  of  the  colonial  Magistrates  Ordinance,   which  was  replaced  by   the  Magistrates  courts  act  of  1963,  which  removed  the  racial  discriminatory  nature  of  the  previous  ordinance. The  reforms  in  the  Education  sector,  which  had  established  equally  repugnant  racial   discriminatory  features;  was  also  repealed  and  replaced  by  a  new  Education  Act,  which  was  more  appropriate  for  the  educational  needs  of  the  new  nation.   
 Some   reforms  were  motivated  by  national  pride.
I  am  here  referring  to  the  introduction  of  Kiswahili   for  use  in  the  proceedings   of  the  National  Assembly.   We  have  already  seen  above,  that   TANU   won  the  first  parliamentary  election  In  1957/58,  Soon  after  this  victory,  the  party  passed  a  resolution  to  make  Kiswahili  the  “national  language   that  was  to  be  used  in  all  government   business  after  the  attainment  of  independence” . This  resolution  was  implemented  at  the  beginning  of  1963,  when  President  Nyerere  issued  a  directive  to  that  effect,  requiring  the  use  of  Kiswahili  in  all  government  operations,  where  possible.   

         It  was  not  possible,  for  example,   to  do  the  business  of  drafting  legislative  Bills  in  Kiswahili,  so   this  was  not  be  done.   But  it  was  certainly   possible  to  conduct   the  National  Assembly  proceedings  in  Kiswahili.  But  because  the  Independence  Parliament  which  was  elected  in  September  1960  included   a  few   Europeans  and  Asians  who  were  occupying   seats  that  were  reserved  for  them  under  the   colonial  election  legislation;  and   who  had not  learnt  the  Kiswahili  language;   it  was  decided  to  retain  English  as  the  alternative  language  for  use  in  the   National  Assembly  debates.    
         The  difficulty  was  only   in  transcribing  the  speeches   made  in  Kiswahili  during  the  Assembly   debates,  for  the  Hansard   records.   This   difficulty   arose  because  prior  to  the  said  directive,    such  transcriptions  were  undertaken  by  expatriate   shorthand  writers  and   typists,  who  were  normally  borrowed  from  the  High  Court  for  that  purpose;  and   no  Kiswahili  shorthand  system had  been  developed  by  then.  

        Hence,  we  had  to  find  an  alternative  method  of  transcribing  the  National  Assembly  debates   and  proceedings.    It  thus  became  necessary  to  recruit   a  new  cadre  known  as  audio  typists  for  that  task.    It  took  some  time  and  money  to  establish  this  new  system;   but,  with  the  helpful  cooperation  and  active  support  of  the  Treasury  ‘Organization  and  Methods’  Unit,  and  of   the  Manpower  Development  Department  (then  known  as  the  ‘Central  Establishments  Department’);   we  were  able  to  successfully  complete  that  assignment   within   the  available  time-period,  i.e.  before  the  next  following   session  of  the   National  Assembly.

The   British  traditional   parliamentary  symbols   retained.
However,   the   conventional   British   parliamentary  symbols  were  retained.  These  were:-  (i)  the  Mace,  (which  is  regarded   the  symbol  of  the  Speaker’s   power  and  authority);                  (ii)  the  Speaker’s   robes,  and   the   Speaker’s  Chair.       

        The  first  Speaker’s  Chair  was  received  as  an  independence  gift  given  to  us  by  the  British  House  of  Commons.   The   Mace  has  actually   been  retained  to  the  present  day.  But,  for  obscure  reasons,  the  Speaker’s  robes  were  abandoned  when   the  first  indigenous  Speaker,   Chief  Adam  Sapi  Mkwawa,  was  elected.   Speaker  Adam  Sapi   wore  his  traditional   robes  as  Chief  of  the  Wahehe  tribe,   when  presiding  over  the  proceedings  of  the  National  Assembly;   but,  in  the  absence  of  cogent  reasons  for  abandoning  them    the  Speaker’s   robes   were   subsequently  returned  to  use  in  the   late  1990s,  under  Speaker  Pius  Msekwa.   
The   coming  of    the   Union  Parliament.  
The  establishment   of  the  Union  between  the  Republic  of  Tanganyika  and  the  Peoples’ Republic  of  Zanzibar  on  26th  April,  1964;   resulted   in  the  creation  of  the   Parliament  of  this   United  Republic  of   the  United  Republic  of  Tanzania;  which   came  into  existence  on  27th  April,  1964,  with  the  swearing-in  of  its  new  Members  from  Zanzibar.   

         The  other  Organs  of  State  governance  had  already  been  established  by  the  Articles  of  Union:  including   the  Interim  Constitution  of  the  United  Republic;   was to  be   the  Constitution  of  Tanganyika,  appropriately  modified  to  make  provision  for  (i)  a  separate  government  for  Zanzibar;  and  (b)  for   the  representation   of  Zanzibar  in  the  Parliament  of  the  United  Republic.  The  Interim  constitution  also  declared  Mwalimu  Julius  Nyerere  as  the  first  President  of  the  United  Republic;  and  Abeid  Amani  Karume   as  the  first  President  of  Zanzibar.                                        

        At  the  time  the  Union  was  formed,   the  Zanzibar  State  had  only   just  emerged  from  a  successful  glorious  revolution;   that  had  overthrown  the  Arab  Sultan’s  government;  and  had    by  then,  established  only   one  instrument  of  government,  namely   the   Revolutionary  Council,   which  was  mandated  to  perform  all   the  three   functions   of  State   governance.    

