Friday, December 31, 2010
Liberian President Charles Taylor Departs Sierra Leone for the Hague. What is the case in Kenya?
Is this is a precedent setting trial? Will it determine Sudan's President El Bashir's fate if he ever goes to trial? What about Mugabe? And then.......News elsewhere......
In December 2010, Kenyan MPs passed a motion urging the government to repeal the International Crimes Act and pull out of the ICC.
Sudan is not a member of ICC however, but its President, El Bashir is a fugitive! A man on the run.
Kenyan IDPs are still unsettled to date
Monday, December 13, 2010
December - "Operation Blackface"
“Black Face” is an event scheduled on 18th December 2010 that would see a “Black Saturday”. People around the internet would display a black profile pic across the major social networking websites to protest against the state’s hostility against whistle blowers (Wikileaks and Julian Assange). It would also see a number of people around the globe wearing black clothes or tying black badges on arms. The very same day supporters of life, liberty, freedom and transparency would write a common e-mail to UK Supreme Court (enquiries@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk ) as a symbolic message from the well meaning citizens across the globe, pleading what the highest court could do to set a precedent for the generations to come that would protect whistle-blowers and free media.
This message would demonstrate the strength of the silent majority which today, is in favor of Julian & friends and against the governments in front of governments across the globe. This message would also suggest the governments that the citizens have digested and accepted the bitter truth as it came to them, now it is turn of state to have a face-off with the truth and respect those who helped bringing it out or else the majority would overrule them someday.
Facebook event - http://on.fb.me/eGw2VD
Facebook page - http://on.fb.me/fbEfCe
This message would demonstrate the strength of the silent majority which today, is in favor of Julian & friends and against the governments in front of governments across the globe. This message would also suggest the governments that the citizens have digested and accepted the bitter truth as it came to them, now it is turn of state to have a face-off with the truth and respect those who helped bringing it out or else the majority would overrule them someday.
Facebook event - http://on.fb.me/eGw2VD
Facebook page - http://on.fb.me/fbEfCe
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Media Comes To The Defense Of WikiLeaks At LeWeb: “The Leakers Will Win”
Today during the Media Panel at LeWeb ’10 in Paris, France, there was one thing on everyones’ mind: WikiLeaks.
“This is a turning point for the Internet — it’s not just about WikiLeaks anymore,” Weblogs SL’s Julio Alonso said. ”What happens to WikiLeaks will get applied to others later on,” he warned.
“This is the first attempt at censorship of the Internet by all the governments of the planet,” Wikio’s Pierre Chappaz added. “Despite all the attacks, I’m optimistic that the information will survive,” he added.
When moderator Adrian Monck asked if this would cast a shadow on the United States in particular, Techmeme’s Gabe Rivera said he thought it already has in some ways. Rivera noted that just the tone of the crowd at LeWeb proves that to some extent. He also singled out U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman suggesting that The New York Times could be a target because of their publication of some of the cables. “It underscores that there’s really no essential difference between what WikiLeaks is doing and what The New York Times does,” he said. Rivera said that is something to be concerned about.
“We’ve pushed the theory of Internet censorship to the very edge,” The Wall Street Journal Europe’s Ben Rooney added.
“We have to speak about what’s happening,” Chappaz said. ”I’m amazed by the silence of the traditional media. This is a systematic attack. We have to explain to the traditional media. The stakes are about the free press,” he continued.
Alonso agreed. “The first line of defense is speaking about it,” he said.
Rivera added that the leakers aren’t going to lose this war. He cited mirror sites, Twitter accounts, Facebook messages, and all kinds of things that keep popping up to continue the data spread. “The leakers will win,” he said.
The panel seemed fairly convinced that even if P2P networks had to replace DNS, the information would indeed end up winning.
“The Internet is too strong. They’ll have a hard time getting it under control,” Chappaz wrapped up the panel with.
MG Siegler
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/media-wikileaks/
“This is a turning point for the Internet — it’s not just about WikiLeaks anymore,” Weblogs SL’s Julio Alonso said. ”What happens to WikiLeaks will get applied to others later on,” he warned.
“This is the first attempt at censorship of the Internet by all the governments of the planet,” Wikio’s Pierre Chappaz added. “Despite all the attacks, I’m optimistic that the information will survive,” he added.
When moderator Adrian Monck asked if this would cast a shadow on the United States in particular, Techmeme’s Gabe Rivera said he thought it already has in some ways. Rivera noted that just the tone of the crowd at LeWeb proves that to some extent. He also singled out U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman suggesting that The New York Times could be a target because of their publication of some of the cables. “It underscores that there’s really no essential difference between what WikiLeaks is doing and what The New York Times does,” he said. Rivera said that is something to be concerned about.
“We’ve pushed the theory of Internet censorship to the very edge,” The Wall Street Journal Europe’s Ben Rooney added.
“We have to speak about what’s happening,” Chappaz said. ”I’m amazed by the silence of the traditional media. This is a systematic attack. We have to explain to the traditional media. The stakes are about the free press,” he continued.
Alonso agreed. “The first line of defense is speaking about it,” he said.
Rivera added that the leakers aren’t going to lose this war. He cited mirror sites, Twitter accounts, Facebook messages, and all kinds of things that keep popping up to continue the data spread. “The leakers will win,” he said.
The panel seemed fairly convinced that even if P2P networks had to replace DNS, the information would indeed end up winning.
“The Internet is too strong. They’ll have a hard time getting it under control,” Chappaz wrapped up the panel with.
MG Siegler
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/media-wikileaks/
PayPal Responds to WikiLeaks Controversy
On December 4, PayPal announced that it had permanently restricted the account of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. At the time, the reason the company gave was that Assange had violated the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits using a PayPal account to promote or facilitate illegal activity.
PayPal Vice President of Platform, Mobile and New Ventures Osama Bedier elaborated on the company’s actions when pressed on stage at the LeWeb conference in Paris. He started by explaining the process the company takes for these decisions. “We have an acceptable use policy group,” Bedier explained, “to make sure that our customers are protected.” PayPal evaluates different situations and complaints to figure out whether someone is violating its acceptable use policy.
The acceptable use policy group had to address Julian Assange and WikiLeaks when the U.S. State Department issued a letter on November 27 stating that the activity of the WikiLeaks organization was deemed illegal in the U.S. “It was straightforward,” Bedier said, once the State Department made that declaration.
