The sleepy village of Samunge in Arusha, Northern Tanzania, is teaming with thousands of ailing people from all walks of life who have heard that 76-year-old Ambikile Mwasapile, has discovered a miracle cure for all types of diseases.
Over 10,000 patients are spending up to four and five nights to access the old man.
Award winning NTV reporter John-Allan Namu examines ‘The Loliondo Wonder’ in this exclusive feature on a phenomenal happening in the remote interior of northern Tanzania, where a former Christian preacher, Ambilikile Mwasapile, has turned into a miracle healer.
Thousands of people are flocking into the dusty hamlet in Samunge, and the pilgrimage involves people of all walks of life; the rich flying in by helicopter, thousands others driving in and even more trekking the distance. Does this man heal, or is his a medical scandal in the making?
Read More Here
PART I
PART II
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
ODM disowns efforts to challenge ICC cases
The Orange Democratic Movement has disowned the government’s efforts to challenge the cases facing the Ocampo Six at the International Criminal Court, jeopardising efforts to save the suspects.
Lands minister James Orengo was categorical Wednesday that the Orange party would not support the move to file an application at the ICC challenging the admissibility of the cases on grounds that neither Prime Minister Raila Odinga nor its representatives in the cabinet sub committee on ICC were consulted.
“All the people who attended the meeting that arrived at that decision were from PNU. Not a single person from ODM was invited so this decision is self serving, it is not a decision of the coalition government,” Mr Orengo said.
The position was re-affirmed by the ODM Parliamentary Group, which termed Attorney General Amos Wako’s move giving London based lawyer Sir Geoffrey Nice the go-ahead to challenge the cases at ICC as “dead, a waste of public resources and doomed to fail".
“Why is the government wasting precious taxpayers’ money to initiate a process that’s dead from the beginning?” the group’s secretary Ababu Namwamba posed at a press conference at Parliament Buildings last evening.
“As one half of the government, we certainly don’t feel that this letter represents 50 per cent share in government. This move is dead, a waste of public resources and is setting Kenya on the path of more ridicule,” said the Budalang’i MP.
Kenya is seeking to challenge the admissibility of the cases by the ICC and its jurisdiction over the crimes committed on grounds that it is in the process of setting up a local mechanism to try the cases.
ODM’s argument is based on an opinion on the Kenyan situation by Sir Nice and Rodney Dixon, the other lawyer engaged by Kenya, outlining the scenarios applicable.
The lawyers conclude in the letter that “statistical assessment of prospects (of the success of filing the case) will be difficult in the extreme".
Mr Namwamba said Kenya could only succeed in challenging the case if it had established proper mechanisms to investigate the crimes committed during the post-election chaos.
He charged that the police are suspects in the crimes committed and would not investigate themselves, and there would therefore need to have assistance from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations and Britain’s Scotland Yard.
Mr Orengo on his part maintained that the ODM wing of the coalition was not involved in deliberations leading to the decision.
“I wish to point out to you that it is important that legal advice should be sought and given in the appropriate manner. There is a coalition government in Kenya established under the National Accord and Reconciliation Act and the Constitution of Kenya,” he protested.
“It would be inappropriate for any section of Government to make unilateral decisions on this weighty matter,” he added and demanded that the sub committee be convened to review the decision.
He, however, maintained that ODM would not “bother” to challenge the government’s move at the ICC because it stood no chance of success.
“We don’t even need to block it because it is incompetent, vexatious and frivolous,” he stated.
Mr Orengo maintained that the application to challenge the cases on grounds of admissibility was doomed to fail because it only addressed the plight of the six suspects and not the 1,133 Kenyans who lost their lives in the violence.
The government’s failure to start investigations into the violence or prosecutions of those suspected to have perpetrated the violence also gave the application little chance of success at the ICC, he noted.
By JOHN NGIRACHU and PETER LEFTIE
Daily Nation
Lands minister James Orengo was categorical Wednesday that the Orange party would not support the move to file an application at the ICC challenging the admissibility of the cases on grounds that neither Prime Minister Raila Odinga nor its representatives in the cabinet sub committee on ICC were consulted.
“All the people who attended the meeting that arrived at that decision were from PNU. Not a single person from ODM was invited so this decision is self serving, it is not a decision of the coalition government,” Mr Orengo said.
