WadiMost often we are so first to point a finger, to judge and say how evil another person is. Myself I know, each day I get second chances and I refuse the cheap path of condemnation. Even the worst in us, is still human.
I just chose a path that saw my role in what my peer did. My own societies love for sensationalism, my country’s intolerant culture.

Yesterday, I wrote an article on the case of Allan Wadi, which can be summarized as follows:

That What Allan Wadi did was extreme and against the law of Kenya and should not be condoned if we have to secure our nation.

That his prosecution however was not entirely procedural and is manifestly selective
That many high profile Kenyans, both in opposition and government have not been prosecuted
That the handlers of the Presidency were in part to blame for the disrespectful utterances against the President on Social Media

That to secure Kenya’s social media, we must rise beyond traditional retribution and build a value system that fosters restraint and respects divergent opinion.

And that Government is called to greater prudence and should handle official Presidential communication and Political communication distinctly to allow all Kenyan’s political affiliation notwithstanding, to relate to their President.

And finally, that it was my view that the President should consider pardoning Allan Wadi.

I have received overwhelming feedback o all my social media and personal platforms that warrant my response.
1. That the President is incapable of Pardoning Wadi as the law shifted the power (Government official): Lie, Article 113 of the Constitution allows the President power to grant a free or conditional pardon to a person convicted of an offence, postpone the carrying out of a punishment, either for specified or indefinite period substitute a less severe form of punishment; or remit all or part of a punishment.

The subsequent Power of Mercy Act provides for the Establishment of an Advisory Committee pursuant to Article 113 (2) of the constitution through which the President is petitioned. The office of the President provides the secretariat for the committee making this directly under the President.

2. Wadi was not imprisoned for insulting the President: The mandatory 1 year Jail term is in respect for undermining the Authority of the a Public officer. In the posts made by Wadi, two Public officers are mentioned, CS Waiguru and the President. In my view, his reference to CS Waiguru is sheer derogatory and defamation, what constitutes undermining is his reference to the President. So the state directly prosecuted Wadi because he insulted the President.

3. Wadi’s actions are extreme and two years is proportionate: Ferdinant Waititu, then an MP called for deportation of Maasai’s from Embakasi, saying they were Tanzanians and do not belong to Kenya, later he apologized and the charges were dropped. 2 People of the Maasai origin died allegedly on account of these utterances
Ali Chirau Makwere on July 1st 2010, Mwakwere said that the indigenous people in Coast have been oppressed by Arabs, when Mwakere offered an apology, the charges were dismissed.

Around August 2011, the commission on Cohesion and National Integration after it had charged MPs Fred Kapondi, Wilfred Machage and a business person Miller applied to withdraw the charges to seek alternative means of dealing with the three. The three would later be acquitted on account that the video recording showing them did not have a certificate of ownership.

Before Wadi’s irrational posts, he would pass as one reasonable Kenyan. The young man a Starehe Alumnus has a chance of contributing to a good nation. If you saw Wadi in court, he was apologetic and defeated and even claimed insanity.

Most often we are so first to point a finger, to judge and say how evil another person is. Myself I know, each day I get second chances and I refuse the cheap path of condemnation. Even the worst in us, is still human.
I just chose a path that saw my role in what my peer did. My own societies love for sensationalism, my country’s intolerant culture.

I will never advocate for disrespect to the President, I still stand by the last conclusion of my Article: LIEUTENANT WADI SHOULD BE PARDONED BY HE UHURU KENYATTA

Ahmednassir should indeed be kicked out of Judicial Service Commission

“The good Doctor, who taught me professional ethics in my law school barely a year ago, said one integral component of intellectual honesty is to declare what may lead to biases in your opinion. I am a law student, who is a loyal reader of the daily Nation, and who, on reading an Interview on Daily Nation, I discovered that in Ahamednassir’s estimation the training I am undergoing is at best “pathetic”. No one likes to be pathetic. I also happen to be a peer of Moi University Law students, who, in the estimation of the learned lawyer, cannot answer a one plus one of law”



Article 171 of the Constitution of Kenya establishes the Judicial Service Commission. Its functions thereafter are outlined in Article 172. The Judicial service commission’s primary responsibility is to ensure the independence and accountability of the judiciary.