Bedier was also asked by The Telegraph’s Milo Yiannopoulos whether he was worried about hackers retaliating against PayPal for closing down Assange’s account, referring to recent attacks against it and Mastercard. The PayPal VP’s response was that hackers have always targeted the company, since it is one of the most successful payments companies in the world, and that this was no different.
http://mashable.com/2010/12/08/paypal-responds-to-wikileaks-controversy/
PayPal Vice President of Platform, Mobile and New Ventures Osama Bedier elaborated on the company’s actions when pressed on stage at the LeWeb conference in Paris. He started by explaining the process the company takes for these decisions. “We have an acceptable use policy group,” Bedier explained, “to make sure that our customers are protected.” PayPal evaluates different situations and complaints to figure out whether someone is violating its acceptable use policy.
The acceptable use policy group had to address Julian Assange and WikiLeaks when the U.S. State Department issued a letter on November 27 stating that the activity of the WikiLeaks organization was deemed illegal in the U.S. “It was straightforward,” Bedier said, once the State Department made that declaration.
Bedier was also asked by The Telegraph’s Milo Yiannopoulos whether he was worried about hackers retaliating against PayPal for closing down Assange’s account, referring to recent attacks against it and Mastercard. The PayPal VP’s response was that hackers have always targeted the company, since it is one of the most successful payments companies in the world, and that this was no different.
http://mashable.com/2010/12/08/paypal-responds-to-wikileaks-controversy/
PayPal VP On Blocking WikiLeaks: State Department Said It Was Illegal
Milo Yannopoulos’ very first question on stage to PayPal’s VP of Platform Osama Bedier was about why PayPal blocked WikiLeaks payments and froze its account. The question was met with boos from the mostly European audience.
In his answer Bedier made it seem like PayPal had complied with a governmental request to deny service to WikiLeaks, “We have an acceptable use policy and their job is make sure that our customers are protected, making sure that we comply with regulations around the world and making sure that we protect our brand.”
Bedier also said that PayPal’s decision was influenced by the fact that the State Department deemed WikiLeaks illegal in a letter sent on November 27th, a statement that was not followed up on by Yiannopoulos. It is still unclear what exact US laws WikiLeaks is breaking.
When asked about Mastercard.com going down earlier today and whether or not Paypal had fears of retaliation, “One of the signs that you’re a successful payments company is that hackers start to target you, this case isn’t anything different.”
Update: After talking to Bedier backstage, he clarified that the State Department did not directly talk to PayPal and that the letter in question here was actually sent by the State Department to WikiLeaks. I have changed the headline of this post to reflect this statement. Full text of the letter Osama said he was referencing and video of the talk, below:
Text of State Department letter to Wikileaks
Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:11am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Text of a letter from the State Department to Julian Assange, the founder of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, and his lawyer Jennifer Robinson concerning its intended publication of classified State Department documents. The letter, dated November 27, was released by the department.
Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange:
I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government documents.
As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.
It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents.
Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:
* Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals — from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;
* Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,
* Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries – partners, allies and common stakeholders — to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability.
In your letter, you say you want — consistent with your goal of “maximum disclosure” — information regarding individuals who may be “at significant risk of harm” because of your actions.
Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger. We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks’ databases.
Sincerely,
(The letter is signed by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser to the State Department)
http://topicfire.com/share/PayPal-VP-On-Blocking-WikiLeaks-State-Department-Said-It-Was-Illegal-16267176.html
In his answer Bedier made it seem like PayPal had complied with a governmental request to deny service to WikiLeaks, “We have an acceptable use policy and their job is make sure that our customers are protected, making sure that we comply with regulations around the world and making sure that we protect our brand.”
Bedier also said that PayPal’s decision was influenced by the fact that the State Department deemed WikiLeaks illegal in a letter sent on November 27th, a statement that was not followed up on by Yiannopoulos. It is still unclear what exact US laws WikiLeaks is breaking.
When asked about Mastercard.com going down earlier today and whether or not Paypal had fears of retaliation, “One of the signs that you’re a successful payments company is that hackers start to target you, this case isn’t anything different.”
Update: After talking to Bedier backstage, he clarified that the State Department did not directly talk to PayPal and that the letter in question here was actually sent by the State Department to WikiLeaks. I have changed the headline of this post to reflect this statement. Full text of the letter Osama said he was referencing and video of the talk, below:
Text of State Department letter to Wikileaks
Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:11am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Text of a letter from the State Department to Julian Assange, the founder of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, and his lawyer Jennifer Robinson concerning its intended publication of classified State Department documents. The letter, dated November 27, was released by the department.
Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange:
I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government documents.
As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.
It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents.
Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:
* Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals — from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;
* Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,
* Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries – partners, allies and common stakeholders — to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability.
In your letter, you say you want — consistent with your goal of “maximum disclosure” — information regarding individuals who may be “at significant risk of harm” because of your actions.
Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger. We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks’ databases.
Sincerely,
(The letter is signed by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser to the State Department)
http://topicfire.com/share/PayPal-VP-On-Blocking-WikiLeaks-State-Department-Said-It-Was-Illegal-16267176.html
Anonymous takes up the fight for WikiLeaks
Members of infamous hacker group Anonymous have reportedly taken up WikiLeaks' cause, launching denial of service attacks on a range of sites connected to founder Julian Assange.
According to Ars Technica, Anonymous has attacked sites including PayPal, Swiss bank PostFinance and the site of the Swedish prosecutors in Mr Assange's sexual assault case. An Anonymous member going by the alias Coldblood has told the BBC that targets are being made of sites that are ''bowing down to government pressure''.
"As an organisation we have always taken a strong stance on censorship and freedom of expression on the internet and come out against those who seek to destroy it by any means,'' he said.
The group expressed a similar sentiment on their website (http://anonops.net/), stating that they ''will find and will attack those who stand against Wikileaks and we will support WikiLeaks in everything they need.''
PayPal was reportedly the group's first target after the company cut off WikiLeaks' account - the PayPal blog went offline for a short time yesterday, though the main site appeared unaffected. Attacks against PostFinance, who closed Mr Assange's account earlier this week, appear to have been more successful - Ars Technica reports the bank's site went offline for more than 16 hours. It remained inaccessible as of 1AM EST, but had come back online by 4.45AM.
Further attacks are reportedly planned against Twitter, after it was claimed the site had prevented the #wikileaks hashtag from appearing in the trending topics list. Twitter has denied the claims, saying there are a number of factors that determine whether a topic is trending or not.
Seemingly in response to actions by Anonymous, the group's site was itself taken down by a denial of service attack late yesterday, but was online by 5AM EST after it was moved to a new server.