        In  these   circumstances,  it  was  necessary  only  for  the  Zanzibar  Members  to  be  sworn  into  office  as  Members  of  the  Union  Parliament.  The  former  Tanganyika  MPs    did  not  take  that  oath,  simply  because  they  were  regarded  as  continuing  Members  of  the  Independence  Parliament;  which  was  dissolved  towards  the  end  of  August,  1965.                                        

        The  most  notable  significant   Legislative  action  taken  by   the  Union  Parliament,   was  the   enactment,   in  July  1965,  of  a  new  constitution  for  the  newly  created   country.  This  was  the  ‘One-party’  constitution  of  1965.    However,   this  action  was  merely   the  finalization  of  a  long  constitution-making  process,  which  had  commenced  way  back  in  1963,  long  before  the  formation  of  this  Union,  with  the  appointment  by  President  Nyerere   of   the   Kawawa   constitutional   commission;  which,  upon  the  formation  of  the  Union,  was  expanded  to  include  members  from  Zanzibar.   The  new  constitution  was  eventually  enacted  by  the  Constituent   Assembly,  and  became  effective  on  10th  July,  1965.                                

piomsekwa@gmail.com / 075767576.

    Source: Cde Msekwa.

Kenya’s fake democracy Part IV

 

Supreme Court judges during the presidential election petition. 

Dennis Onsongo | Nation Media Group

By Makau Mutua   Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC.

What you need to know:

• Kenya’s fake democracy Part III

• Kenya’s fake democracy Part II

• Kenya’s fake democracy Part I

On this glorious Sunday, I treat you to the last instalment of my series on ‘Kenya’s Fake Democracy’. But let me note, parenthetically, that democracy is about disagreement, not agreement. This is the genius of liberalism. Its central core is built on dissensus, not consensus. Progress comes from thoughtful contradiction, not thoughtless, or coerced, concurrence. That’s because consensus is an anti-democratic impulse that suppresses free expression and thought.
        It’s in this spirit that I take a cudgel to Chief Justice Martha Koome and the Supreme Court she leads. I do so not to vent, but to chip away at Kenya’s fake democracy. Those who wear the robes of justice must be just, or face the wrath of the vox populi. Allow me to do full disclosure. First, let me own up to the fact that CJ Koome – long before she assumed the lofty mantle – was a good friend. She was forged in my side of the street in the crucible of civil society and the intelligentsia.
        We could always finish each other’s sentences. That’s because we knew what we wanted for Kenya. She was in the fight against the Kanu kleptocracy and dictatorship. She was always the first to pick up the weapons of dissent against human rights violations by the State.
        She was also a feminist par excellence. There’s not a literate mind in Kenya that doesn’t know her pioneering role in the Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA), Kenya’s premiere women’s rights organisation.
Coarse and crude language
CJ Koome fought gender-based violations in both the public and private squares. She was an implacable foe of violence against women and girls in the home.
        Several leading male Kenyan politicians know only too well her unbending will to confront them for spousal battery. Some of those politicians used to quake in their boots at the mere mention of her name. She was one of the founding mothers of the 2010 Constitution.
We at the Kenya Human Rights Commission collaborated with her and FIDA in entrenching gender equity and equality in that charter.
That’s the Martha I knew, even after she took the lower benches of the Judiciary. But power can get into heads of folks, and intoxicate them.
        As is known, in 2016 I ran for Chief Justice, but the Judicial Service Commission was of a contrary opinion. That’s water under the bridge now. But after my interview – which lasted some four hours – now Senior Counsel Martha Karua and I went to Judge (as she then was) Koome’s residence to help prepare her for her interview for the Deputy Chief Justice position.
        Together with a group of younger women lawyers, Ms Martha Karua and I took Judge Koome through her paces. We spent hours with her. We felt great about the mock interview prep and believed she would make a fantastic DCJ. I thought she would be a great partner if both of us had been selected.
        Some people weren’t thrilled about how CJ Koome was selected for the position. Several felt there were stronger candidates. Others went even further to question her academic credentials. But most, including me, thought she would stick to her civil society human rights DNA in spite of a number of questionable opinions in the courts below.
        That was until the presidential election petition Raila Odinga vs William Ruto and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission following the debacle of the August 9, 2022 elections.
The proceedings started innocently with CJ Koome conducting the court with decorum and an admirable judicial temperament.
I felt good by the time opposing counsel made their final submissions. It was clear that Mr Odinga’s Azimio La Umoja had proven its case hands down.
        I need to say that the legitimacy of any court anywhere on the planet isn’t in weapons of war, but in the perception of the public, especially the litigants and those accused before it. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
        That’s where the power judicial forums come from. But in the presidential petition, CJ Koome read a screed, not a judgment. In a shocking departure from centuries-old judicial tradition, she tore off her robes and became a gladiator on the side of Mr Ruto’s Kenya Kwanza.

Coarse and crude language

In coarse and crude language, she lit into Azimio’s case and even used fiery and abusive verbiage. I was stunned. Where had the judicious and fair judge gone?
        The Supreme Court of Kenya is the forum of last resort in the Judiciary. I will not repeat here the unbecoming language used by CJ Koome, but if the court of last resort – and especially its chief judge – angrily foams at the mouth at litigants while reading a ruling, then we have no Supreme Court to speak of.
        What we have instead is a political court that is a combatant in the contest between litigants. I don’t know how the Koome Court can live with itself after that ruling. What will the judges tell posterity? How can the Supreme itself be a participant in keeping Kenya’s fake democracy alive?
Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School, The State University of New York. @makaumutua.