The Constitution, vests in the commission, authority to recommend to the President, persons for appointment as judges among other duties.

Section 3 of the Judicial Service Commission Act, 2011 sets out the objectives of the commission; while there is no allusion as to the order of importance, it cannot be lost that the first objective is to ensure that the Judiciary and the Commission are organs of management of judicial services and, in that behalf, shall uphold, sustain and facilitate a Judiciary that is independent, impartial and subject only to the provisions of the Constitution and the law

Section 3 (b) however requires the commission to facilitate a judicial process designed to render justice to all. As an officer of the commission, I can safely presume that that duty attaches to him, and that his conduct and speech, within his term of service should live strictly to those expectations.

The good Doctor, who taught me professional ethics in my law school barely a year ago, said one integral component of intellectual honesty is to declare what may lead to biases in your opinion. I am a law student, who is a loyal reader of the daily Nation, and who, on reading an Interview on Daily Nation, I discovered that in Ahamednassir’s estimation the training I am undergoing is at best “pathetic”. No one likes to be pathetic. I also happen to be a peer of Moi University Law students, who, in the estimation of the learned lawyer, cannot answer a one plus one of law.

That notwithstanding, I will attempt to be very objective in my discussion. It is my view that Ahamednassir’s conduct warrants his stepping down from the JSC. However, since he has declared his interest to still contest for the position, the Law Society of Kenya, has an obligation to kick him out of that position.

In the recent past, a local daily published a disturbing expose that brings into sharp disrepute the personal integrity of the lawyer. In particular, an allegation that the lawyer ‘forged’ a pupilage letter undermines what he has distinguished himself as, an advocate of truth.

Give it to him, the lawyer is among the very few Kenyan’s who stood up against the tyranny of Moi; and convinced many that he indeed was a person of exemplary standing and opinion. But as it would be, a little authority has exposed, in my opinion, who Ahmednassir really is, a brilliantly ambitious Kenyan who just knows what song to best sing- when.

Ahmednassir has undermined the very judiciary that he is supposed to ensure it is operating accountably and impartially.

As a member of the JSC, his opinion on certain matters certainly carries weight that could have profound implications. And, prudence would demand that we moderate our opinion, where our obligations impose on us a burden of facilitating a greater good.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of opinion and conscience, and Ahmednassir is justified to hold an opinion that the ICC is a foreign tool to perpetuate neocolonial schemes.

I would however imagine that the Lawyer also understood that the ICC is not a foreign court in the context of The International Crimes Act of 2008 which domesticated the Rome statute. I would also imagine that by that virtue the great lawyer understood that when he questioned the impartiality of the ICC, he was questioning the impartiality of Kenya’s legal system. This is perfectly in order. It could even pass as his role.

But wouldn’t his position require slightly more backing that the profound political harping of ‘western interests’. Wouldn’t the commissioner, perhaps need to expound, beyond stern talk, what the exact interests were?

Further, while the commissioner was questioning the ICC, which is certainly within his rights, was he aware of his obligation to facilitate a judicial process that gives justice to all people.

I beg to conclude that perhaps, his role of a publisher, which requires some sensation a times, got the better of his judgment.

This however is not an accident. Ahmednassir has shown that he can actually change and conform, with such an admirable ease.

No one for example, no one I remember, has ever written a glowing tribute of the former AG, Amos Wako as Ahmednassir; from a fierce critique to a near loyal defender. Just like a week to the General election, he highlighted with ease the shortcomings of the IEBC just to excuse those very shortcomings barely a month later in the Supreme Court.

I would like however to turn my attention to my confessed discomfort with Ahmednassir, the training of Advocates.

As a student, I have had instances when my training is inadequate, but what is sickening is that a person charged with developing the training of judicial officers sees fit to call students, ‘pathetic’ without offering any tangible solution.

