What Saba Saba Means To Me

By Mutinda Kavemba On this Saba Saba day,I choose to celebrate all those who fought for the 2nd liberation of this Country that started with repeal of section 2A of the then Kenyan Constitution which paved the Way for Multi-Partyism and which Culminated in the Passing and Adoption of the 2010 Constitution.   One of […]

Garissa has amplified seven myths on terrorism in Kenya

SUNDAY NATION
One survivor greets his kin as he arrives at the Nyayo stadium in Nairobi on April 4, 2015, among survivors of an attack by al-Shabaab on a university campus in Garissa. AFP PHOTO

One survivor greets his kin as he arrives at the Nyayo stadium in Nairobi on April 4, 2015, among survivors of an attack by al-Shabaab on a university campus in Garissa. AFP PHOTO

By PETER KAGWANJA

“Reality is irrelevant; perception is everything.” In its two years in office, the Jubilee Government hardly heeded this wisdom of the American writer Terry Goodkind. It is crystal clear that it fixed its gaze on reality (development and socio-economic transformation), sidelining issues of perception. This has returned an unsavoury verdict on its success.

Jubilee is pushing a revolution without revolutionaries. Its pundits are fairing dismally in what the British author, David Gemmell, described as the “age of style and spin” in which we live — where “perceptions of good and evil slither and shift with the political view of the moment.”

Terrorism is one area where the government is losing the battle for perception. A lot is at stake. A government that fails to protect its citizens risks losing legitimacy. Its sovereignty is also under threat. As a worst- case scenario, protests against insecurity can lead to regime change as domestic foes push for its replacement aided by external interests invoking the famous UN doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect.”

All is not lost, though. President Uhuru Kenyatta’s Government has three years to refocus attention on public perception and reverse its fortunes on two priority fronts: Corruption and security relating to al-Shabaab terrorism.

It is the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who quipped that: “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” Jubilee has to urgently dispel the seven key myths about terrorism and insecurity after the Garissa University attack.

The first myth is that al- Shabaab’s attacks on Kenya are a revenge mission against the presence of the Kenya Defence Forces inside Somalia.

This is a red herring. The truth is that long before the KDF entered Somalia in October 2011, al-Shabaab was already active in Kenya, kidnapping tourists, aid workers and killing. It was also recruiting and radicalising Muslim youth in refugee camps and towns.

The second myth, and related to the above, is that the withdrawal of KDF troops from Somalia will lead to an automatic cessation of al-Shabaab attacks. This amounts to a policy of appeasement of a dangerous aggressor. It is reminiscent of the Munich Pact of 1938 that British Premier Neville Chamberlain signed with Nazi Germany, enabling Hitler to militarise, annex territories and declare World War II.

As part of the African Union force (Amisom), KDF continues to degrade al-Shabaab’s military capacity. If KDF pulls out, the militants will use that window to overrun Somalia and re-build its military capacity in ways that threaten the Kenyan state.

The third myth is that feeding the al-Shabaab terrorism is a Christian versus Muslim war. The truth is that al-Shabaab is killing Muslims in Somalia, Somaliland and Djibouti as well as Muslims and Christians in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia. More Muslims are falling to its sword than Christians!

The fourth myth is that terrorism and radicalisation is a result of poverty and marginalisation of Muslims. Osama bin Laden was a multi-billionaire, not a pauper. Abdirahim Abdullahi, one of the gunmen in the Garissa attack, was a son of a regional government official in Mandera, a law student and intern at a local prestigious bank.

The fifth myth is that al- Shabaab attacks on Westgate, Garissa and other targets are a result of failure by the Jubilee Government to protect its citizens. This logic downplays the African state as a victim of terrorism, casting it as villain. Yet developed countries are not subjected to this peculiar logic.

America was never accused of failure to protect after the September 11 attacks which killed no less than 2,996 people in a single morning. Like Britain after the July 7, 2005 London bombings that killed 52 civilians and injured 700 others, Spain after the 2004 Madrid train bombings which killed 191 people and maimed 1,800 others, or France in the wake of the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting, America received an outpouring of sympathy from across the world.

Although citizens of more than 90 countries were also killed in the 9/11 attacks, no country issued travel advisories and security alerts. The sixth myth seeks to buttress the failure to protect thesis. It contrasts an Ethiopia that is able to protect and a Kenya that is unable to protect even though both countries have troops inside Somalia.