Read More ... http://topicfire.com/share/Anonymous-takes-up-the-fight-for-WikiLeaks-16267259.html
According to Ars Technica, Anonymous has attacked sites including PayPal, Swiss bank PostFinance and the site of the Swedish prosecutors in Mr Assange's sexual assault case. An Anonymous member going by the alias Coldblood has told the BBC that targets are being made of sites that are ''bowing down to government pressure''.
"As an organisation we have always taken a strong stance on censorship and freedom of expression on the internet and come out against those who seek to destroy it by any means,'' he said.
The group expressed a similar sentiment on their website (http://anonops.net/), stating that they ''will find and will attack those who stand against Wikileaks and we will support WikiLeaks in everything they need.''
PayPal was reportedly the group's first target after the company cut off WikiLeaks' account - the PayPal blog went offline for a short time yesterday, though the main site appeared unaffected. Attacks against PostFinance, who closed Mr Assange's account earlier this week, appear to have been more successful - Ars Technica reports the bank's site went offline for more than 16 hours. It remained inaccessible as of 1AM EST, but had come back online by 4.45AM.
Further attacks are reportedly planned against Twitter, after it was claimed the site had prevented the #wikileaks hashtag from appearing in the trending topics list. Twitter has denied the claims, saying there are a number of factors that determine whether a topic is trending or not.
Seemingly in response to actions by Anonymous, the group's site was itself taken down by a denial of service attack late yesterday, but was online by 5AM EST after it was moved to a new server.
Read More ... http://topicfire.com/share/Anonymous-takes-up-the-fight-for-WikiLeaks-16267259.html
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
A Kenyan Woman with 3 wives - yet it is not termed a 'homosexual marriage' but a 'same-sex-non-sexual-marriage'
This blog writes on new media and politics, however, this time around it has intentionally lost focus of its subject and meandered into the issue of 'homosexuality' or 'same-sex-non-sexual-marriage' in Kenya. Take a read, it is worth it.
So, this is a very interesting marriage. While, at first hearing, it may sound like a practice of Lesbianism or same sex marriage, the Kalenjin community or culture, which this woman hails from, does not allow the women in the marriage to have sex. Infact, traditionally, such a marriage is not called "a same sex marriage" but a "culturally accepted marriage" only for reason of making children. Whatever the difference!
So culture does not permit homosexuality, but permits such a relationship on the grounds of seeking a child i.e if a woman is not able to have children, she is allowed to marry another woman who can sire children for their family.
Fascinating?
So how does Christianity perceive such a marriage?
Can this marriage fall under the category of homosexuality?
If homosexuality is described as 'a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex', then can the above marriage may be classified as homosexual or otherwise.
Please note that she has four (minus 2 who were snatched away by real men) wives. And so, how do homosexuals comprehend a "homosexual polygamous marriage?"
So, this is a very interesting marriage. While, at first hearing, it may sound like a practice of Lesbianism or same sex marriage, the Kalenjin community or culture, which this woman hails from, does not allow the women in the marriage to have sex. Infact, traditionally, such a marriage is not called "a same sex marriage" but a "culturally accepted marriage" only for reason of making children. Whatever the difference!
So culture does not permit homosexuality, but permits such a relationship on the grounds of seeking a child i.e if a woman is not able to have children, she is allowed to marry another woman who can sire children for their family.
Fascinating?
So how does Christianity perceive such a marriage?
Can this marriage fall under the category of homosexuality?
If homosexuality is described as 'a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex', then can the above marriage may be classified as homosexual or otherwise.
Please note that she has four (minus 2 who were snatched away by real men) wives. And so, how do homosexuals comprehend a "homosexual polygamous marriage?"
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Facebook Email: How will this new Email Feature affect Virtual Political Discourses and Online Political Activism?
Facebook has a substantial civic potential, and several studies have documented that potential, focusing both on everyday generic use of Facebook and on specific political spaces created by it. The space seems to be expanding as the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the social network will be launching a revamped messaging product, 'Messages,' that will give users an "@facebook.com" email address.
Zuckerberg outlined three features that will define Facebook's new offering, which Zuckerberg described as "the way the future should work": Seamless messaging (users can chat with people through whatever medium they choose, be it SMS, email, or IM), conversation history ("see everything you've discussed with each friend as a single conversation"), and a social inbox for "filtering exactly the messages you want to see."
While many are concerned about this new feature killing Email, my main concern is how easy and quick emailing through facebook will open up more communication and information platforms for political debate.
Early proponents of online politicking have suggested that social media has propelled us into the age of empowerment. And there's no doubt that Facebook and Twitter given their lack of boundaries and control have led to greater political engagement, particularly among younger citizens who are more comfortable in the online world.
Using online social networks for politicians to recruit support is common in the U.S. (e.g, President Obama had his own official Facebook page, twitter page, and official website, etc.) With the development of the Internet, in particular the ability to access facebook on mobile telephones, the phenomenon of dealing with politics online has appeared in Kenya and Africa as well. So, how will this broadening of the social media enhance political participation and democracy?
Chinta Musundi - Beez
Zuckerberg outlined three features that will define Facebook's new offering, which Zuckerberg described as "the way the future should work": Seamless messaging (users can chat with people through whatever medium they choose, be it SMS, email, or IM), conversation history ("see everything you've discussed with each friend as a single conversation"), and a social inbox for "filtering exactly the messages you want to see."
While many are concerned about this new feature killing Email, my main concern is how easy and quick emailing through facebook will open up more communication and information platforms for political debate.
Early proponents of online politicking have suggested that social media has propelled us into the age of empowerment. And there's no doubt that Facebook and Twitter given their lack of boundaries and control have led to greater political engagement, particularly among younger citizens who are more comfortable in the online world.
Using online social networks for politicians to recruit support is common in the U.S. (e.g, President Obama had his own official Facebook page, twitter page, and official website, etc.) With the development of the Internet, in particular the ability to access facebook on mobile telephones, the phenomenon of dealing with politics online has appeared in Kenya and Africa as well. So, how will this broadening of the social media enhance political participation and democracy?
Chinta Musundi - Beez
Monday, November 15, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Battle against rising cyber crime should not infringe on the citizens’ right to privacy
It is hardly necessary to emphasise the impact of modern telecommunications in human life.
The growth of the telecommunications sector has tremendously revolutionised all spheres of human interactions.
To illustrate, according to available statistics, there are more than 20 million mobile telephone users in Kenya.
It is estimated that this number will increase by an additional five million in just two years.
The growth in the mobile telephony market is not only characterised by the increase in numbers but also by the development of mobile cellular networks.
Some mobile telecommunication companies have already rolled out fourth generation networks and compatible telecommunication devices.