And yes, the judicial service Commission has a constitutional mandate, in article 172 (1) d to prepare and implement programs for the continuing education and training of judges and judicial officers. While it is the responsibility of the Council of Legal Education to regulate legal training, some the Chief Justice, a colleague member at the JSC is the statutory head of the Council and Nassir would be better off advising him on how best to improve training in our law schools.

While this may be unsavory, as we read this interview on Daily Nation with a few peers, something cropped up. That a while ago, the Supreme Court gave a not so smart decision on the CORD petition, not the outcome of the petition. But a few of the smartest things in that ruling was a determination that the Supreme Courts involvement in Political litigation has to be faithful to the Constitutional threshold. That was a direct rejection of his persuasion to the bench.




Sovereignty as a principle of international law denotes the right to exercise, to the exclusion of any other state, the functions of a sovereign, as explained in Island of Palmas Arbitration case. A sovereign here meaning the modified Austinian notion of he whose pronouncements are habitually respected. In modern times, this would refer to the institutions of law which exercise state authority on behalf of the people. 

In Kenya, our collective social contract is codified in a constitution, passed overwhelmingly by the Kenyan people in 2010. In the Kenyan Constitution, the sovereign authority is delegated to, the Parliament and legislative assemblies in the counties, the national executive and executive structures in the county and the judiciary and independent tribunals, per Article 1 (3) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010

Sovereignty is a sub-structural cardinal at the centre of international relations that every state, so legally recognized, should be respected and should not have its internal affairs and decisions interfered with by external interests. It would be naïve of anyone to say such a basic rule should be waived under any circumstances whatsoever. 

Here, we must note that our Kenyan municipal institutions and we as a people have made decisions unique to our contexts and which could actually be inconceivable in other jurisdictions. Kenya’s constitution for instance, allows criminal proceedings to be started or continued against a sitting President in instances where immunity against such a crime is prohibited by a treaty to which Kenya is part of. 

This is the constitutional basis that obligates President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy William Ruto to continue cooperating with the ICC on the cases against them before the court. 

The African Union, meeting in the Addis Ababa to celebrate its jubilee, I must really wonder what they were celebrating, passed a resolution urging either termination of the ICC cases or that it be referred to either the Kenyan “reformed” judiciary or the African Court of Justice

The discussion was emotive, with the ICC standing accused of being a neocolonial tool to “humiliate African leaders.” My good friend Elliston Macharia quipped thereafter, he almost got convinced, but will when ICC goes for Jakaya Kikwete or Joyce Banda.” Perhaps the few discernible faces of the African aspirations. 

The African Union is justified to debate any issue affecting Kenya. We are a continent with a shared common destiny, a similar history and problems. But one indubitable thing is that the rate of social and economic progress in African countries is extremely at differing paces that it seems the continent’s leadership is incapable of having any shared progressive position. They find root, common purpose and passion in retrogression, excusing their inability to deal with the rot and impunity in their countries by blaming external geopolitical interests. 

Immunity against prosecution given to a sitting president has traditional been justified on the basis that it will bring disrepute to the institution of Presidency, who in all fairness is a states, first citizen.


Kenya’s progressive view, espoused in our constitution, allows suspicion that a president has done a crime under national or international to be a basis of their impeachment, Article 145 (b) of our Constitution. This notion is inconceivable to some countries where Presidents are deities. In particular the sponsor of the debate, Uganda is incapable of ever imagining such a law in its instruments. 

In all fairness, a man who will close down a media house because it is about to expose an alleged scheme to install his son as president is incapable of understanding why a Kenyan President would go to the ICC. 

Daily Monitor Paper Under Siege

Daily Monitor Paper Under Siege

It is however important to question the hypocrisy of Museveni as person when it comes to the ICC. On 12th July 2013, Moreno Ocampo visited Uganda and after a meeting the Ugandan government through its then minister of International Affairs Henry Okello issued a statement that Uganda was to arrest Sudanese President Omar El Bashir should he set foot in Uganda. 