The position was re-affirmed by the ODM Parliamentary Group, which termed Attorney General Amos Wako’s move giving London based lawyer Sir Geoffrey Nice the go-ahead to challenge the cases at ICC as “dead, a waste of public resources and doomed to fail".
“Why is the government wasting precious taxpayers’ money to initiate a process that’s dead from the beginning?” the group’s secretary Ababu Namwamba posed at a press conference at Parliament Buildings last evening.
“As one half of the government, we certainly don’t feel that this letter represents 50 per cent share in government. This move is dead, a waste of public resources and is setting Kenya on the path of more ridicule,” said the Budalang’i MP.
Kenya is seeking to challenge the admissibility of the cases by the ICC and its jurisdiction over the crimes committed on grounds that it is in the process of setting up a local mechanism to try the cases.
ODM’s argument is based on an opinion on the Kenyan situation by Sir Nice and Rodney Dixon, the other lawyer engaged by Kenya, outlining the scenarios applicable.
The lawyers conclude in the letter that “statistical assessment of prospects (of the success of filing the case) will be difficult in the extreme".
Mr Namwamba said Kenya could only succeed in challenging the case if it had established proper mechanisms to investigate the crimes committed during the post-election chaos.
He charged that the police are suspects in the crimes committed and would not investigate themselves, and there would therefore need to have assistance from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations and Britain’s Scotland Yard.
Mr Orengo on his part maintained that the ODM wing of the coalition was not involved in deliberations leading to the decision.
“I wish to point out to you that it is important that legal advice should be sought and given in the appropriate manner. There is a coalition government in Kenya established under the National Accord and Reconciliation Act and the Constitution of Kenya,” he protested.
“It would be inappropriate for any section of Government to make unilateral decisions on this weighty matter,” he added and demanded that the sub committee be convened to review the decision.
He, however, maintained that ODM would not “bother” to challenge the government’s move at the ICC because it stood no chance of success.
“We don’t even need to block it because it is incompetent, vexatious and frivolous,” he stated.
Mr Orengo maintained that the application to challenge the cases on grounds of admissibility was doomed to fail because it only addressed the plight of the six suspects and not the 1,133 Kenyans who lost their lives in the violence.
The government’s failure to start investigations into the violence or prosecutions of those suspected to have perpetrated the violence also gave the application little chance of success at the ICC, he noted.
By JOHN NGIRACHU and PETER LEFTIE
Daily Nation
Monday, March 21, 2011
KKK or KKL? Uhuru - Ruto - Eugene new political alliance
Musikari Kombo handed the spear to all presidential candidates, namely, Uhuru Kenyatta, William Ruto and Eugene Wamalwa. Interestingly, he gave the spear to Eugene last. Very symbolic in Luhya culture; it denotes leadership.
Can Eugene be the next president of Kenya?
He is young (41), intelligent (a lawyer), untainted and has a vision for the youth.
Soita Shitanda, a key luhya politician at the rally claimed that because the Kikuyu have had the presidency for a combined 26yrs, the Kalenjins 24yrs, Raila 3 yrs, he suggests that time has come for a Luhya to take the Mantle.
HOWEVER, s a KKL alliance workable? Can the KK sacrifice their thirst for power to Eugene Wamalwa?
Can the Kikuyu electorate vote for another person outside their community?
Can the Kikuyu bury the 2007/8 PEV and stand or rather work together with a Kalenjin?
And will a Kalenjin bring back a Kikuyu into presidency? Will they disremember their claims on land distribution and inequalities in the rift valley and seek a unified KK political front?
Oops, and I havent factored in the ICC and Hague politics. That is for another day? After April 8, 2011.
We all wish that a Kenyan Political game can be played in disregard of ethnicity and politics of belonging, unfortunately this is something we must live with. hence how can we live with it peacefully?
Can Eugene be the next president of Kenya?
He is young (41), intelligent (a lawyer), untainted and has a vision for the youth.
Soita Shitanda, a key luhya politician at the rally claimed that because the Kikuyu have had the presidency for a combined 26yrs, the Kalenjins 24yrs, Raila 3 yrs, he suggests that time has come for a Luhya to take the Mantle.
HOWEVER, s a KKL alliance workable? Can the KK sacrifice their thirst for power to Eugene Wamalwa?
Can the Kikuyu electorate vote for another person outside their community?
Can the Kikuyu bury the 2007/8 PEV and stand or rather work together with a Kalenjin?