Source: Sunday Nation.

MY BOOK HOW AFRICA DEVELOPED EUROPE REVIEW

BOOK REVIEW
How Africa Developed Europe: A Review of Nkwazi Nkuzi Mhango's deconstructing the HIS-STORY of Africa, Excavating Untold Truth and what ought to be done and Known
Fidelis Oghenero EJEGBAVWO, PhD.Department of Philosophy,St Albert Institute, Fayit, FadanKagoma,Kafanchan, Kaduna state.
I

How Africa Developed EuropeAs succinctly put by Achebe “The last four or five hundred years of European contact with Africa produced a body of literature that presented Africa in a very bad light and Africans in a very lurid terms. It is therefore, shrouded with fabrications, lies and above all, distortions that European bigots created in order to discredit Africa. For those who have the indigenous knowledge of the people would understand how the history Europe wrote about Africa is against academic tenets due to the fact that researching on somebody living; and publishing the findings without his or her consent is totally unethical. To make matters worse, these bigots fabricated such toxic versions that sadly though have been taken as truth while they actually are mere lies that sought to justify Europe`s criminality against Africa. This is very important due to the fact that wherever winners write history of their victims, they commit many injustices to the losers as it is in the case of Africa which needs to write the history of the loser. 

        European bigots were able to dupe the world by fabricating all mendacities about Africa; and got away with murder for a long time simply because Africans did not rebut their “his-story”. HOWAFRICADEVELOPED EUROPE: DECONSTRUCTING THEHIS-STORYOF AFRICA, EXCAVATING UNTOLD TRUTH AND WHATOUGHTTO BE DONE AND KNOWN.Dispute this fact, Europe has never admit or appreciated the role of Africa in bringing about its development. Amukowa and Ayuya in proving their point above visited the history of his-story of Africa as it was dubiously authored by European. However, it is nothing but his-story of Africa which represents the European archaic, colonial and patriarchal Europe. Achebe's quote as seen above succinctly reflects on the big and true picture of what can be said to be behind the development of European, as opposed to the underdevelopment of Africa. 

        The naked truth about Europe's development has never truly come out for every eye to see how it came into being; because many bigoted European and partly Asian thinkers and writers told a one-sided story that, on the one hand, glorified Europe while it belittled and demonized Africa on the other hand. This was a preamble of the story of Africa and its his- story due to the fact that what is now known as the history of Africa is the product of his (European's) story with all its bigotry and fabrications. Hence the True history of Africa is still untold. 

II

How Europe Decreated and Reinvented Africa Ready for Exploitation As Walter Rodney states the use of comparison criteria, "Africa today is underdeveloped compared to Western Europe, and existing functions are no longer through separate developments in Africa on the one hand and Europe on the other. It is not that it was achieved by exploitation”.For Europe, all the benefits of improvement come from the exploitative dating that existed and still exists between them and Africa. drfidel12@gmail.com0000-0003-0458-8596BOOK REVIEW     How Africa Developed Europe: A Review of Nkwazi Nkuzi Mhango's Deconstructing the HIS-STORY of Africa, Excavating Untold Truth and what ought to be done and Known136www.albertinejournal.org
for more info, got to https://acjol.org/index.php/albertine/article/view/2956/2912