It is understood that this was a silent means of compelling Bashir to help in the arrest of the Northern Uganda warlord Joseph Kony believed to be hiding in Sudan then under the protection of Bashir. Indeed, even after ICC issued an arrest warrant against Kony, Museveni agreed in a cabinet resolution that if Kony was to agree to sign a peace accord, he would negotiate with the ICC to rescind the warrant. This is a bloated imagination of his influence, disregarding the fact that the ICC is a judicial process, perhaps operating differently from the patronized Ugandan judicial system. 

The most chorused phrase in Addis Ababa was than Africa can solve her own problems, and that the ICC was a tool to humiliate African leaders. 

First what informs universal jurisdiction on some things like Piracy and International Crimes is the knowledge that sometimes we Well let us look at the esteemed African leaders indicted by the ICC. 

Omar El Bashir is accused of financing the Darfur conflict. Since the start of the conflict, it is estimated that close to 200,000-400,000 thousand people have lost their lives. Assuming that Bashir did not even participate in the conflict, what else can be a basis of illegitimacy of a government if such en masse atrocities are committed under a President’s watch? Others indicted from Sudan include, Bahr Abu Garda, Abdallah Banda and Ali Kushayb. 

From Uganda, they include Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti and Dominic Ongwen all leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army. These people are accused of using child soldiers, holding women as sex slaves, torture, rape and other gross violations, is their indictment a humiliation of the African leadership.


An argument against the ICC has been that all its indictees are from the African Continent. The Rome statute has 120 state parties, with 33 cou
ntries being from the continent of Africa. The others are Asia-pacific, Eastern Europe, Northern and Latin America and the Caribbean


For the period when the Kenya post election violence occurred 2007, Africa accounted for 88% of the world’s conflict related deaths, followed by Asia pacific at 6% and Middle East 4%. If a continent accounts for 88% of conflict related deaths, why would it not account for 100% of persons indicted for international crimes? 

This is absolutely possible regarding the fact that the ICC is a last resort mechanism that only becomes operational when local systems fail to take action. 

What is even more important however, is for the African Union to know that the relationship between the ICC is not foreign. The ICC is a domestic court both under the Constitution of Kenya and the International Crimes Act No. 16 of 2008. 

The Constitution passed by the Kenyan people in the direct exercise of their sovereign power to determine their own destiny. The Kenyan people, in their wisdom agreed in Article 2(5) and 2(6) of The Constitution of Kenya that all treaties ratified by Kenya will be part of our laws. 

Our constitution, passed by ourselves, and not under the compulsion of neocolonial interests waived the immunity of our president for crimes under international law. Our local traditions as a Kenyan people disallow negotiations for settlement on crimes. This we enacted to ourselves through our sovereign legislature. 

More importantly however, the African Union needs to understand the unique circumstances that led to the ICC process. 

Kenya domesticated the Rome statute by an Act of Parliament in 2008 after the post election violence had occurred. Both the current President and his deputy had substantial influence in the August house. This domestication by law obligated the government to cooperate with the ICC; it makes it mandatory for the Kenyan government to enforce sentences issued by the ICC. 

In the same 2008, the Kenyan parliament enacted a Truth Justice and Reconciliation Act to look into historical injustices and do a report which will be implemented. The TJRC Report, Volume 2A from page 511 makes damning allegations against President Kenyatta as regards the Kenya post election violence. 

The report adopts the views of the Kenya National Human Rights commission the President may be linked to activities undertaken by the outlawed Mungiki sect during the period. 

However, unlike other persons named, the report recommends that no other punitive process parallel to the ICC should be commenced against the President and the duo. This further reaffirms our sovereign commitment to the ICC process. 

The African Union has no mandate whatsoever to purport to make a declaration that extensively usurps our local commitments. If this was urged by the executive, the Kenyan Executive was then attempting to use external pressures to circumvent our laws an act which is a constitutional nullity.


The African Union is interfering with our sovereignty; Our Parliament refused two attempts to set up local tribunals and opted for The Hague. As a matter of unquestionable fact, the Deputy President is on record having urged the ICC process to commence. If this case is fatally weak and founded on falsehoods, there can never be a more legitimate forum to ascertain that than a court of law. 