This has led to the emergence of new services and applications for mobile cellular services such as:
(a) mobile banking,
(b) blogging,
(c) push-to talk services,
(d) location-based services,
(e) group chat applications
(f) personalisation and customisation services, and
(g) mobile games.
There are, of course, other important developments in mobile, wireless, portable and pervasive computing technologies that rely on other network technologies, with different reach and mobility handling capabilities.
These include wireless local are networks, the developing WiMax standards, satellites and developments in the internet protocol to allow in-motion and mobile communication.
Besides, the recent entrance in the Kenyan telecommunications market of companies providing big broadband based on fibre access will further add to the growth of telecommunications services.
The growing availability of high speed bandwidth is likely to enhance growth opportunities in the field of triple play.
These developments will undoubtedly impact positively on economic growth.
For example, the Mobile Banking product offered by Safaricom popularly known as M-Pesa has significantly improved the flow of money in the financial system.
Besides, the Internet is a remarkable facilitator for exchanging ideas. Data posted on the Internet is transmitted by altering the amplitudes, frequencies, or phases of electromagnetic waves.
System users send messages across borders through a series of interlinked servers.
A variety of physical network media, such as Ethernet or Token Ring, transform electrical charges into the lines, letters, and pictures appearing on computer screens.
Persons searching for educational or commercial providers can find a plethora of Web sites with interactive electronic dictionaries, newspapers, games, health care information, and government links.
The list of services available on the Internet is limited only by human imagination and advances in computer technology, both of which improve rapidly.
But there are some negative developments associated with growth in the telecommunication sector.
The worldwide explosion of communication technologies creates significant challenges for law enforcement agencies and national security organisations responsible for battling various forms of crime and terrorism.
The sophistication of criminal enterprises in exploiting emerging communication channels has increased with the rising popularity of these channels, posing a very real challenge to organisations responsible for protecting public safety and reducing the impact of crime on communities.
Given the broad availability of communication options and the relative ease with which criminal networks and terrorist groups can exchange information across these channels—-by both data and voice communication—the impetus to intercept illicit exchanges and track the operations of criminal enterprises is very strong and compelling.
For example, potential terrorists can easily use forms of mobile and internet communications to plan mass murder.
Others can use these services to spread hate messages, paedophilic information, or spread malicious falsehoods.
These negative externalities have brought to fore the role of the government in regulating telecommunications information and specifically the permitted instances where legislation may allow security agencies to lawfully intercept telecommunication information on the grounds of public security, public health or public morality.
An overlapping framework of national regulation in the telecommunications sector should establish the foundation for the monitoring of telecommunications, implemented to enable law enforcement agencies to intercept messages or information being distributed for illegal purposes.
The Policy framework for the telecommunications sector in Kenya is somewhat undeveloped.
The Government of Kenya developed the National Communications and Information Technology Policy in 2006, a time when the telecommunications sector was still growing and undoubtedly require updating to reflect the growing numbers, increased services and emerging challenges.
On cybercrime and the specific issue of lawful interception of telecommunication information, the ICT policy merely contains a one paragraph statement recognising the challenges brought by modern telecommunications and requires the country to establish an adequate legal framework and capacity to deal with national security, network security, cyber-crime and terrorism.
Besides, the ICT policy requires the establishment of mechanisms for international cooperation to combat cross-border crimes.
Further, the policy envisages the development of an e-security structure.
ICT policy
While the ICT policy requires the development of new legal framework “national security, network security, cyber-crime and terrorism” that will presumably cover aspects of lawful interception, it is desirable that adequate preparation is made.
The interception of telecommunication informational in a matter that inextricably appears to infringe on the right to privacy of individuals.
Therefore, the enacting of a legislation that permits lawful interception of telecommunication information requires a careful assessment and balancing of divergent interests.
As a starting point, there is need to review the ICT policy to incorporate specific guidelines and legislative steps needed on lawful interception, as an emerging issue in cyber-security.
In the later parts of this essay, an attempt is made to highlight the critical issues that underlie lawful interception at both policy and legal fronts. .
These can be used to lay foundation of the suggested policy development and legal enactment.
Be that as it may, the Government has in the past made spasmodic attempts to enact legal framework on lawful interception.
Currently, there is no substantive legal regime governing lawful interception of telecommunication information in Kenya.
The Kenya Communication and Information Act, the statute that governs and regulates the telecommunications sector in Kenya does not contain adequate provisions on the subject.
The Act merely provides that one of the functions of the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK), the sector regulator, in relation to broadcasting services shall be to protect the right to privacy of all persons.
Other than this, there is no clause that allows the Communication Commission of Kenya, for example, to prescribe regulations or guidelines on the interception of telecommunication information.
But section 83U of the Act that contains provisions prohibiting access into a computer system to obtain any programme contains derogation where access is allowed pursuant to the exercise of a statutory power to obtain information.
This is a statutory recognition of the fact that the Government has power to enact a specific statute on lawful interception
Besides, the statutes governing the operations of the security agencies are equally silent on lawful interception of telecommunication services.
The Government has attempted to fill this lacuna in the recent past by piecemeal legislative reform proposals.
First, in 2005 the Anti-terrorism Bill was proposed. The bill contained substantial provisions allowing security agencies to lawfully intercept telecommunications provisions.
But it contained controversial provisions that sought to allow security agencies to seize property without due process, arrest and indefinitely detain suspects.
These issues stirred intense public debate forcing the government to shelve the bill.
Amongst other issues, it was rightly argued that provisions that disregarded due process were unconstitutional.
It was further argued that the bill vested on the security agencies unbridled powers that could be easily abused.
In the absence of an adequate consideration of issues, an explanation of the underlying policy objectives, and inclusion of adequate safeguards, the law on lawful interception is likely to stir similar public reaction.
Secondly, the Government has recently pushed through the enactment of the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill Act in 2009.
The Act makes some provisions on lawful interception of telecommunication information.
The Act can be said to be the first major attempt by Kenya’s attempt to enact a specific statute on lawful interception of telecommunications information.
Despite the objective of the Act being to provide the legal regime for mutual legal assistance to be given and received by Kenya in Kenya in investigations, prosecution and judicial proceedings, the Bill actually contains a substantive legal principles that appear to authorise interception of telecommunication information.
Ideally, given the situation-sensitive issues surrounding lawful interception, one would expect the enactment of a specific act of parliament that deals with issue.
Be that as it may, under the provisions of Article 27 of the Act, Kenya may execute a request from a requesting state for the interception and immediate transmittal of telecommunication information or the interception, recording and subsequent transmittal of telecommunication.