And will a Kalenjin bring back a Kikuyu into presidency? Will they disremember their claims on land distribution and inequalities in the rift valley and seek a unified KK political front?
Oops, and I havent factored in the ICC and Hague politics. That is for another day? After April 8, 2011.
We all wish that a Kenyan Political game can be played in disregard of ethnicity and politics of belonging, unfortunately this is something we must live with. hence how can we live with it peacefully?
Kibaki Bites the Bullet: He has lost executive power at a time when he needs it most.
President Kibaki is staring at a stormy final term in office, with some of his hitherto unchallenged powers clipped by the National Accord and the new Constitution.
For close to 40 years Kenyans were led by all-powerful presidents whose words were law, but that appears to have changed. Kibaki’s two presidential terms have been unlike those of Kenyatta and Moi whose words were taken as final. As the transition leader between the old and new constitutions, Kibaki faces a rapidly changing landscape with the diminishing powers of the presidency now vested in the people of Kenya by the new laws.
The National Accord that established the Grand Coalition Government, and the enactment of a new Constitution that distributes powers previously exclusive to the president have checked his hitherto unrivalled powers.
It is now difficult for Kibaki to make unilateral decisions, and it is his failure to acknowledge this fact that has put him in some embarrassing positions, exposing chinks in his armour.
His bungled appointments to key constitutional offices, and the failed diplomatic offensive to postpone the two International Criminal Court (ICC) cases facing six personalities, including Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, seen as his preferred choice as successor, and his trusted aide, Head of Civil Service and Secretary to the Cabinet Francis Muthaura are recent examples.
New laws
However, senior counsel and former Kabete MP, Paul Muite says Kibaki’s predicament stems from his decision to behave as though there is no new Constitution.
"All these happenings show that President Kibaki’s leadership has been inept when you look at it from the political front. Future presidents must learn to govern in accordance with the Constitution and the law," said Muite.
While Kibaki and his allies have been pushing for a deferral of the cases, Prime Minister Raila Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement Party have opposed their postponement at The Hague.
During his first term in office Kibaki assumed total control of the running of the State, even though he was widely seen as allowing his ministers to run their dockets without interference. The frustrations within Kibaki’s ranks have been evident from public comments his allies have made recently.
Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka was the latest to express his dissatisfaction with Raila.
When asked to comment on why an informal meeting with the UN Security Council was delayed last week, the VP retorted, "go and ask Tinga (Raila) about it".
When House Speaker Kenneth Marende ruled that the nominations by Kibaki to the four key constitutional offices would not be debated by Parliament, Uhuru openly displayed his anger against Raila.
Uhuru fury
"Why is it that unless Raila agrees, there is always a standoff. Who is he? Will nothing happen in this country unless Raila says so?" asked an incensed Uhuru at a press conference in Parliament Buildings.
Under another dispensation, it would not be the president’s men grumbling in public.
According to some perspectives, however, Kibaki’s final term may be a blessing in disguise for Kenyans, because it is argued that a future president will not have the audacity to force his unilateral ways on the country.
Some legislators loyal to Kibaki in a Government torn down the middle accept this argument, but others argue Kibaki has "refused to exercise his powers".
Agriculture Assistant Minister Kareke Mbiuki says that Kibaki has indeed been rendered powerless by a number of factors.
He says the new Constitution denies Kibaki unfettered powers and that future presidents will have to contend with a strong Parliament.
"No other President shall rule by decree. All workings of future presidents shall be vetoed by Parliament," said the assistant Agriculture Minister.
Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Mutula Kilonzo says founding president Jomo Kenyatta and Moi were technically "above the Constitution" but that the trend has now changed.
"President Kibaki having championed the new Constitution is in a class of his own, unlike his predecessor. Future Presidents will be subject to the new Constitution, but not above it as were Presidents Kenyatta and Moi," said Mutula.
Imperial powers
Unlike his predecessors who enjoyed what many termed as imperial powers, Kibaki has watched helplessly as his Executive decisions are trashed both in Parliament and in public.
Under Kenyatta and Moi, decisions made at Harambee House were final, but under the new dispensation, the presidency appears to have lost that clout.
A vote in Parliament is enough to alter any appointments made by Kibaki, and cases abound where the president has been forced to retreat. Besides the political maturity of Kenyans who have developed the courage to challenge presidential decisions, a major check on Kibaki is the National Accord that makes Raila his equal in Government.
The Accord dictates that the President must at all times consult the PM when making appointments.