The truth is different. Al-Shabaab is an equal opportunity terrorist enterprise. It has attacked Djibouti, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Somalia and Ethiopia. The exception is Eritrea. Although Ethiopia has adopted a no-nonsense approach to terrorism, in October 2013, a bomb in Addis Ababa killed two people and injured others.

Earlier in January 2012, gunmen killed five, wounded two, kidnapped two and took three Ethiopians hostage in a terrorist attack in the Afar region. In October 2014, the US Embassy in Ethiopia warned that the al-Shabaab was planning to attack Addis Ababa. Almost every month there are attacks on Dire Dawa, Ethiopia’s fourth largest city in the Somali (Ogaden) region where the al-Shabaab supported Ogaden Liberation Front (OLF).

The seventh myth is that Kenya’s approach to counter-terrorism is radicalising Somali Muslims. A recent research by the Pretoria-based Institute for Security Studies (ISS) claims rather cynically that “Muslim youth have joined extremist groups as a counter-reaction to what they see as government-imposed ‘collective punishment’ driven by the misguided perception that all Somali and Kenyan-Somali nationals are potential terrorists”.

After the Garissa attack, it is also argued that the government decision to suspend 13 hawala or money remittance companies over alleged links with terrorism and to freeze the bank accounts of 86 entities and individuals suspected of financing terrorism is fuelling terrorism. Strong approaches to al-Shabaab are paying off.

The new measures adopted after Garissa are likely to turn the screws on al-Shabaab and its supporters in Kenya.

Prof Kagwanja is Chief Executive, Africa Policy Institute, and former government adviser

GARRISA UNIVERSITY TERROR:Is the death of student Activism to blame?

By Orengo Kenya

Article first published on Orengo Kenya’s facebook’s timeline

National insecurity in the Jubilee government has reached a point where it can now be officially declared national disaster with a rescue and contingency fund. It would be improper to begin this discussion without expressing my deepest condolences to the 147 Kenyans left to defend themselves in the hands on Jihadists who are related and known to the high and mighty in the Jubilee Government.
My line of thinking in the last few days has taken me to my days at the mighty University of Nairobi, Looking at how those boys and girls were killed, its shows an emerging trend and as much as we want to blame the government, analyst need to look at the current crop of students in our public and private institutions of higher learning. It would be important and informative to a study on their behaviours, attitudes towards life and what they consider important and fun in university life. As Seth Odongo Puts it “there is nothing more to campus life than sex, movies and occasional peeping into lecture halls to see if there could be a complex idea that calls for my physical presence”. What motivates an ordinary student of any Kenyan University? This line of fear I have been having is confirmed when I hear SONU elections focussing on Killing and burying goonship , combative Student elections and making student leadership be like election for the chair person for the Parish Choir or village welfare group. How can the leadership of the oldest political party after be KANU be elected y flower girls and cry babies. How can we elect people who discuss Vera Sidika and expect students to be safe in our Universities? How can people who don’t believe in fighting for anything be part of the leadership of an army of change warriors? This lazy and don’t care attitude and easy going behaviour makes me think of and miss the titanic battle during return SONU 98 just before the 2002 elections and how students engaged on discourse of the methodologies and strategies of returning the mighty students union, I was in 1st year and would attend Kamukunji to Listen to Otieno CD, Michael Koome Mburugu, Murage Njagagua, Charles Opata, Ngesa Ngesa, Fwamba Nc Fwamba, Irungu Kangatta Mbara Ochieng Kennedy, Thomas Mbewa Ndede, Mutuse Muthusi and other big guns. Our dream was to listen to Wafula Buke and Kabando Wa Kabando. How vicious and tactical were the campaigns for example the battle for the SONU chairmanship between Tedd Munovi and Benard Adhiambo Oguwa, the secretary race Between CPA Michael Wanjala and Hon. Ken Obura.
The current generation of University students are trained all the way from primary school that what is important is to pass exams, stay away from trouble and not be associated with activism, violence and politics. What would have been the case if there was Kosovo Garisa University Branch? I walk past some of the students on my way to the Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library and the dick heads are busy talking about Vera Sidika, I don’t know some woman called Hudda and Some Oyier woman who ate and could not pay her bill at Intercon which makes me wonder how university students can resort to discussing Nonstarters whose names never appeared on the Joint Admission Board List.
Going back to the sad story of Garissa University, Kossovo comes to my mind and I wonder how Owiro Karl Marx (RIP) would have reacted in case hall 9 or hall 13 was under attack. I wonder how Apc Awuor Ponge, Washington Sirikal and Harambe Elias Oginga Njoroge Wa Nyayimbo Wuon Josh Gi Alexander Wuonyakisumo K’Orando Nyakwar Ala would react to the clarion call by the ladies in box or even hall 4. What would Oulu Gpo (RIP) have done if Kimberly was attacked like this in Kikuyu Campus, Would Otieno CD, Sam Owuor (RIP) and Fred Ayim have gone down on their belly waiting for the bullets to kill them? What has gone so wrong that University students can be told to sleep on their bellies, hands up and be shot by less than 10 gun men? Who instilled the fear and culture of compliance in these students, what made University Students so scared that they would all lie down and wait for their death. Where did the phrase “Better die on your feet than on your knees “disappear to among the university students?
The government of Kenya needs to look at the option of making as much Kenyans as possible defiant, militarized and combative. As a nation we have to move away from creating a society of zombies who comply and follow orders, we must build a society that can demand for better and reject oppression, we must demand for a society that have something that they wish to fight and die for, a society that has the confidence and courage to stand and be counted and not a conforming and obedient society