Tuvunje Idara ya Uokoaji na Kuajiri Wavuvi

Kwanza, nitoe salamu za rambirambi kwa wafiwa wa ajali ya hivi majuzi ya pipa. Pili, nitoe dua kwa manusura nikiomba Dingi Mwenyewe wa upstairs awaponye haraka. Tatu, naombea kaya itie akilini iache ubangaizaji na usanii kwenye mambo siriasis. Nne, sina haja ya kufanyia mzaha balaa la ajali ya ndege iliyotokea mjini Bukoba hivi karibuni baada ya pipa la Presisheni Air kushindwa kutua uwanjani tokana na hali mbaya ya hewa kuishia kutua kwenye ziwa na kuua watu 19 huku 24 wakiokolewa na wavuvi pamoja na kutokuwa na ujuzi wa darasani zaidi ya ule wa University of Street. Msiojua kimombo nendeni Mombo wakawatafurie. Ila chunga msikute Mombo nao wanaongea Kisambachi na si kimombo. Sasa najiuliza kilevilevi. Je ina maana mkoa mzima wa Kagera hauna kikosi cha uokoaji? Kama kipo, kinalipwa kwa kazi gani wakati kazi ambayo kinapaswa kufanya ilifanywa na wasamalia wema tena wachovu? Je kikosi cha uokoaji cha mkoa kilikuwa wapi kama kipo? Nauliza si kinomi wala kinoko bali kilevi tu. Je kilifanya mandingo gani hata baada ya kufika wakati vyombo vya umbea vilionyesha wavuvi wachovu wakiweka maisha yao hatarini na kutumia mikono mitupu kuvuta ndege? Kweli hujafa hujaumbika! Nani alidhani mvuvi angemuokoa mwenda kwa debe au mtumbwi kuvuta pipa? Imetokea tena mbele ya mato yangu. Mitumbwi ilivuta pipa. Nani alitegemea mvuvi tena wa kasia angemwokoa rubani? Lazima hapa tuheshimiane na kuthaminiana. Ngoja niulize zaidi kilevilevi. Je tatizo hapa ni kikosi au idara ya uokoaji au taifa kwa ujumla. Je tulijifunza nini tokana na ajali ya MV Bukoba.
Kwanza, niseme. Ajali ya juzi ni ya kwanza kwa shirika lililoanzishwa mwaka 1993.Tumeambiwa kuwa ajali ilisababishwa na hali mbaya ya hewa ambayo haiepukiki. Je kwanini rubani hakupelekea ndege Chato au Mwanza hata K’Empala? Je hakuwa na mafuta ya kutosha? Je alifanya maamuzi ya haraka? Si rahisi kuujua ukweli hadi ripoti ya uchunguzi itolewe. Ama kweli ajali haina kinga japo si vibaya kujiandali ajali wakati wowote. Hivyo, hatuna haja ya kulaumu au kulishuku shirika wakati tukingojea ripoti kamili ya uchunguzi wa ajali hii. Ila kama kaya hata kama ni ya walevi, kuna mengi ya kusema. Nsingependa kutupia lawama kikosi au Idara ya Uokoaji na Majanga ambayo sina shaka hupangiwa bajeti kila mwaka. Pia, sina jema la kusema kuhusiana nayo. Nikijitenga na tambo uchwara za wanasiasa ambao baadhi yao waliwamwagia sifa wavuvi wa BK, akina nshomile sana hadi my dogi anajua kiinglish, kuwa wameiwakilisha Tanzania kwa kuonyesha ushirikiano, napendekeza Idara na Vikosi vya Uokoaji vifutwe na badala yake waajiriwe wavuvi. Hawa, licha ya kuwa shupavu na wazalendo wa kweli, wana uwezo wa kutoa matokeo tegemewa hata bila kufunzwa wala kuajiriwa. 
Inakuwaje tunakuwa na mapipa ya kuwahisha wanene kwenye tukio kutoa siasa lakini hatuna midudu ya kuokoleana? Je ni kwanini wanene hawaoni kuwa inaweza kutokea, hata kama siwaombei, wakajikuta siku moja mikononi mwa wavuvi? Kwanini wanashindwa kununua vifaa tena vinavyoweza kuwasaidia lau wao wanaopanga mapipa. Hapa najua. Wakiamua kununua, watanunua vinavyowahusu na kuwaacha makapuku wategemee wavuvi zali likitokea.
Hata hivyo, si wavuvi peke yao. Karibu watanzania walio wengi wana hulka hii ya kujua la kufanya pale wanapoona na kuzoea kuwa mamlaka hazina cha kuwafanyia kama wajibu wake. Mfano mdogo, ilipotokea ajali, mawaziri na wanene wengine walijisomba na kupanda madege na mashangingi kwenye kutoa hotuba za kisiasa. Je hiyo pesa waliyotumia––––ambayo inatokana na kodi za wahanga na makapuku wengine wa kaya hii––––wangeielekeza kwenye kununulia zana na uokoaji u kujiandaa na kupambana na janga––––wangepunguza hatari kiasi gani? Ukiangalia ujio wa Waziri Mkubwa, Waziri wa Lindo, Waziri wa Mambo ya Kaya, Waziri wa Uchukuaji, Katibu Mueneza rongorongo wa Numero Uno, Wakuu wa vyombo vya mausalama na wakuu wa mikowa jirani na posho walizolipwa na mafuta waliyounguza kwenda kutoa siasa, kama wangejizuia wakatuma hata baruapepe na hiyo fedha ikanunua vifaa, tungesonga mbele kiasi gani? 
Wengi hadi sasa wanajiuliza mantiki ya ‘kuwajali’ sana wahanga wa ajali ya ndege wakati wale wa magari ambao ni wengi tokana na ajali hizi kutokea mara kwa mara, ni nini? Je ni kwa vile wao ndio watumiaji wazuri wa pipa? Je ni kwa sababu ajali husika inatangazwa kila kona guniani? Je ni kutokana na ukweli kuwa watu wanaosafiria ndege siyo wachovu wa kawaida, hivyo ni wenzao lazima wawajali maana leo kwao kesho kwa wengine? Je sababu ni nini?
Japo situmii ubongo kufikiri––––kwani natumia ulabu––––napendekeza Idara na Vikosi vya uokoaji ima vifutwe na kazi yao kupewa wavuvi au wanene wake wapugwe kigodo na kuteuliwa wavuvi watenda kazi wawafundishe kazi hawa waduanzi wasiojua hata thamani ya dhamana zao. Inakuwaje kaya, tena inayofisika kwa midini na mimali kibao kutokuwa na zana za uokozi angalua hata wa wanene? Leo chichemi mengi njomba. 

Chanzo: Jamhuri leo.

 

The then Chief Justice, Dr Willy Mutunga. 

File | Nation Media Group

By Makau Mutua  Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC.

What you need to know:

• Kenya’s fake democracy Part II

• Kenya’s fake democracy Part 1

In this unprecedented series on Kenya’s fake democracy, I’ve so far trained my guns on the concept of Black fatalism and Kenya’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission as the killer of Kenya’s democratic spirit.Today, I stretch my analysis further and look at the Supreme Court as a part of this axis. Although I condemn the whole kit and caboodle – which I once wanted to lead – my eye is on the jinx on the person of the Chief Justice, the most important factotum on the highest court in the land.

                The Chief Justice is only the first among equals, but she, or he, embodies the zeitgeist of the court. As the CJ goes, so does the court. The CJ is the court. If the head of any court is a skank, or a judicial john, then the court is the politician’s brothel. It will, perforce, stink like a skunk. You might protest these strong words, and I might agree with you.

            But “strong” words do not equal “wrong” words. For that reason, I would be intellectually vacuous – now knowing in intimate detail what I know – to sugarcoat anything I say about Kenya’s top court, with all due respect to the so-called “mi-lords” and “mi-ladies”.