In Parliament, legislators have also exercising their enhanced powers and this has also worked against Kibaki.
The first sign that Kibaki would not have an easy ride came in 2008, when Parliament rejected his attempt to renew Justice Aaron Ringera’s tenure at the helm of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC).
The President had no choice but to comply and allow the KACC board to advertise the position, carry out interviews and recommend to him a suitable successor.
From that day the writing was on the wall and MPs kept on pushing the presidency.
The next onslaught came when MPs pushed for no-confidence votes against Cabinet Ministers close to him.
Moses Wetang’ula, Amos Kimunya were among key Kibaki allies who were tossed out of office thanks in part to Parliament’s assertiveness.
Last month, the President was forced to eat humble pie when the PM, constitutional commissions and civil society ganged up against nominations he made to key offices including that of Chief Justice.
When the heat became too much to take, he withdrew the names and referred the issues to relevant organs in compliance with laid-down procedures.
But some of Kibaki’s die-hard supporters, like PNU Deputy Secretary General Jeremiah Kioni, argue Kibaki has powers but has chosen to exercise restraint.
"The President has simply refused to exercise his powers. This is not going to be expected of future presidents and Kenyans want a president who can exercise the authority given to him, but not in a dictatorial manner," said the Ndaragwa MP.
Lame duck
Kipkelion MP Magerer Langat says that the Constitution has ended the imperial presidency.
"The President is not a lame duck, but his powers have been checked by the new Constitution and there is nothing he can do. There is no more dictatorship as Kenyans are now more aware than before of their rights," said Magerer who is an Assistant Minister for Energy.
Under the new Constitution, the President lost power to determine the number of ministries, the date of General Election and the right to summon and dissolve parliament.
Parliament, which resumes sitting on Tuesday, does it on its own without the involvement of the presidency, which has traditionally enjoyed the power of recalling MPs to transact business.
By BEAUTTAH OMANGA - Kibaki grapples with changing times
Read More
For close to 40 years Kenyans were led by all-powerful presidents whose words were law, but that appears to have changed. Kibaki’s two presidential terms have been unlike those of Kenyatta and Moi whose words were taken as final. As the transition leader between the old and new constitutions, Kibaki faces a rapidly changing landscape with the diminishing powers of the presidency now vested in the people of Kenya by the new laws.
The National Accord that established the Grand Coalition Government, and the enactment of a new Constitution that distributes powers previously exclusive to the president have checked his hitherto unrivalled powers.
It is now difficult for Kibaki to make unilateral decisions, and it is his failure to acknowledge this fact that has put him in some embarrassing positions, exposing chinks in his armour.
His bungled appointments to key constitutional offices, and the failed diplomatic offensive to postpone the two International Criminal Court (ICC) cases facing six personalities, including Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, seen as his preferred choice as successor, and his trusted aide, Head of Civil Service and Secretary to the Cabinet Francis Muthaura are recent examples.
New laws
However, senior counsel and former Kabete MP, Paul Muite says Kibaki’s predicament stems from his decision to behave as though there is no new Constitution.
"All these happenings show that President Kibaki’s leadership has been inept when you look at it from the political front. Future presidents must learn to govern in accordance with the Constitution and the law," said Muite.
While Kibaki and his allies have been pushing for a deferral of the cases, Prime Minister Raila Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement Party have opposed their postponement at The Hague.
During his first term in office Kibaki assumed total control of the running of the State, even though he was widely seen as allowing his ministers to run their dockets without interference. The frustrations within Kibaki’s ranks have been evident from public comments his allies have made recently.
Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka was the latest to express his dissatisfaction with Raila.
When asked to comment on why an informal meeting with the UN Security Council was delayed last week, the VP retorted, "go and ask Tinga (Raila) about it".
When House Speaker Kenneth Marende ruled that the nominations by Kibaki to the four key constitutional offices would not be debated by Parliament, Uhuru openly displayed his anger against Raila.
Uhuru fury
"Why is it that unless Raila agrees, there is always a standoff. Who is he? Will nothing happen in this country unless Raila says so?" asked an incensed Uhuru at a press conference in Parliament Buildings.
Under another dispensation, it would not be the president’s men grumbling in public.
According to some perspectives, however, Kibaki’s final term may be a blessing in disguise for Kenyans, because it is argued that a future president will not have the audacity to force his unilateral ways on the country.