The writer is a former Organizing Secretary of the Student Organization of Nairobi University(SONU)

Young, dotcom voters responsible for many ‘Livondos’ in 11th Parliament

Campaign helicopters in Eldoret on February 9, 2013. FILE PHOTO | JARED NYATAYA

Campaign helicopters in Eldoret on February 9, 2013. FILE PHOTO | JARED NYATAYA |  NATION MEDIA GROUP

By MURITHI MUTIGA

One MP accused of brutally raping a married woman. Another caught harassing his aide through a stream of unsolicited texts. Yet another tries to attack his colleague on a foreign trip. Not to mention corruption which is now a way of life in the corridors of Parliament.

These scandals have triggered the widespread analysis that the public should stop moaning about the quality of representation they have in Parliament because they elected the lot in the first place.

But look more closely and you will draw an additional conclusion. This crop of MPs, possibly the most rotten since independence, is the fault of young, dotcom voters.

Kenya has a staggeringly young population. The UN defines a youth as anyone between the ages of 18 and 34.

A third of Kenyans fall in this bracket. In total, 80 per cent of Kenyans are below 35.

In effect, and not just in Kenya but in Uganda, Tanzania and further afield in sub-Saharan Africa, these young people are the ones that determine who enters Parliament and they also have a decisive role in national elections.

So what does it say about the values of the youth that, almost without exception these days, it is cash and glamour not ideas and ideology that carry the day?

PUNISH WEALTHY CANDIDATE

In the-not-too-distant past, at least up to most of the 1990s, the budget one had for an election, especially in a Parliamentary contest, was not a decisive factor.

In fact, sometimes the electorate would deliberately punish the wealthy candidate and vote for the one who made a better connection with wananchi.

Figures such as Martin Shikuku, who would never give handouts but was unbeatable as an orator and anti-establishment crusader, won their contests comfortably. Bifwoli Wakoli comes to mind, too.

In several famous elections in Imenti South, Kiraitu Murungi came up against Eliphaz Riungu of Kanu, notorious for his role in the Goldenberg scam which nearly bankrupted the country.

Constituents would be covered in a blanket of cash but consistently voted for Kiraitu, the opposition candidate.

There were numerous other examples. Anania Mwaboza at the Coast walloped Ali Hassan Joho in a closely watched by-election marked by huge campaign spending on Joho’s side.

The first paragraph of the report on the poll in The Standard summed up the story.

“A star-studded cast of political giants in his campaign, a safe governing coalition ticket and a staggering Sh34 million war chest — and still he lost,” it declared, of Joho’s campaign.

In Central province, in 1997, little-known Moses Muihia sensationally defeated Uhuru Kenyatta after the younger Kenyatta opted to contest in Gatundu South on a Kanu ticket, a party which was overwhelmingly unpopular in the region.

Things have completely changed in recent years. It would seem that today’s electorate prefers the candidate who will come to the ground in the flashiest stream of helicopters and who will dish out the greatest amount of money possible.

There are no Young Turk types any more. The Parliament which took office in 1992 was full of progressives elected on the basis of their long years of sacrifice in the struggle for change and their idealism, whatever one might think of their record when they eventually came to power.

