By Prof. Nana Essilfie-Conduah
Making history is not that simple. It takes the courage of a Martyr and the patience of a Saint. Those are the parameters of it in a nutshell.
Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s President scuppered a golden chance into fame and erased domestic and international misgivings about him but ended probably vindicating the International Court of Human Rights at the Hague for sceptics to jump triumphant.
And recent added reports on statements attributed to him – President Kenyatta says he would use his Parliamentary majority to unseat his rival Raila Odinga for the up-coming re-run ballot, if he lost the Poll.
It is ominous for Kenya, Africa and the world. That brings in the early history and that lingering dubiety about him and his love for power since 2007.
2007 Presidential ballot
The ‘doubts’ about him arose from the cauldron during and the aftermath mayhems following that controversial Presidential ballot in 2007 which he won. He was hauled to the Court for infringement of human rights. The Court faced almost a revolt for “colour prejudice” and that African-charge against what was deemed as racism (ref to the court’s presumed) won him the reprieve.
2017 Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Ruling
As ballot box democracy dictates, Kenyans went to the Polls early August [2017]. President Kenyatta was declared winner.
The Opposition complained about irregularities which the Kenya Supreme Court upheld and another round of voting shall occur in this month at the limit.
President Kenyatta won perhaps instant unanimous global applause for declaring that he would abide by the ruling, adding he was not afraid and tagged it with appeal for peaceful co-existence among Kenyans for democracy or the rule of the law to prevail.
He declared: I disagree but I respect it. However, hardly had that hail’s echoes subsided, President Kenyatta addressed a political rally. He railed at the Supreme Court as “crooks” and added menaces “we are keeping a close eye on you” [the Judges/Court]. The volte face is damaging enough. But there is more as that u-turn sends out a number of clear political and historical signals.
The World’s Reaction
The world’s reaction in the immediate after he had said in nationwide televised broadcast described his I disagree but I respect it as the first from Africa is not absolutely true – log this concession by an African ruler both in terms referral even specifically for an incumbent and generally a loser. You cannot summarise ground breaking event in history to label as cheaply. There have been re-run instances –Senegal, Ivory Coast, Tunisia and Malawi. The exception is that the Courts and the Systems ensured compliance. Leaving out losers acquiesces is also unfair and incorrect in the full story.
It is like the Christian oblivion that if Mary had rejected, the whole proposition of the birth of Christ would have had to alter and thus, it is reasonable to draw attention to the failure to acknowledge the flip side in the exuberant rush for historical antecedents.
Let us fix that on the mast of lapse of memory and hope that all the bluster and incipient threats by President Kenyatta are smoke screens. There is an ulterior self-interest that would manifest itself shortly here after cross-reference in history bringing the matter home peripherally but quite significant comparatively to facilitate the high and low risks and low stakes respectively for President Kenyatta and his country on the one side; and Africa in the milieu of International Politics.
In the Ghanaian Context
At the time in 1967 when the Head of State, General Joseph Ankrah, quit admitting taking bribe reportedly the jocular saying in this country en suite was “I beg I took.” He conceded and quit though his compatriot member of the ruling Junta (NLC) was said to have impugned the integrity of the regime and had preceded General Ankrah out of the Council.
Our President today, Nana Akufo-Addo accepting our Supreme Court’s ruling turn down his petition to annul the ballot he lost in 2012 and also said he disagreed but he would go along. All were premised on maturing democracy. Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta went ditto and reversed post-facto.
Fear of ethnic fracas and repercussions
The sequel fresh voting holds in its belly fear of ethnic fracas and repercussions indeed world-wide, because memories are fresh on 2007 and the flight out of that country before the early last August election there predicated on the same foreboding. While the strong potential of the security-vulnerability is speculative, President Kenyatta hoped the country in prior pre and post-election internecine would not be repeated.
Incidentally and implicitly [camouflaged in the show of tough speech, he must personally remain aware of his agony hauled to the International Court for Human Rights and freed but over which the scepticism which was overwhelmingly induced by the global colour divide and inconclusive legal debate, are certain to resurge. Also the potential for back into another brutal bout of turmoil lingers from the recent.
The Election Machine
A bigger bother though, is trust in the election machine where (a) the system botched up during the disputed to Supreme Court tallies of votes casts for contestants; (b) plainly asking from his truculent self-ditch speech: ’is a defeat from a properly organised vote something President Kenyatta is going to countenance, overlooking the hugely troublesome ethno side?; and [c] bearing the hunch about the ghost of the sudden death on eve of ballot of the man in charge of the computer apparatus loitering because there are suspicions.
Findings of Election Observers
Outside of those are veritable questions: the role and findings of “Election Observers” – Domestic and Global – African, Commonwealth, European Union and the UN. It is believed that their verdicts, except the domestic for perhaps conflict of interest and or ambiguous political intimidation co-efficient, are added credibility certificates.
This Kenyan Supreme Court’s decision – ‘Advantage Petitioner’, puts a serious question mark on the unanimity that passed the latest in Kenya now found fraught. It is true the separate Observer-verdicts may or not be dotted with “ifs”; however their “buts” converge in ticking off the vote as clean.