Some legislators loyal to Kibaki in a Government torn down the middle accept this argument, but others argue Kibaki has "refused to exercise his powers".
Agriculture Assistant Minister Kareke Mbiuki says that Kibaki has indeed been rendered powerless by a number of factors.
He says the new Constitution denies Kibaki unfettered powers and that future presidents will have to contend with a strong Parliament.
"No other President shall rule by decree. All workings of future presidents shall be vetoed by Parliament," said the assistant Agriculture Minister.
Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister Mutula Kilonzo says founding president Jomo Kenyatta and Moi were technically "above the Constitution" but that the trend has now changed.
"President Kibaki having championed the new Constitution is in a class of his own, unlike his predecessor. Future Presidents will be subject to the new Constitution, but not above it as were Presidents Kenyatta and Moi," said Mutula.
Imperial powers
Unlike his predecessors who enjoyed what many termed as imperial powers, Kibaki has watched helplessly as his Executive decisions are trashed both in Parliament and in public.
Under Kenyatta and Moi, decisions made at Harambee House were final, but under the new dispensation, the presidency appears to have lost that clout.
A vote in Parliament is enough to alter any appointments made by Kibaki, and cases abound where the president has been forced to retreat. Besides the political maturity of Kenyans who have developed the courage to challenge presidential decisions, a major check on Kibaki is the National Accord that makes Raila his equal in Government.
The Accord dictates that the President must at all times consult the PM when making appointments.
In Parliament, legislators have also exercising their enhanced powers and this has also worked against Kibaki.
The first sign that Kibaki would not have an easy ride came in 2008, when Parliament rejected his attempt to renew Justice Aaron Ringera’s tenure at the helm of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC).
The President had no choice but to comply and allow the KACC board to advertise the position, carry out interviews and recommend to him a suitable successor.
From that day the writing was on the wall and MPs kept on pushing the presidency.
The next onslaught came when MPs pushed for no-confidence votes against Cabinet Ministers close to him.
Moses Wetang’ula, Amos Kimunya were among key Kibaki allies who were tossed out of office thanks in part to Parliament’s assertiveness.
Last month, the President was forced to eat humble pie when the PM, constitutional commissions and civil society ganged up against nominations he made to key offices including that of Chief Justice.
When the heat became too much to take, he withdrew the names and referred the issues to relevant organs in compliance with laid-down procedures.
But some of Kibaki’s die-hard supporters, like PNU Deputy Secretary General Jeremiah Kioni, argue Kibaki has powers but has chosen to exercise restraint.
"The President has simply refused to exercise his powers. This is not going to be expected of future presidents and Kenyans want a president who can exercise the authority given to him, but not in a dictatorial manner," said the Ndaragwa MP.
Lame duck
Kipkelion MP Magerer Langat says that the Constitution has ended the imperial presidency.
"The President is not a lame duck, but his powers have been checked by the new Constitution and there is nothing he can do. There is no more dictatorship as Kenyans are now more aware than before of their rights," said Magerer who is an Assistant Minister for Energy.
Under the new Constitution, the President lost power to determine the number of ministries, the date of General Election and the right to summon and dissolve parliament.
Parliament, which resumes sitting on Tuesday, does it on its own without the involvement of the presidency, which has traditionally enjoyed the power of recalling MPs to transact business.
By BEAUTTAH OMANGA - Kibaki grapples with changing times
Read More
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
ODM may have sunk ICC Cases deferral bid
NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 14, 2011
A letter sent by the Orange Democratic Movement to block the Security Council from a likely deferral of Kenya's ICC case is likely to dent the country's request and even complicate the bid, an international law expert said on Monday.
Lawyer Godfrey Musila told Capital News that Kenya required unity of purpose to strengthen and sustain its argument.
Dr Musila observed that even though the country got backing from the African Union, the letter by ODM's Secretary General Anyang' Nyong'o provides a viable excuse for a section of the permanent council members, who have been against it, to veto the application.
"One of the things the Security Council will be looking at, perhaps even before they look at whether we meet the request for a deferral or not, is whether the government is united behind this position. And that development is likely to sway an already difficult case firmly in the direction of a no deferral," he said.
Dr Musila further discounted arguments, made by some individuals, that the ICC would resolve the wanton impunity in the country saying such positions did not hold any water. He instead argued that Kenyans should focus on implementing the Constitution in order to see reforms.