A request for Mutual Legal Assistance shall include:
(a) an indication of the authority making the request,
(b) confirmation a lawful interception order or warrant has been issued in connection with a criminal investigation, if such an order or warrant is required by law,
(c) information for the purposes of identifying the subject of the requested interception,
(d) details of the criminal conduct under investigation ,
(e) the desired duration of the interception and
(f) if possible, the provision of sufficient technical data, in particular the relevant network connection number, communication address or service identifier to ensure the request can be met.
Under Section 32 of the Act, a request may be made to Kenya from a requesting state for covert electronic surveillance.
Foreign law
Is this the best incorporation in legislative enactment of the principles on lawful interception of telecommunication information?
Not necessarily. Is it the only approach? Clearly not.
The provisions of the Act on lawful interception do not conform to the provisions of the Constitution.
It might create interpretational problems and if applied, its constitutionality can easily be challenged.
A number of reasons can be cited for this proposition.
First and critically important, the legislation does not provide for the circumstances, local warrant or interception order procedures.
The Attorney General is merely required to comply with requests that have been issued under foreign law and governed by exotic procedures.
This is very problematic in that there is no room for a person (the subject of interception) to challenge in Kenya, the legality or constitutionality of these procedures and law.
Currently, the High Court of Kenya has no jurisdiction to deal with the legality or otherwise of foreign procedures.
This puts a litigant in a difficult position where the only options available are to file proceedings in the requesting state country to prohibit the receiving into evidence information obtained upon interception in Kenya.
Alternatively, the aggrieved person has the option of seeking judicial redress in Kenya to preclude the Attorney General from transmitting the recorded information.
Secondly, providing for the interception of telecommunication information in Kenya by applying procedures and rules of the requesting state in Kenya may be considered as an attempt to apply foreign legal process in Kenya.
In essence, this extends the jurisdiction of the requesting state in Kenya, a clear affront to Kenya’s territorial sovereignty.
It would have been better if an Act of Parliament is enacted in Kenya that clearly provides for the rules and procedures to be followed in lawful interception.
These procedures should be subjected to a stringent constitutional test to preclude instances of flagrant violation of the right to privacy.
As it stands, the interception procedures in Mutual Legal Assistance Act are not adequate to meet the constitutional standards.
Persons enjoy the reasonable expectations of privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution; any legislation that takes away this right must be subjected to a cogent suitability test.
In sum the legal principles on lawful interception must be more nuanced, balanced and contain accurate rules that balance between the constitutional recognition of the right to privacy and instances where limitations of the right are permitted.
The derogations must be consistent with the aims of a free and open society.
Certainly, the Mutual Legal Assistance Act does not meet even the basic of the thresholds.
Given the sensitivity of the issue of lawful interception it is necessary that a substantive Act of Parliament is enacted.
A substantive statute on the interception of telecommunication information will not only cover all substantial themes on interception but also contain adequate safeguards to preclude abuse of discretion on the part of the security agencies.
This entails striking a balance between the privacy concerns of the citizenry and the public safety issues.
Kenya is not the first country to enact a statute of this kind. Countries such as United States, Australia have long enacted the Act and it has worked pretty well in their legal systems.
By Peter Wanyama (email the author)
Posted Monday, October 25 2010 at 00:00
Mr Wanyama is an Advocate of the High Court and Member Young International Arbitration Group, London.
The growth of the telecommunications sector has tremendously revolutionised all spheres of human interactions.
To illustrate, according to available statistics, there are more than 20 million mobile telephone users in Kenya.
It is estimated that this number will increase by an additional five million in just two years.
The growth in the mobile telephony market is not only characterised by the increase in numbers but also by the development of mobile cellular networks.
Some mobile telecommunication companies have already rolled out fourth generation networks and compatible telecommunication devices.
This has led to the emergence of new services and applications for mobile cellular services such as:
(a) mobile banking,
(b) blogging,
(c) push-to talk services,
(d) location-based services,
(e) group chat applications
(f) personalisation and customisation services, and
(g) mobile games.
There are, of course, other important developments in mobile, wireless, portable and pervasive computing technologies that rely on other network technologies, with different reach and mobility handling capabilities.
These include wireless local are networks, the developing WiMax standards, satellites and developments in the internet protocol to allow in-motion and mobile communication.
Besides, the recent entrance in the Kenyan telecommunications market of companies providing big broadband based on fibre access will further add to the growth of telecommunications services.
The growing availability of high speed bandwidth is likely to enhance growth opportunities in the field of triple play.
These developments will undoubtedly impact positively on economic growth.
For example, the Mobile Banking product offered by Safaricom popularly known as M-Pesa has significantly improved the flow of money in the financial system.
Besides, the Internet is a remarkable facilitator for exchanging ideas. Data posted on the Internet is transmitted by altering the amplitudes, frequencies, or phases of electromagnetic waves.
System users send messages across borders through a series of interlinked servers.
A variety of physical network media, such as Ethernet or Token Ring, transform electrical charges into the lines, letters, and pictures appearing on computer screens.
Persons searching for educational or commercial providers can find a plethora of Web sites with interactive electronic dictionaries, newspapers, games, health care information, and government links.
The list of services available on the Internet is limited only by human imagination and advances in computer technology, both of which improve rapidly.
But there are some negative developments associated with growth in the telecommunication sector.
The worldwide explosion of communication technologies creates significant challenges for law enforcement agencies and national security organisations responsible for battling various forms of crime and terrorism.
The sophistication of criminal enterprises in exploiting emerging communication channels has increased with the rising popularity of these channels, posing a very real challenge to organisations responsible for protecting public safety and reducing the impact of crime on communities.
Given the broad availability of communication options and the relative ease with which criminal networks and terrorist groups can exchange information across these channels—-by both data and voice communication—the impetus to intercept illicit exchanges and track the operations of criminal enterprises is very strong and compelling.
For example, potential terrorists can easily use forms of mobile and internet communications to plan mass murder.
Others can use these services to spread hate messages, paedophilic information, or spread malicious falsehoods.
These negative externalities have brought to fore the role of the government in regulating telecommunications information and specifically the permitted instances where legislation may allow security agencies to lawfully intercept telecommunication information on the grounds of public security, public health or public morality.
An overlapping framework of national regulation in the telecommunications sector should establish the foundation for the monitoring of telecommunications, implemented to enable law enforcement agencies to intercept messages or information being distributed for illegal purposes.
The Policy framework for the telecommunications sector in Kenya is somewhat undeveloped.
The Government of Kenya developed the National Communications and Information Technology Policy in 2006, a time when the telecommunications sector was still growing and undoubtedly require updating to reflect the growing numbers, increased services and emerging challenges.