These days, it is only the size of the pocket that matters. I had to Google again to see why on earth someone would run on a ticket with the nickname ‘Livondo’ and still win. As far as I could tell, the only accomplishment of the real Livondo was throwing wads of cash at party-goers one Mulembe night.

It is true you cannot elect a ‘Livondo’ and get a people’s servant in the mould of Shikuku. The electorate is to blame, yes. But look again at the statistics and you will realise the electorate has changed significantly.

It is now overwhelmingly young and the evidence on the surface suggests this portion of the electorate seems to occupy a post-ideological universe.

Addressing why this is and exploring whether some social engineering can be done at the school stage to teach values outside the importance of money might help to rid the public space of the looters, Livondos, rapists and pyramid scheme operators that now dominate Parliament.

mutiganews@gmail.com

LSK Chairman Eric Mutua is a DISGRACE

LSK Chairman Eric Mutua is a DISGRACE

By Edwin Sifuna

In the run up to the Law Society of Kenya AGM last Saturday, he and his obnoxious council ignored all legitimate and lawful attempts by members of the society to get their voices heard.

The facts speak for themselves. On 27th January, 2015 the Law Society Kenya Secretariat issued a Notice for the Annual General Meeting that was scheduled for 21st March, 2015. Some members of the LSK, as is required by the Law, served upon the Secretariat 3 motions to be included in the agenda of the AGM. The motions were served on 13th January, 2015 and 27th February, 2015.

Regulation 35(2) of the LSK Regulations provides that upon receipt within the time prescribed of such motions, the Secretary of the LSK is obliged to include the Motions in the agenda for the AGM. In relation to the motions, the Secretary refused to comply with these mandatory regulations. Through 2 letters, the members through their Advocates demanded that the Motions be specifically included in the agenda prior to the AGM. However, the demand was not met and come the day of the AGM, the motions were nowhere to be seen. The reason they were omitted is because they sought to discuss the apparently fraudulent conduct of the LSK council in the International Arbitration Centre scandal.

The chaotic scenes that characterised the LSK general assembly last week must be analysed with that background in mind. When faced with a group of individuals who will subscribe to neither reason nor rule of law and who are determined to pursue their foul ends mpende msipende, the normal course of serene, sedate and sombre discourse is rendered impotent.

 

It is true that you do not respond to a mosquito bite with a hammer. Equally true is that you do not bring a knife to a gun fight. The unfortunate fact is that the LSK council led by Mutua came to the meeting with a premeditated intention of running a choreographed and stage-managed meeting. They planned to proceed with business while pretending to be oblivious to objections from members. Having reserved seats for a select cabal of seniors at the front they set the stage to bulldoze through the meeting attempting to illegally imposing their will on the majority.

What the observer at a distance perceived as fracas was actually only a spirited attempt by members to have specific motions included in the agenda. We refuse to be brainwashed into thinking that intense lawful action to defend our rights is somehow unseemly and unbecoming. Vigilance is sometimes vigorous. Many a times our rights are trampled upon whilst we are required to stay quite in order to maintain “decorum”. As Malcolm X said, you cannot struggle only within the rules laid down by those you are struggling against. He added that “tactics based solely on morality can only succeed when you are dealing with people who are moral”.

The only time an advocate’s conduct brings the profession to disrepute is when it is illegal. The law was indeed broken; By Eric Mutua and his cohorts, first by failing to comply with the regulations compelling them to include the motions discussing their conduct and then by attempting to unlawfully adjourn the AGM. Under regulation 39 of the LSK regulations, he could only adjourn the meeting with the consent of the members present. Consent is sought by putting the matter to a vote. In blatant disregard and contempt for the regulations, the chairman purported to ‘declare’ a unilateral adjournment.

As an experienced lawyer, the LSK chairman ought to know that to communicate with a man; you need to speak in a language he understands.

The irony is that while misconduct is being discussed, it is the alleged misconduct of innocent advocates who shouted wolf rather than that of the knavish LSK council. Exactly the distraction a coyote caught raiding the chicken coop would want.

Kenya Today

Stand on Chapter Six returns to haunt President in anti-corruption crackdown

 Sunday Nation

The Constitution. FILE PHOTO | WILLIAM OERI

The Constitution. FILE PHOTO | WILLIAM OERI |  NATION MEDIA GROUP

By GEORGE KEGORO

The President’s new leadership in the fight against corruption, initially hailed as courageous, is now coming under pressure, as names of implicated persons become public.