How cute – but also utterly gross and disgusting. I was shocked to see African lawyers in the tropics go back to feudal – virtually medieval – England. The judgment was as ridiculous as the archaic regalia and verbiage.

Infamous ‘red phone’

But I digress, if only slightly. Let’s retrace our steps, or is it “mi-steps”. The Supreme Court was created in the 2010 Constitution as the “cure-all” for Kenya’s executive judicial capture.

            Gone would be the days when the CJ would sit by the infamous “red phone” waiting for a call from the Big Man at State House. Perhaps former CJ Willy Mutunga – my earliest intellectual mentor – can correct me, but I seem to recall him telling me that either he ripped the red phone off the wall, or he never used, or answered, it.

            I can’t remember which, but either memory speaks volumes about his independence as a judge. We believed CJ Mutunga would take us to judicial “Canaan”. Then came the 2013 Supreme Court presidential election petition. Raila Odinga vs Uhuru Kenyatta and IEBC. The judgment was historic, but not in the way we usually deploy the term. Like a man who disappoints a woman, CJ Mutunga read a “two-minute” opinion.

        He left the country high and dry, and for that he was rightly pilloried. I am not sure, but I think Dr Mutunga – easily the most popular man in Kenya when he was named CJ – has never recovered from that encounter with the vox populi. The people take him out to the woodshed for shellacking every time he tweets. They still believe he stamped a fraudulent election. Imagine that – the most progressive CJ collapsed when it counted the most.

        Dr Mutunga has never explained to the satisfaction of the progressives what happened in 2013. Perhaps he will in the future. Then enter CJ David Maraga. No two CJs could be more dissimilar. CJ Maraga had no known, or discernable, progressive credentials. He had no history in the struggle for the Second Liberation, or any civil rights fight. He was a plain lawyer and judge.

        Some say he was inarticulate and not a deep thinker. Others saw him as too religious to be a good CJ. Many condemned him as a conservative who was planted in the Judiciary by the system to do its bidding. But just as CJ Mutunga had shocked us, CJ Maraga made our hearts stop.

        CJ Maraga nearly gave some of us a heart attack. He did the unthinkable. He showed the system the middle index. He told the Executive – in an earth-shattering ruling celebrated the world over – that Kenya’s Supreme Court would clean up the electoral system.

Kicking and screaming

He struck down Jubilee’s victory in Raila Odinga vs Uhuru Kenyatta and IEBC. He sent the country back to the ballot box with the ruling Jubilee kicking and screaming.

        Most of us were ecstatic. It looked for a moment as though the Supreme Court would play its rightful role in the Constitution. Kenyans were proud people again. But before the re-run, deep-seated interference invaded the judiciary and took us two steps back.

        Even so, CJ Maraga soldiered on. He earned a place in history. Today, the roles of CJ Mutunga and CJ Maraga are reversed in the public mind. To some, the former is a villain while the latter is a hero. That’s how Kenya’s history books read now.

            How could the most conservative CJ become the most progressive, and the most progressive become the most conservative? And how could the Supreme Court somersault so unpredictably in just two election cycles? Had the court failed in the most important task for which it was created? Next week, in Part IV of this series, I look at the Koome Court.

Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School, The State University of New York. @makaumutua.

Source: Sunday Nation today.