On cybercrime and the specific issue of lawful interception of telecommunication information, the ICT policy merely contains a one paragraph statement recognising the challenges brought by modern telecommunications and requires the country to establish an adequate legal framework and capacity to deal with national security, network security, cyber-crime and terrorism.
Besides, the ICT policy requires the establishment of mechanisms for international cooperation to combat cross-border crimes.
Further, the policy envisages the development of an e-security structure.
ICT policy
While the ICT policy requires the development of new legal framework “national security, network security, cyber-crime and terrorism” that will presumably cover aspects of lawful interception, it is desirable that adequate preparation is made.
The interception of telecommunication informational in a matter that inextricably appears to infringe on the right to privacy of individuals.
Therefore, the enacting of a legislation that permits lawful interception of telecommunication information requires a careful assessment and balancing of divergent interests.
As a starting point, there is need to review the ICT policy to incorporate specific guidelines and legislative steps needed on lawful interception, as an emerging issue in cyber-security.
In the later parts of this essay, an attempt is made to highlight the critical issues that underlie lawful interception at both policy and legal fronts. .
These can be used to lay foundation of the suggested policy development and legal enactment.
Be that as it may, the Government has in the past made spasmodic attempts to enact legal framework on lawful interception.
Currently, there is no substantive legal regime governing lawful interception of telecommunication information in Kenya.
The Kenya Communication and Information Act, the statute that governs and regulates the telecommunications sector in Kenya does not contain adequate provisions on the subject.
The Act merely provides that one of the functions of the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK), the sector regulator, in relation to broadcasting services shall be to protect the right to privacy of all persons.
Other than this, there is no clause that allows the Communication Commission of Kenya, for example, to prescribe regulations or guidelines on the interception of telecommunication information.
But section 83U of the Act that contains provisions prohibiting access into a computer system to obtain any programme contains derogation where access is allowed pursuant to the exercise of a statutory power to obtain information.
This is a statutory recognition of the fact that the Government has power to enact a specific statute on lawful interception
Besides, the statutes governing the operations of the security agencies are equally silent on lawful interception of telecommunication services.
The Government has attempted to fill this lacuna in the recent past by piecemeal legislative reform proposals.
First, in 2005 the Anti-terrorism Bill was proposed. The bill contained substantial provisions allowing security agencies to lawfully intercept telecommunications provisions.
But it contained controversial provisions that sought to allow security agencies to seize property without due process, arrest and indefinitely detain suspects.
These issues stirred intense public debate forcing the government to shelve the bill.
Amongst other issues, it was rightly argued that provisions that disregarded due process were unconstitutional.
It was further argued that the bill vested on the security agencies unbridled powers that could be easily abused.
In the absence of an adequate consideration of issues, an explanation of the underlying policy objectives, and inclusion of adequate safeguards, the law on lawful interception is likely to stir similar public reaction.
Secondly, the Government has recently pushed through the enactment of the Mutual Legal Assistance Bill Act in 2009.
The Act makes some provisions on lawful interception of telecommunication information.
The Act can be said to be the first major attempt by Kenya’s attempt to enact a specific statute on lawful interception of telecommunications information.
Despite the objective of the Act being to provide the legal regime for mutual legal assistance to be given and received by Kenya in Kenya in investigations, prosecution and judicial proceedings, the Bill actually contains a substantive legal principles that appear to authorise interception of telecommunication information.
Ideally, given the situation-sensitive issues surrounding lawful interception, one would expect the enactment of a specific act of parliament that deals with issue.
Be that as it may, under the provisions of Article 27 of the Act, Kenya may execute a request from a requesting state for the interception and immediate transmittal of telecommunication information or the interception, recording and subsequent transmittal of telecommunication.
A request for Mutual Legal Assistance shall include:
(a) an indication of the authority making the request,
(b) confirmation a lawful interception order or warrant has been issued in connection with a criminal investigation, if such an order or warrant is required by law,
(c) information for the purposes of identifying the subject of the requested interception,
(d) details of the criminal conduct under investigation ,
(e) the desired duration of the interception and
(f) if possible, the provision of sufficient technical data, in particular the relevant network connection number, communication address or service identifier to ensure the request can be met.
Under Section 32 of the Act, a request may be made to Kenya from a requesting state for covert electronic surveillance.
Foreign law
Is this the best incorporation in legislative enactment of the principles on lawful interception of telecommunication information?
Not necessarily. Is it the only approach? Clearly not.
The provisions of the Act on lawful interception do not conform to the provisions of the Constitution.
It might create interpretational problems and if applied, its constitutionality can easily be challenged.
A number of reasons can be cited for this proposition.
First and critically important, the legislation does not provide for the circumstances, local warrant or interception order procedures.
The Attorney General is merely required to comply with requests that have been issued under foreign law and governed by exotic procedures.
This is very problematic in that there is no room for a person (the subject of interception) to challenge in Kenya, the legality or constitutionality of these procedures and law.
Currently, the High Court of Kenya has no jurisdiction to deal with the legality or otherwise of foreign procedures.
This puts a litigant in a difficult position where the only options available are to file proceedings in the requesting state country to prohibit the receiving into evidence information obtained upon interception in Kenya.
Alternatively, the aggrieved person has the option of seeking judicial redress in Kenya to preclude the Attorney General from transmitting the recorded information.
Secondly, providing for the interception of telecommunication information in Kenya by applying procedures and rules of the requesting state in Kenya may be considered as an attempt to apply foreign legal process in Kenya.
In essence, this extends the jurisdiction of the requesting state in Kenya, a clear affront to Kenya’s territorial sovereignty.
It would have been better if an Act of Parliament is enacted in Kenya that clearly provides for the rules and procedures to be followed in lawful interception.
These procedures should be subjected to a stringent constitutional test to preclude instances of flagrant violation of the right to privacy.
As it stands, the interception procedures in Mutual Legal Assistance Act are not adequate to meet the constitutional standards.
Persons enjoy the reasonable expectations of privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution; any legislation that takes away this right must be subjected to a cogent suitability test.
In sum the legal principles on lawful interception must be more nuanced, balanced and contain accurate rules that balance between the constitutional recognition of the right to privacy and instances where limitations of the right are permitted.
The derogations must be consistent with the aims of a free and open society.
Certainly, the Mutual Legal Assistance Act does not meet even the basic of the thresholds.
Given the sensitivity of the issue of lawful interception it is necessary that a substantive Act of Parliament is enacted.