A number of shortcomings have been pointed out which, if avoided, would have saved the President’s action from some of the resistance it is now attracting.

To begin with, the President has started an anti-corruption programme that relies on a set of constitutional provisions, which his administration is seen as having previously demonised and actively undermined.

The war against corruption is grounded on Chapter Six of the Constitution, which addresses leadership and integrity in public office.

In the lead-up to the elections held in 2013, where Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto were elected President and Deputy President, attempts were made to block the two from running for office because of the cases that they faced before the International Criminal Court.

The argument against their candidature was that because the ICC had found that there were “substantial grounds to believe” that they were either contributors or indirect co-perpetrators to crimes against humanity committed in Kenya between December 2007 and January 2008, they were unsuitable to run for office.

Both in court and in political rallies, Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto disputed this assertion, arguing that the decision on whether they were suitable to serve as president and deputy should be made, not by a court of law, but by the people of Kenya through the ballot.

The High Court ruled in their favour, holding in the suit that had been filed to block their candidature, that article 1 of the Constitution places all sovereign power on the people of Kenya to be exercised only in accordance with the Constitution.

According to the court, limiting the political rights of the parties that had sponsored Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto would be inimical to the exercise of the democratic rights and freedoms of their members.

In the wake of attempts by President Kenyatta to compel elected leaders, including governors and senators, to vacate office until they are cleared of corruption, the President’s directive has been met with his own previous argument.

Referring to Deputy President Ruto, Meru Governor Peter Munya has pointed out that “some of them are facing serious criminal charges in a global court,” yet they have not resigned.

The argument is that if it was fine for President Kenyatta and Mr Ruto to remain in office while facing charges before the ICC, it should be fine for others to also remain in office while facing anti-corruption charges.

REJECTED DIRECTIVE

Another point of contention is reflected in the reaction by the Opposition, the Orange Democratic Movement, to the President’s announcement.

While ODM leader Raila Odinga led in making demands for accountability against corruption, his party has now rejected the President’s directive, terming it “whitewashing corruption”.

Their contention is that “the presidency is itself a leading suspect in the massive corruption scandals muzzling the nation”, and that “top political leaders and technocrats in the presidency have been linked to acts of bribery and collusion to defraud the public of money, land, playgrounds, procurement indecencies, you name it”.

The assertion is that the government is involved in a selective approach to the fight against corruption, and that incidents which should be the subject of focus by the EACC have been left untouched. As part of its grievances, the Opposition has made the point that “the IEBC remains intact and does not feature in the President’s list, yet its partners in crime are in jail in London”.

While this claim can only be ascertained upon a full disclosure of the report of the EACC, it is instructive that some of the infrastructure projects, in which the Jubilee government takes considerable pride, have been criticised as questionable because of claims that tenders for these were awarded arbitrarily, pricing was varied without justification, or that no feasibility studies preceded some of the projects.

It looks likely what been held out as corruption is highly subjective, and does not include all the recent corruption scandals.

The ODM statement points to a further problem, to do with the EACC. According to the opposition party, “we are talking about the same EACC that is at war with itself, where juniors have demanded the sacking of their boss, the chairman Mumo Matemu”.

Undeniably, the internal condition of the EACC is an issue of concern. Initial recriminations among commissioners have now given way to a denial of the contents of their own letter of complaint to the President against their chair, Mr Matemu, against whom a removal petition has been filed before the National Assembly.

In several quarters, the EACC is not seen as possessing sufficient credibility to lead investigations on corruption, and currently has the image and shape of a tool of special interests, rather than an independent constitutional commission.

There are also procedural concerns, again pointed out in the ODM statement. As an independent commission, the ordinary procedure at the EACC when dealing with cases of corruption is to channel investigative outcomes to the Director of Public Prosecutions who decides whether or not to commence prosecutions.

Finally, the manner in which the President introduced the directive requiring resignations from office has been likened to the messy handling of judicial corruption by former Chief Justice Evan Gicheru.

When Narc came to power in 2003, the Chief Justice, rather like the President has done to the EACC, commissioned Justice Aaron Ringera to compile a list of corrupt judges for removal from the Judiciary.

When the Ringera report was handed over to the CJ, and without disclosing the names of the judges in the list, he demanded that these must resign, claiming that there was no need to identify them since they knew themselves.