Boresheni na Rekebisheni Jeshi la Polisi na Nchi Nzima

Malalamiko ya ulaji wa rushwa dhidi ya jeshi la polisi, hata kama yana ukweli, ni nyenzo ya kulisaidia taifa letu kujua tatizo na kuboresha na kurekebisha jeshi hili muhimu. Kwanza, tukubali kuwa askari polisi ni watu kama sisi. Pili, tukubali kuwa wana akili timamu kama sisi. Tatu, tukubali kuwa wamekuwa wakaiishi maisha ya kupunjwa mishahara na stahiki nyingine sawa na maeneo mengine. Hata hivyo, tukukiri pia. Mlinzi wa mlangoni anapopunjwa, madhara yake na mbinu anazotumiwa ni tofauti na mpishi aliyeko jikoni. Japo watanzania wengi wa kada mbali mbali ukiondoa wanasiasa na wahubiri feki wa dini, wanaishi maisha ya kupunjwa, wanaishi kwa ‘nguvu au kipato’ vya ziada.
            Kuna usemi kuwa kila mbuzi hula kwa urefu wa kamba yake. Tukizingatia maana ya usemi huu, polisi wanakula kulingana na ulaji uliowazunguka. Mfano, sitegemei polisi malaika ambaye mshahara wake hautoshi hata kwa nusu mwezi, amkamate mhalifu ambaye yuko tayari kumkatia kitu aache kukipokea hata kukiomba. Hii ndiyo hulka ya binadamu yeyote mwenye akili. Huwezi kumkondesha mchungaji anayechunga ng’ombe wanaonyonyesha. Akienda malishoni atawakamua tu taka usitake japo ujifanye kutoliona hili.
            Jeshi letu la polisi sawa na idara nyingine nyingi limekuwa likiishi kijima. Kabla ya Hayati Rais John Pombe Magufuli kuwajengea lau nyumba za kuishi japo si kwa wote, polisi wengi ima walikuwa au wanaendelea kuishi uraiani jambo ambalo pia linawafanya waishi kiraia ili kuepuka madhara ya kuishi kipolisi au kuishi maisha ya hovyo na yasiyo na heshima. Kama haitoshi, polisi, sawa na watumishi walio wengi, wanalipwa mishahara kidogo. Je hapa unategemea nini? Je kwanini polisi wasipokee na kula rushwa na kuongoza katika jinai hii kutokana na ukaribu wao na wahalifu wanaojua madhara ya kufungwa? Kimsingi, watumishi wengi wanapokea na kula rushwa sema wanazidiana kutokana na maeneo yao na ukaribu na mishiko.
            Kama ilivyo kwa mpishi na mlinzi wa mlangoni, uwezekano wa mpishi kupata ulaji mwingi ni mkubwa kuliko mlinzi. Uwezekano wa polisi kupata rushwa kirahisi ni mkubwa kuliko mfagiaji ambaye asipokuwa mjanja kuiba siri za ofisi na kuwauzia waandishi wa habari hasa kwenye ofisi nyeti za umma, hapati kitu. Kama nilivyobainisha hapo juu, polisi ni watu wenye akili na mahitaji kama sisi.  Unategemea nini unapomkondesha yaya wa mtoto wakati anaweza kuyafikia na kuyanywa maziwa ya mwanao au chakula chake? Mbali na hilo, polisi wanajua umuhimu wao katika kuendesha nchi. Wanawalinda walaji wazuri kama vile wanasiasa na wazito wa serikali. Wanaona wanavyopwakia ulaji wakati wao wakiachwa wafe njaa. Je watakubali wafe wakati kuna mazingira wezeshi na rahisi ya kuomba na kupokea rushwa?
            Zamani jeshi la polisi lilikuwa la watu wasiokwenda sana shule. Siku hizi limejaa wasomi tena waliobobea wanaoona namna nchi inavyoliwa au kuuzwa. Wanajua namna siasa inavyotumiwa kupata utajiri wa haraka au kulinda biashara na dili za wakubwa. Kwanini wasipige njuluku? Hapa hoja ni nini? Mosi, tuboreshe si maslahi ya askari bali hata jeshi zima kwa kutoa fursa kwao kuishi sawa na wengine kwa kupata stahiki yao. Tukuze uchumi. Tuchape kazi. Tupambane na matumizi mabaya ya fedha na ofisi za umma, ufisadi, uvivu, kufanya mambo kwa mazoea na kutenda haki kwa wote. Huwezi kumpunja mshahara hakimu au jaji akaacha kupokea rushwa. Huwezi kumpunja mshahara daktari, mkemia, mkunga na muuguzi wakaacha kuiba dawa au kupokea rushwa toka kwa wagonjwa. Huwezi kumpunja mwalimu mshahara akaacha kuuza mitihani na kulazimisha twisheni. Ni rahisi hivyo. Hawa ni binadamu tena wenye akili timamu tu.
            Sipendi rushwa wala siitetei. Pia, sitetei kutotenda haki au kupunja wengine wakati wengine wakila na kusaza kama ilivyo kwa wanasiasa na wakubwa wetu wengi. Tumekuwa tukisoma kwenye taarifa ya Mkaguzi Mkuu wa Hesabu za Serikali namna nchi inavyopoteza mabilioni ya shilingi kila mwaka wa fedha. Hali ni mbaya hadi watu wanapiga hata magari ya serikali kana kwamba serikali haipo. Je polisi na wanyonge wengine wanaopunjwa mishahara na stahiki zao mnadhani hawajui?  Wanajua tena sana. Wanajua viongozi wanaopiga ulaji sana. Wakubwa wanaoshirikiana na wafanyabiashara kupitisha mambo yao. Wanawajua wakubwa wazembe na wanaotumia vibaya fedha za umma na ofisi. Wanajua wazito wanaosamehe kodi. Wanajua kila kitu. Ni bidamu wenye akili hawa.
            Leo sitadurusu mengi. Kimsingi, tuboreshe jeshi la polisi. Tuboreshe mishahara ya watumishi wote nchini bila kusahau bei za mazao ya wakulima. Viongozi wawajibike na kubana matumizi. Tukuze uchumi. Tufuate katiba inayosema kuwa kila mtanzania anastahiki kutendewa haki na kupata stahiki ya jasho lake. Tupunguze ukubwa na matumizi ya hovyo ya serikali. Tubane matumizi. Tutawalane kwa haki, ukweli, na uwazi. Tuache uzururaji na kuponda raha. Tuache ubabaishaji na uvivu wa kufikiri na roho mbaya na uchoyo vya kimfumo. Kimsingi, tusiboreshe si jeshi la polisi na kada nyingine tu bali nchi nzima kwa ujumla.

Chanzo: Jamhuri leo.

My Second Home Town Altona MB after My First, Beautiful and Best St. John's NL

 

Kenya’s fake democracy Part II

 

A woman casts her ballot at Dandora Secondary School polling station in Nairobi during Kenya's General Election on August 9, 2022. According to Makau Mutua, the electoral agency has historically “murdered” the democratic spirit of Kenyans for the benefit of a small bankrupt political elite.

By  Makau Mutua Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC.

Last week, I focused this column on the psychosi of fatalism. I argued that Kenyans, and people of Black heritage are traumatised by multiple legacies of victimisation. As a result, they normalise and internalise the complex of inferiority, which breeds self-bigotry and low expectations of those who rule, or govern, them. 