A substantive statute on the interception of telecommunication information will not only cover all substantial themes on interception but also contain adequate safeguards to preclude abuse of discretion on the part of the security agencies.
This entails striking a balance between the privacy concerns of the citizenry and the public safety issues.
Kenya is not the first country to enact a statute of this kind. Countries such as United States, Australia have long enacted the Act and it has worked pretty well in their legal systems.
By Peter Wanyama (email the author)
Posted Monday, October 25 2010 at 00:00
Mr Wanyama is an Advocate of the High Court and Member Young International Arbitration Group, London.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
New Media and Elections in Africa: An African perspective
Discussions of new media have often underplayed the African continent. Scholars have developed theories about how digital technology affects democracy and political processes, however, these theories have a tendency to exclude the experience of Sub-Saharan Africa, where meaningful access to new media technologies is increasing.
On 11 & 12 October 2010, I attended two-day conference on Media and Elections in Africa, hosted by the Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research (WISER) and the Department of Political Studies at Witwatersrand University, Johannesburg, South Africa. The conference was well attended by speakers and audiences from many parts of the African region, hence making the conference a platform for debate in a truly African context
Although the focus of the conference was on ‘Media’ in general, I choose to highlight only those papers that had a focus on new media and its respective technological tools. Such discussions sought to discuss whether the use of these new digital tools is actually improving African political structures, systems and processes, in particular elections. The papers cited below examined the impact of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) on the societies and politics of African countries.
Dumisani Moyo of media and elections in Africa in his paper ‘The New Media as Monitors of Democracy: Mobile Phones and Zimbabwe’s 2008 Election’ argues that the advent of new communications technologies such as the Internet and mobile phones has ushered in a new era of political communication in Zimbabwe where citizens actively participate both in the election campaign and monitoring processes. He looks at these new innovations and their entry into the field of political communication, focusing particularly on the convergence of mobile phones (in particular the SMS or short message service), the Internet and clandestine radio during Zimbabwe’s contested 2008 election. He concludes that these new forms of communication are fast eroding the monopoly of incumbent governments over the communications landscape. Therefore undercutting the liberation discourse that has had a stranglehold on election processes, and signaling the possibility of more open political spaces where divergent views can co-exist.
Joyce Omwoha of Wits University interrogated two Kenyan vernacular radio stations namely, Coro FM which is run in Luo language and Kass FM which is run in the Kalenjin. Her paper was titled, ‘The Power of Talk: Interrogating Vernacular Talk Radio as a Tool for Political Manipulation in Kenya.’ She contends that the two vernacular radio stations were particularly accused of encouraging division between various ethnic communities such as kikuyus, Embus and Merus (who were in favor of the incumbent President Kibaki’s reforms) and Luos, Kalenjins and Luhyas (who opposed Kibaki and mainly supported the opposition). She further reckoned that Kass FM, and Coro FM, through the content they disseminated in the air waves, actually did influenced increased expression within and by the numerous ethnic groups in Kenya. She argues that the way in which political leaders were represented by these talk radio stations during the election period enhanced the political-tribal-tensions and politics of identity that is typical in Kenya. That the identification of politicians was peculiarly through their belonging to a particular ethnic community more than what their politics was really about.
Jendele Hungbo of Wits University also espouses on the issue of representation and identity politics through the case study of South Africa. He claims that the questions of representation and identity politics always become more noticeable in talk shows during elections in transitional democracies. Drawing on material from two radio talk shows, ‘The After Eight Debate’ (SAFM) and ‘The Redi Direko Show’ (Talk Radio 702), his paper, ‘Talking to the Polls: Election Discourses in Two Radio Talk Shows in Post-Apartheid South Africa’ attempts to show the ways in which identity politics are re-enacted on radio among different socio-political groups in a context of grave political contestations arising from the peculiar historical realities of the country. While bringing out the dynamics of these contestations and negotiation of identity, he concludes that discourses in the public domain constituted by radio talk shows during crucial media moments like elections, should be viewed as useful political messages aimed at constructing identities for the mobilization of citizens towards specific objectives.
While new media technologies, as showcased above, may have a role in African democratic processes and elections, their potential must be questioned in light of the continent's economic, political and cultural realities. Further research is necessary if we wish to make any conclusions on whether new media technologies can actually mobilise for political change in Africa.
Chinta Musundi – Beez
On 11 & 12 October 2010, I attended two-day conference on Media and Elections in Africa, hosted by the Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research (WISER) and the Department of Political Studies at Witwatersrand University, Johannesburg, South Africa. The conference was well attended by speakers and audiences from many parts of the African region, hence making the conference a platform for debate in a truly African context
Although the focus of the conference was on ‘Media’ in general, I choose to highlight only those papers that had a focus on new media and its respective technological tools. Such discussions sought to discuss whether the use of these new digital tools is actually improving African political structures, systems and processes, in particular elections. The papers cited below examined the impact of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) on the societies and politics of African countries.
Dumisani Moyo of media and elections in Africa in his paper ‘The New Media as Monitors of Democracy: Mobile Phones and Zimbabwe’s 2008 Election’ argues that the advent of new communications technologies such as the Internet and mobile phones has ushered in a new era of political communication in Zimbabwe where citizens actively participate both in the election campaign and monitoring processes. He looks at these new innovations and their entry into the field of political communication, focusing particularly on the convergence of mobile phones (in particular the SMS or short message service), the Internet and clandestine radio during Zimbabwe’s contested 2008 election. He concludes that these new forms of communication are fast eroding the monopoly of incumbent governments over the communications landscape. Therefore undercutting the liberation discourse that has had a stranglehold on election processes, and signaling the possibility of more open political spaces where divergent views can co-exist.
Joyce Omwoha of Wits University interrogated two Kenyan vernacular radio stations namely, Coro FM which is run in Luo language and Kass FM which is run in the Kalenjin. Her paper was titled, ‘The Power of Talk: Interrogating Vernacular Talk Radio as a Tool for Political Manipulation in Kenya.’ She contends that the two vernacular radio stations were particularly accused of encouraging division between various ethnic communities such as kikuyus, Embus and Merus (who were in favor of the incumbent President Kibaki’s reforms) and Luos, Kalenjins and Luhyas (who opposed Kibaki and mainly supported the opposition). She further reckoned that Kass FM, and Coro FM, through the content they disseminated in the air waves, actually did influenced increased expression within and by the numerous ethnic groups in Kenya. She argues that the way in which political leaders were represented by these talk radio stations during the election period enhanced the political-tribal-tensions and politics of identity that is typical in Kenya. That the identification of politicians was peculiarly through their belonging to a particular ethnic community more than what their politics was really about.