"It is a weak argument; the way we look at the ICC has been misconceived. The ICC will not solve our impunity problems because it is only prosecuting a handful of people so what do we do with the rest of the offenders who we need to be prosecuting?" he posed.
The law expert also said that the government bore the sole responsibility of ensuring justice and reprieve for the victims of the post poll chaos. He argued that it was up to the government to put in place adequate measures to prevent a repeat of the violence.
He however noted that the split in the coalition government made it difficult to make certain decisions.
"The government should create such policies. We cannot wait for someone from outside to do it for us. Unfortunately for us we have a coalition government and the justice question has become a political football," he said.
He added that some of the reasons given by the government as it sought for a deferral were blanket arguments. He argued that the Constitution would not be derailed if the ICC cases went as planned and that there was no threat to national security.
"Linking the slow implementation of the Constitution to the ICC cases is artificial. You need to ask yourselves which bodies are charged with implementation of the new Constitution and I believe that these institutions can function irrespective of what the ICC is doing," he observed.
Dr Musila also observed that some permanent members of the Security Council held their positions for the deferral because they had self interests in Kenya. He however asked the top leadership to look beyond the 2012 elections and not to forget the country's national interests.
He also noted that the geographical location of the country and its position in the region attracted interests from western countries.
"Someone once said that there are no permanent friends in international relations what you have are permanent interests so you'd be shocked that China can actually vote to refer Libya to the ICC when they have been unhappy with the manner in which the Court has been operating in Sudan," he asserted.
A section of ODM lawmakers allied to Eldoret North MP William Ruto have in the meantime asked the party chairman Henry Kosgey to write a counter letter challenging the stand taken by the party secretary general.
They argue that there was no meeting that was held to sanction the objection to the deferral bid.
Read More Here
A letter sent by the Orange Democratic Movement to block the Security Council from a likely deferral of Kenya's ICC case is likely to dent the country's request and even complicate the bid, an international law expert said on Monday.
Lawyer Godfrey Musila told Capital News that Kenya required unity of purpose to strengthen and sustain its argument.
Dr Musila observed that even though the country got backing from the African Union, the letter by ODM's Secretary General Anyang' Nyong'o provides a viable excuse for a section of the permanent council members, who have been against it, to veto the application.
"One of the things the Security Council will be looking at, perhaps even before they look at whether we meet the request for a deferral or not, is whether the government is united behind this position. And that development is likely to sway an already difficult case firmly in the direction of a no deferral," he said.
Dr Musila further discounted arguments, made by some individuals, that the ICC would resolve the wanton impunity in the country saying such positions did not hold any water. He instead argued that Kenyans should focus on implementing the Constitution in order to see reforms.
"It is a weak argument; the way we look at the ICC has been misconceived. The ICC will not solve our impunity problems because it is only prosecuting a handful of people so what do we do with the rest of the offenders who we need to be prosecuting?" he posed.
The law expert also said that the government bore the sole responsibility of ensuring justice and reprieve for the victims of the post poll chaos. He argued that it was up to the government to put in place adequate measures to prevent a repeat of the violence.
He however noted that the split in the coalition government made it difficult to make certain decisions.
"The government should create such policies. We cannot wait for someone from outside to do it for us. Unfortunately for us we have a coalition government and the justice question has become a political football," he said.
He added that some of the reasons given by the government as it sought for a deferral were blanket arguments. He argued that the Constitution would not be derailed if the ICC cases went as planned and that there was no threat to national security.
"Linking the slow implementation of the Constitution to the ICC cases is artificial. You need to ask yourselves which bodies are charged with implementation of the new Constitution and I believe that these institutions can function irrespective of what the ICC is doing," he observed.
Dr Musila also observed that some permanent members of the Security Council held their positions for the deferral because they had self interests in Kenya. He however asked the top leadership to look beyond the 2012 elections and not to forget the country's national interests.
He also noted that the geographical location of the country and its position in the region attracted interests from western countries.
"Someone once said that there are no permanent friends in international relations what you have are permanent interests so you'd be shocked that China can actually vote to refer Libya to the ICC when they have been unhappy with the manner in which the Court has been operating in Sudan," he asserted.
A section of ODM lawmakers allied to Eldoret North MP William Ruto have in the meantime asked the party chairman Henry Kosgey to write a counter letter challenging the stand taken by the party secretary general.
They argue that there was no meeting that was held to sanction the objection to the deferral bid.
Read More Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)