        This isn’t to say that Black people don’t have agency, or haven’t resisted oppression. They do – every second. But against great odds. Today, I want to isolate the national electoral agency in Kenya to show how it has historically “murdered” the democratic spirit of Kenyans for the benefit of a small bankrupt political elite. That story was repeated most recently on August 9, 2022. It’s a “curse”.
        Some time back, Dr David Ndii, a leading Kenyan economist who’s now playing key roles in the Kenya Kwanza state, wrote a column in this paper provocatively entitled “Kenya is a Cruel Marriage, It’s Time We talk Divorce.”Dr Ndii is no one’s fool. He knew exactly what he was saying. He eloquently argued that even with the 2010 Constitution, Kenya had failed to create a national Zeitgeist and to become a nation. Rather, elites from the Kikuyu and the Kalenjin had marginalised all others, especially the Luo Nation.
        He advised the Luo and other aggrieved groups to secede from Kenya. He called for the Yugoslav solution – each group to pick up its marbles and become a separate state.
In 1995, as an emerging scholar, I wrote what’s a now a widely-quoted 63-page article in the renown Michigan Journal of International Law.
        The article was entitled “Why Redraw the Map of Africa: A Moral and Legal Inquiry.” In it, I argued that most African states were incoherent, unviable, and failing concoctions of Empire. I said many of them would never cohere into functional states. My view hasn’t changed. Little did I know that Dr Ndii would decades later agree with me.
        For Kenya, I go between hope and despair. I still think there’s some little hope left, but the window is closing. In this series on democracy, I argue today that the electoral agency is our biggest threat.
        I have said before that only two elections have ever reflected the will of the electorate – 1963 and 2002. All others, including the one done this year, have been shambolic affairs. I know supporters of Kenya Kwanza are celebrating, and those in Azimio are incredulous. But both groups are not at ease.
        Those in KK are waiting for the other shoe to drop for they fear that their “victory” is pyrrhic. Those in Azimio are stumped as they wonder whether they are still Kenyans, or indeed whether there is still a country called Kenya they can believe in.
        Both camps know that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and it chair Wafula Chebukati did not acquit themselves of their mandate. They delivered a skunk.
In elections, there’s no more important institution than the electoral agency that plans, conducts, and declares the results. In some countries – such as the United States – such sacred task isn’t given to a single monopoly like the IEBC.
        No one body should be allowed to play God with the franchise, especially in deeply corrupt countries like Kenya. In America, elections at all levels – presidential, senatorial, congressional, gubernatorial, and local – are completely decentralised.
Ordinary citizens, usually retirees who are volunteers, are key players in conducting elections. They oversee the balloting, the counting, and the declaration of results at the polling station – and their verdict is final. The common people play God, not a national bureaucrat.
        In Kenya, the history of elections is littered with the political corpses of election commission chairs and their fellow commissioners. None has ever come out unscathed.
Most are reviled villains and crooks. Let’s think of the more recent ones. Samuel Kivuitu will forever be remembered as the fellow whose decision to declare PNU’s Mwai Kibaki the victor in 2007 in a stolen election brought Kenya within an inch of a genocidal war.
Isaack Hassan, the inaugural IEBC chair, left it in infamy after the disputed – many believe stolen -- 2013 elections.
        Then there’s Mr Chebukati, the ogre of Kenyan democracy, who presided over the 2017 annulled elections and the 2022 shambolic vote. Kenya’s democracy dies at the altar of the IEBC.
The IEBC is the key author of Kenya’s fake democracy. This is the question – will Kenyans continue to pretend that they have a democracy and a credible agency and process for vindicating it? Or will “victors” steal again and again until the nations within Kenya’s borders declare a divorce, and walk away from the republic?
        I have seen dozens of African countries collapse, many never to recover. Do we want Kenya to go there? Because no one can force Kenyans to live together. No one. At what point will Kenyans say enough to living the lie? When will they talk divorce?
Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School, The State University of New York. @makaumutua.

Source: Sunday Nation tomorrow.

READ A BOOK INSTEAD OF THE COVER-MEBO

 

Ubaguzi Hushirikisha Wabaguzi na Wahanga Wao

Kabla ya kuanza kuishi hapa Kanada, nilizoea aina kuu tatu za ubaguzi. Mosi, ule rangi ambao ulikuwa ukifanyika nchini Afrika Kusini na Marekani. Hata hivyo, sikuwa nikiuhisi sawa na wahanga wake. Pili, ni ubaguzi wa baadhi ya ndugu zetu wa kiasia walioletwa na wakoloni kuwawaidia kututawala na kutunyonya ambao waliachwa nyuma, na kutokana na ukarimu wa Kiafrika, tuliwapa uraia siku tulipopata Uhuru. Ubaguzi niliuihisi tokana na tabia yao ya kujitenga nasi n ahata kutengana wao kwa wao tokana na mfumo wa mchafu wa caste. Nakumbuka kabla ya Hayati Christopher Mtikila, tena peke yake, kushupalia na kuukemea wazi wazi ubaguzi huu, wenzetu walikuwa wakijitenga nasi kwa kila kitu isipokuwa maduka yao tuliyojaa na kuwajaza utajiri wakati huko walikotoka tunabaguliwa wazi wazi na kitu kama hiki kisingetokea. Hata hivyo, kilichofanyika ni kupunguza ubaguzi lakini siyo kuacha.

Tatu, ni ule wa kujibagua na kubaguana sisi kwa sisi kikabila au kidini ambapo utawasikia mfano kabila fulani likisema wao ni bora kuliko mengine au dini fulani wakiwaita wengine majina ya hovyo kama vile makafiri, wenye dhambi na upuuzi mwingine.

Baada ya kuweka kila kitu kwenye muktadha, sasa tuangalie ni namna gani wabaguzi na wahanga wote wanashiriki dhambi hii hata kama ni kwa sababu na viwango tofauti?