The acts above were undertaken by a parliament in discharge of its constitutional mandate, a parliament that had balanced political preferences. Our Constitution which embodies our collective aspirations was passed by a free nation in celebration. We were aware, that we would suffer both the convenience and the inconvenience of that law. 

As a people, Kenya must remain committed to the shared destiny of the African continent, but certainly, in the eyes of our laws, that quest does not involve collective support to impunity. 

Sovereignty must remain what it is, that nations have a right to self determination, that acts of national institutions must be respected by our external allies. And that Museveni and Salva Kiir must stop believing that they can best interpret Kenya’s predicaments than our Parliament.


The AU does not need to worry about the shame that will befall Kenya when our President appears before the ICC. Many of us do, but we are also aware that our laws must be respected both when they further our interests and when they bring relative discomfort. Our President has undertaken to respect Kenya’s international obligations, and in his words, the ICC is a personal problem like many Kenyans have personal problems.


Why would a Union with Mali to deal with, Somalia to rebuild, Hunger to eradicate involve itself in the personal problems of three Kenyans?


But we all know what the AU’s record as to the rule of law is. One only needs to see the support it has given to its own African Court of Justice. An institution conceived decades ago which barely has a functioning secretariat talks of the union of a people committed to the rule of law.


By the way, the President of South Sudan talked of a reformed Kenyan judiciary, we cannot be surprised. With South Sudan still reporting abductions, torture and unlawful detentions, a Supreme Court that delivers its verdict before National TV must be the hallmark of reforms.


But as a nation we still have our problems. We still have Justices being taken before the judicial Service Commission; we still have a Supreme Court that misquotes our own constitution; we still have files that disappear in our registries and many still believe we have many steps to undertake before we say we have a reformed judiciary.












Raila Amolo Odinga - World Economic Forum Annu...

Raila Odinga

Uhuru seems to have a propensity to disregard systems. We can draw contrast using the very scenarios highlighted above. When Raila opposed the unilateral appointments that were a disregard of the law, Kenyatta banged the table insisting the process was credible.”

The tragedy of democracy is that the tyranny of numbers most often overwhelms sense, yet, democracy’s nobility as a means of expression of self determination remains unmatched. It provides us with a unique opportunity, an opportunity to exercise choice, or apparent exercise of choice, and with its deficiencies, I would never opt for its alternative.

When you walk into an election booth, on 3rd April, and perhaps later on, I would urge you of one thing, vote for yourself, which is what I will be doing. I am unable to summon enthusiasm, sufficient enough to walk into the election and vote a President. But I can always vote for myself, and cast a ballot for whosoever I choose, not because I choose them, but because I remotely hope that they can espouse my hopes in the ultimate, however tiny.

The reality of our nation is that the next five years will be extensively strenuous. We are faced, with a novelty of governance structures, an ambitious reform agenda that targets to redress the steps we messed and more importantly, the vision, to which we have pledged the loyalty of our effort, Vision 2030.

We need a person, therefore in president, who can assure us that they will nurture the values we aspire to realize as a nation, mediate the failures of our past and reconcile the present with the dreams of tomorrow. In short, the next five years will be a transition, burdened by the uncertainty of newness, and we can create a firm foundation for tomorrow or drop the gains time has given us. The next five years, have no opportunity of stagnation, we will either succeed or fail as a nation.

These must be the central question as we determine who to elect as our next leader. My readers will appreciate, that I have variously disapproved of the two leading contenders in the Kenyan presidential race. Yet, today I concede with reluctance that I will cast my ballot for one of them. Has my own choice been whacked into submission by the noise of masses, I doubt that, or rather, I choose to state that I accord my choice to our reality. A reality that betrays the hopes we hold, yet we hope that from that despair, a spring of certainty may arise.

The two leading candidate are Raila Odinga and Uhuru Kenyatta. I realize they have unique similarities, including the fact that all their middle names are not on their national identity cards. One is a son of the founding President and the other the son of the founding vice president. God, rest the souls of the two old men, they certainly gave us two graves to which we have been beholden as a nation and we continue to, and God liberate us.