Jendele Hungbo of Wits University also espouses on the issue of representation and identity politics through the case study of South Africa. He claims that the questions of representation and identity politics always become more noticeable in talk shows during elections in transitional democracies. Drawing on material from two radio talk shows, ‘The After Eight Debate’ (SAFM) and ‘The Redi Direko Show’ (Talk Radio 702), his paper, ‘Talking to the Polls: Election Discourses in Two Radio Talk Shows in Post-Apartheid South Africa’ attempts to show the ways in which identity politics are re-enacted on radio among different socio-political groups in a context of grave political contestations arising from the peculiar historical realities of the country. While bringing out the dynamics of these contestations and negotiation of identity, he concludes that discourses in the public domain constituted by radio talk shows during crucial media moments like elections, should be viewed as useful political messages aimed at constructing identities for the mobilization of citizens towards specific objectives.
While new media technologies, as showcased above, may have a role in African democratic processes and elections, their potential must be questioned in light of the continent's economic, political and cultural realities. Further research is necessary if we wish to make any conclusions on whether new media technologies can actually mobilise for political change in Africa.
Chinta Musundi – Beez
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
New Media Tools Play Pivotal Role in Kenya's Constitution-Making
http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2010/08/new-media-tools-play-pivotal-role-in-kenyas-constitution-making236.html
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
New Media – Face Bookers in Kenya call on their leader to Resign
New Media – Face Bookers in Kenya call on their leader to Resign
The Luhyas are shunning tribal politics as Hon.Wetangula muddles solo
The Luhyas are shunning tribal politics as Hon.Wetangula muddles solo
As an avid observer of the changing politics in Kenya…the resentment of Wetangula by the online Luhya bloggers and facebookers came as a shocker. The Luhyas aren’t playing the tribal politics anymore, but they have willfully and voluntarily left Wetangula to carry his own cross.
While the mainstream media may have reported this clearly, it is the alternative media that has demonstated it even better. Throughout the online discourses on facebook, Kenyan blogs such as Jukwaa and Kumekucha and websites such as abeingo.org, one can consistently read the reactions of the Luhyas about one of their own. They want Wetangula to carry his own cross. The Luhyas, and I do hope other Kenyans will follow, have now woken up and are taking charge of the foraging “ethnopolitics’ disease. Hence, today, I write proudly, because of what the Luhyas (and the Bukusus) have shown Kenya: That we must not always support one of our own, whatever the circumstances. We should all take control of our country's destiny by opposing corruption and ethnic-based tribal politics.
To expound on my argument, or rather to prove my thesis about the reinvented ‘anti-ours-politics’ Luhyas, I will give some excerpts from the online public discussions around the issues of Hon. Wetangula after a damning report tabled in Parliament by the Defence and Foreign Relations Committee recommending that Wetangula be sacked immediately to pave way for criminal investigations into alleged impropriety in the purchase of embassy property in Tokyo, Japan, early this year.
The most interesting and animated discourses were on face book;
On October 15th at 7.05am, a face booker, who goes by the name “Etwaya embukusu” (the Bukusu Cockerel) wrote this on his wall, Wetangula wefwe bamurangana namwe keba? (our Wetangula has been agitated, or did he actually steal?)
In response and in a span of two hours, the above post attracted about 60 comments, which were mainly written in the Bukusu language. The comments were such like;
..oyo omufwi namba mocha....reba babandu besirisia bakhubolele (he is the no.1 thief, ask the Sirisia people and the will tell you)
..Ohoo, wetangula must go jama oyo omwifwi serisia mbao nishakhokile taa (Ohoo, Wetangula must go, that guy is a thief, he has done nothing in Sirisia)
..Efwe babhukusu tumefika mwisho come 2o12 those bahayetanga ta yani omundu aka wetangula shld be voted out,kwanza omwifwi he stole d votes 4last election (We Bukusus have come to the end of the road. Come 2012, those who don’t help like Wetangula should be voted out).
..omwifi-omifwi wasee. Ese kwanza nalindile epetition eyewe kenyiwa alonde vavasio khuvele twa siosisiosi nisio khakhukholela kejali vusa yeng'ene bure kabisa (A thief is a thief. In fact, I am just waiting for his petition he should follow the other MPs who also lost because there is nothing he is doing for us. He only cares about himself. Very Useless man)
..Omwifwi niye.. Khache afwile etayi (A thief he is…let him go die far away)
..Akachula olifwana ali innosend nono lekhela paliamenderians babule (When he talks, you think he is innocent, now, let the parliamentarians uncover and reveal him)
..nothing like owefwe let him carry his own cross alikula na nani (there is nothing like he is ours, let him carry his own cross, who did he eat/steal with?)
Clearly, from the above internet discussions, we can see that the Luhya who contributed to the topics did actually not want Wetangula to go scot-free. They did not seem to care that he is a fellow Bukusu like them. And it is amzing that most of the comments on face book were from the youth, the leaders of tomorrow.
Elsewhere on other Kenyan bolgs such as jukwaa and kumekucha, the message is the same….that because the exchequer has lost Kshs. 1.1 billion under Wetangula’s watch; he should resign and pave way for investigation. And as the Standard daily reported on 15/10, even the Luhya legislators seem to be joining the momentum demonstrated by their electorates, that Wetangula should be left to carry his own cross. The western MPs were dubiously missing from parliament, despite of the uncharacteristically high attendance on Thursday, 14th. Even our mouthpiece Dr. Khalwale has conveniently been buttoned up on this Wetangula issue.
Essentially, what I am trying to rally my fellow Kenyans to, particularly the youth who are fundamental to the positive change that we envisage, is that, if we are to fight corruption, let us please not play the blind tribal politics. If we have thieves amongst our leaders, then let them face their Jury regardless of their ethnic or political affiliation or their 2012 schematics. If you are a luhya, or even a Sirisia Constituent, who is not related or known to Wetangula in any way, please shout if he “ate” with you or moreso, if he has benefitted you in any way in his position as a political leader charged with the duty of developing his constituency. If you count shout an “aye”, then please do not support his corruption case blindly but allow him to face the law. The same should be the case for other leaders with graft or human right cases…let them face their damnation on their own. And as for you leaders, Stop Robbing Us!!!
Let Kenyans unite and take control of their country's destiny by opposing corruption and ethnic-based tribal politics. We cannot allow Kenya to be further plunged in divisive and destructive ethnopolitics. It’s a high time we started the Tanzanian way of politics which is built upon the people’s sense of national unity, collective pride and brotherhood/sisterhood.
Chinta Musundi-Beez
Researcher in New Media Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)