Kwanza, nikiri kuwa ubaguzi wa aina yoyote ni matokeo ya ugonjwa fichi wa akili. Huwa najiuliza hapa Kanada ambapo kusema nyeusi ni kama dhambi nionapo watu wana majibwa meusi lakini wasiyabague ila wawabague wengine wasio kama wao. Je hawa watu si wagonjwa? Ninapotoa mfano wa Kanada nisieleweke kuwa Wakanada wote ni wabaguzi. La hasha. Hata wazungu wote si wabaguzi japo mifumo yao yote ni ya kibaguzi. Ninachotaka kuonyesha ni namna gani wabaguzi walivyo wagonjwa wa akili.

Pili, ubaguzi ni matokeo ya ujinga. Kwani, hata ukitumia mfano wa juu, utaliona hili fika. Kama siyo ujinga, inakuwaje tubaguane kwa misingi ya rangi lakini wakati tunafanana kwa vitu vingi muhimu kama damu, mahitaji na viungo? Nani huyu mjanja aliyemwandikia barua muumba kumuumba ‘bora’ kuliko wengine?

Je ugonjwa wa akili fichi unawakumba wabaguzi tu au hata wahanga wa ubaguzi? Naweza kusema kuwa pamoja na ujinga, vinawakabili wote. Mfano, nashangaa namna tunavyoweza kunyamazia au kuvulimilia ubaguzi wa wazi kama nilivyoonyesha hapo juu. Nashangaa namna ambavyo wahanga, tokana na athari ima za kidini au kikoloni wanaweza kupapatikia na kupwakia tabia ya ubaguzi kama vile kujitenga au kujiona bora wakati wote tu sawa. Je licha ya kuwavumilia na kuwanyamazia wanaotubagua tena kwenye nchi zetu, hatu hatuwapapatikii kiasi cha baadhi ya ndugu zetu kupoteza fedha nyingi wakinunua kansa ya ngozi wakiusaka ‘weupe’ feki?

Kama nilivyoonyesha, tunaweza kuuhisi ubaguzi kwa viwango tofauti. Wakati tukiwapapatikia wale wanaotubagua kwa misingi ya rangi zao huku tukiwaita weupe wakati wakija huku nao wanaitwa watu wa rangi (people of colour) sawa nasi ili wasiuchafue weupe ambao nao ukiuangalia unaushangaa kwa vile vyeupe ni chokaa, mifupa mikavu na theluji lakini siyo wao ambao kimsingi ni pinki, wakija huku wanayong’onyea kuliko sie Waswahili ambao tushazoea ubaguzi japo ubaya hauzoeleki.

Kuna aina mpya ya ubaguzi ambao hapo awali sikuujua. Ni ule ubaguzi tena wa kunuka zaidi unaoandamana na unyama kama ule unaofanyika huko Mashariki ya Kati ambapo watumishi wengi wa ndani wa Kiafrika wameuawa na wengine hata kuuzwa utumwanni kwenye nchi za Maghreb huku Waswahili na serikali zetu tukijikanyaga badala ya kutoa onyo kuwa nasi tunaweza kufanya jino kwa jino japo siyo sawa.

Ubaguzi mwingine ni wa kisiasa ambapo mataifa ya Magharibi huyaona mataifa mengine kama hafifu nayo yakijiona bora. Jiulize. Inakuwaje wao wanapotaka kuingia Afrika ni rahisi kuliko sisi kuingia kwao? Pia, kilichotokea ilipofumka vita ya Urusi na Ukraina inaweza kukupa picha ya ninachomaanisha kuhusiana na mfumo wa kibaguzi wa kimagharibi. Wakimbizi toka Ukraina walipokelewa kila mahali huku nchi yao ikimiminiwa mabilioni ya dola wakati mataifa kama DRC na Sudan ya Kusini ambayo yamekuwa na vita tangu kuanzishwa yakikodolewa macho mbali na kulaumiwa.

Sasa nini kifanyike?

Tujitambue kwa kuelimishana na kukataa kubaguliwa kwa namna yoyote. Tuweke msimamo wetu wazi kuanzia kwenye mifumo yetu. Mfano, naweza kuutoa kwa Hayati Shehe Abeid Aman Karume, Rais kwa kwanza wa Serikali ya Mapinduzi ya Zanzibar aliyepiga marufu ubaguzi kwa vitendo akihimiza Waswahili waliozoea kuonekana kama watumwa kuoleana na wamanga waliozoea kujiona mabwana. Nadhani, kama Hayati Karume angetawala hata kwa miaka 24 kama Hayati baba wa taifa, Mwl Julius Nyerere, kusingekuwa na uPemba na uZanzibari visiwani ambao nao umejenga aina fulani ya ubaguzi ambao ni muendelezo wa aina hiyo kwa upande wa bara ambapo wamanga huwa wanawaoa mabinti wa Kiswahili huku wao wakigoma kuwaozesha mabinti zao kwa Waswahili. Ndugu zangu wa Pwani wanalijua sana.

Pia, tuambiane ukweli hata kama unauma ili pande mbili ziwe tayari kujifunza na kufundishana namna ya kuishi pamoja kutokana na ukweli kuwa wote tunategemeana.

Kwa leo naona nihitimishe hapa nikizidi kusisitiza umuhimu wa kujiamini, kujielimisha, kuelimishana na kujitambua mbali na ithibati katika kutetea ukweli ambao uko wazi.

Chanzo: Jamhuri leo.