This procedure was criticised as falling short of the requirements of natural justice since persons were not required to resign without being told the reasons or being given an opportunity to defend themselves.

Let Kenya honour Kimathi:Juxtaposing King Richard III with Our own Field Marshall Dedan Kimathi Waciuri.

By Ruth Mumbi

ruth-mumbi

On the 26th of March 2015,I traveled to Leicester to witness a historical moment.It is a significant day in the history of England.I was privileged to witness history in the making watching thousands of British people young and old in the streets of Leicester who had turned out in large numbers to pay their respects to their King who died in battle over five centuries ago.The events of the day made me have deep reflections about my home,Kenya.
Five hundred and twenty seven years can easily sound like a period erased out of the memory of history.But that is the period that has elapsed since the death of King Richard III of England ;Richard the last King from the house of York who died on the 22nd August 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth Field is considered one of England’s historical heroes.
History documents that On 22 August 1485, Richard met the weakened army of Henry Tudor at the Battle of Bosworth Field Richard’s army was about 8,000, against Henry’s estimated at 5,000.Richard III led a cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks in an attempt to end the battle quickly by striking and killing Henry Tudor himself.
Accounts note that King Richard III in defense of the throne, fought bravely and ably during this manoeuvre, unhorsing Sir John Cheyne, a well-known jousting champion, killing Henry’s standard bearer Sir William Brandon and coming within a sword’s length of Henry Tudor before being surrounded by Sir William Stanley’s men and killed.King Richard III was the last English king to be killed in battle.
Richard III’s body was buried at Greyfriars Friary in Leicester in a crude grave in the friary church. After the friary’s dissolution in 1538 and its subsequent demolition, Richard’s tomb was lost.
With the help of archeologists,a search for Richard’s body commenced in August 2012, initiated by the Looking for Richard project with the support of the Richard III Society. Headed by the University of Leicester Archaeological Services and in partnership with Leicester City Council the excavation process was initiated.
Preliminary DNA analysis also showed that mitochondrial DNA extracted from the bones matched that of two matrilineal descendants, one 17th-generation and the other 19th-generation, of Richard’s sister Anne of York. Taking these findings into account along with other historical, scientific and archaeological evidence, the University of Leicester announced on 4 February 2013 that it had concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the skeleton they had found belonged to Richard III.
On Sunday 22 March 2015,King Richard III’s remains were moved from the University of Leicester to Leicester Cathedral via the site of the Battle of Bosworth at Fenn Hill Farm and then through local villages (Dadlington, Sutton Cheney, Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre, Market Bosworth) retracing part of Richard’s last journey before death.
On the Monday 23 – Wednesday 25 March 2015: stayed at the cathedral for viewing and Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, celebrated Mass for Richard III’s soul in Holy Cross Priory, Leicester, the Catholic parish church and Holy Cross Church.
Today, 26th March 2015,a final and dignified farewell for King Richard III was done in what was described by the Bishop of Leicester as a “solemn, but hopeful extraordinary moment” in English history brought about by Richard’s death on August 22, 1485.
The search and final interment of King Richard III is a great lesson for Kenya to borrow from.It is a challenge to us as a nation and we should be embarrassed that its only 58 years since Mau Mau hero Field Marshal Dedan Kimathi was executed at the Kamiti Maximum Security Prison by the colonial government yet we are yet to know exactly where the remains of Dedan Kimathi are.
The Kibaki tenure’s effort of erecting the statue of Dedan Kimathi along Kimathi street is a commendable gesture,but that alone is not enough.
It will be dishonourable for us as a generation to continue lazing around instead of taking a decisive measure to locate,exhume and rebury our freedom hero in dignity.Ours will be much easier than Richard III’s because Kimathi’s immediate family relatives are still alive and thus the DNA samples wont be such a hectic challenge.
I challenge not only the national government through relevant ministries ,but other relevant stakeholders like the British government, Archeological Scholars,University of Nairobi’s department of Anthropology and the civil society.The county governments of Nairobi(being the capital city),Nyeri(Kimathi’s place of birth) and Kiambu(where the Kamiti Maximum Security Prison is located) should also be involved .
Let President Uhuru Kenyatta honour Kimathi by ensuring his reburial process occurs during his tenure in office.
Ruth Mumbi is a visiting fellow at the University of York,UK