What has been my consistent view on the two, On Raila, I believe he has a deficiency in his organizational capacity, in the last five years, the office of the prime minister has offered this country glimpses of epic inefficiency and sometimes mismanagement. In my opinion, it functioned as a disjointed unit, perhaps riddled with excitement than purpose. Read more

Elite Failure: Kenya’s Hopes Interred by Her Privileged


he knows that the media will irresponsibly lump the whole blame on the entire parliament. He knows that he can bribe his name out of a newspaper story. He knows that even if the newspaper wrote that he is the one who introduced the amendment, those who understand the risk it posses to democracy will leave offices in the evening, swipe their credit cards in supermarkets and rest on couches in the evening relishing the fact that they are about to get a masters degree. It is Kenya’s elite who kill their own aspirations”

NARC’S ascending to power in Kenya in 2002 signaled the end of the Moi era but created a stagnation of civil progress. While both the Ibrahim Mo and World Bank indices have showed that Kenya has shown improvement in governance, other social indicators of societal progress like the elite unity heavily lack in the fabric.

In a discussion with the CEO National Convention Executive Council, Cyprian Nyamwamu, a very peculiar truth came forth. The anti-Moi struggles prior to 2002 were just that, a country united against a person. In his words, Cyprian says, there was a duet of principles: For Kenya and For Moi.

I would therefore imagine that in 2002 the country united in voting Moi out. And as it would be, the rage attracted a considerable collateral damage. Those who remained intimate with Moi were swept, but never into oblivion. They sneaked back into political prominence because essentially, the country never thought of them as inherently bad people, they were thought merely as betraying the tide.

The 2002 scenario allows us knowledge of several crucial aspects; the first being the missing of long term commitment to good governance in Kenya. The most pertinent question we need to ask ourselves as a country is; were the struggles culminating to the KANU overhaul in 2002 genuine or fueled by self interest within the Kenyan elite?

To answer this, we need to admit the confusion that the 2002 overhaul created in Kenya. Just before 2002 happened, I previously alluded to the fact that Kenya was divided along those for the regime, and those for the country. The latter brought together the entire middle class. It merged opposition politics with the civil society creating total non distinction between the two.

In the struggle against Moi, we had a lawyer who was struggling to have ends meet, a teacher with a poor pay, a doctor with no facilities at work and a relevant donor who took pride in funding the civil society to raffle the government.

The donor community never believed in the possibility of a Mwai Kibaki presidency. The political calculations then heavily pointed to an Uhuru Kenyatta presidency. To reduce foreign influence in the 2002 election, Moi lead the donor community into believing that his usual tact would carry the day. Moi thought that the greatest risk to KANU’S continued hold and by extension his hold onto power through proxies would be threatened by unity of all the ambition then existent in KANU. KANU then had Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka, George Saitoti and Musalia Mudavadi all believing that they were entitled to the presidency. In this ambition, Moi saw a way of retaining power.

He created internal dissent within the party by anointing Uhuru Kenyatta. In his calculations, a move that the donor community believed it would work, Moi anticipated a revolt. He hoped that all the ambitious within KANU would go separate ways hence a multiplicity of candidacies within the opposition and a divided vote. Then, one only needed a simple majority to be president.

It almost happened so. But strangely, the revolting Turks united under LDP and later with the NAK opposition and handed his regime a defeat. This defeat saw active pro-democracy activists join the government.

This created a confusing scene; an abrupt realization of the elite’s goal. Moi had become one thing around which the country was spinning. Moi embodied all the evil that Kenya wanted to rid itself. Subsequently he ceased being the just the face of politics, but a uniting factor philosophy. The disapproval people had of Moi started determining the social evolutions in the country.

Just like a partnership winding after completion of purpose, the Kenyan elite wound their union and receded into personal development. A lawyer left the street and went to the bar, an optimistic teacher went back to class and a private business person started investing again. While the whole country could join hands in blaming government for a pothole on Mai Mahiu-Narok Road, after 2002 that became a problem of the users of that road.

The fusion of social activism and state also created another confusion; while in the Moi era, when one talked about recognition of the Mau Mau, they could be seen as a burden to the state, the NARC era brought scenarios where civil society groups would meet with the Mau Mau delegations in the Minister of Justice’s boardroom. The NARC government moved in to create commissions and refurbish government departments empowering them to undertake crucial activities. Most of these activities had previously been undertaken by the civil society.

The empowering of Anti graft agencies for instance stole the spark from the civil society. But while the civil society had been genuine in its fight against corruption, the government backed agencies became masks. They used technicalities to excuse graft. On the other hand, the civil society was disintegrating. A part from the ugly fact that they could not attack an agency that they had lobbied for, the intertwining of politics and civil movements robbed the civil society unity.

With people hanging on individual strands, the country receded into a crude association. While in the Moi Era people united because of bad governance, the post Moi era created a vacuum of association and ethnicity stepped in. The NARC government created expectations which it foiled at the start. People anticipated opportunities which were never created. While they were united in the anticipation, they could only but separate in disappointment. The society then became cautious of regions, tribes and this fermented in part spilling out in 2007 into horrendous violence.

This probably allows us to regard a few factors; there ought to be a delicate balance between the civil society and the political interests. The political elite here mean the government and opposition inclusive. Whenever there is a blossoming intimacy between any faction of the political elite and the civil society, we ought to revise our priorities, since then, that would be sectarian and momentary interests that may not withstand a test of time. The society needs to continually set standards that are slightly higher than the delivery ability of the political class.

The civil society needs unite in bits with the political class but sustain a cautious friction that allows continuous pressure for performance. This is unachievable if there are cracks within those who do not compete directly for influence. The inability of Kenya’s privileged, those who have a chance of knowing unity beyond kinship or regional, those who know another commitments beyond immediate ethnic ties, their inability to unite positively is the reason for stagnation in the civil progress.

Politicians take risks which they know their electorate would either agree with or fail to understand. When a Member of Parliament introduces an amendment to allow for party hoping, he knows that the media will irresponsibly lump the whole blame on the entire parliament. He knows that he can bribe his name out of a newspaper story. He knows that even if the newspaper wrote that he is the one who introduced the amendment, those who understand the risk it posses to democracy will leave offices in the evening, swipe their credit cards in supermarkets and rest on couches in the evening relishing the fact that they are about get a masters degree. It is Kenya’s elite who kill their country’s aspirations.

The sudden expansion of space by the NARC government institutionalized stagnation. It exposed our Achilles’ heels in personalizing our struggles as opposed to having a pursuit based on a defined philosophy. We see enemies in people, not in betrayal of our strict aspirations of a pure governance system.

It would take a restructure of the Kenyan elite to renew a true pursuit of untainted governance in wholesomeness. It would take a creation of a philosophy. Beyond the flair of civic education on responsible voting, beyond the personalization of who should be president, beyond a look at the track records of our intended leaders, we need the privileged to have a commitment that transcends the moment.

In the restructure, the elite needs to know sensationalism and press conferencing will not influence policy. The fading civil society speaks of a detachment between the elite and the masses. This is what legitimizes political imprudence. Whenever you allow the political class to engage directly with the hearts of the masses without a credible check from those who ought to be the conscience of the society then you allow an imperial democracy.

We should not let the pursuit of the privileged to be insensitive to the collective good of the society, as in this there shall lay a legitimacy of demeaning privilege, devaluing education and allowing for political impropriety. Our inaction, has failed the country.

In a recent comment, the Director Vision 2030 wondered why Kenyans were dying on Thika Super Highway. He commented: when you have a first class facilities, and a third class mentality the sum total is third class. What Mugo Kibati might never have known is that when a citizen is third class, he is rightfully so, and when you place a first class facility in their midst, you are obliged to occasion an understanding of the first class and its nuances. It is we, those who understand that traffic jams result into huge monetary losses that are to blame for the deaths of those who fail to understand why they should use a longer footbridge, yet they can jump over the rails.