Big Two should consult with Kofi Annan

 

By PHILIP OCHIENG

Posted Saturday, February 12 2011 at 17:27

The lesson is that you should never sign any Annan-kind of treaty, do not sign until you are sure that you understand all the key words used in it.

Clearly, Raila Odinga assumed that the words “in consultation with the Prime Minister” meant “with approval by the Prime Minister”.

As most Kenyans thought, they might mean so. But the question is stark. If so, why didn’t Mr Annan use the unmistakable term “approval by”, not the woolly term “consultation with”? For I know at least four meanings of the word “consultation”

A consultation is any act of looking for information in, say, a book. If any reader does not know the word “stark”, let him consult his dictionary.

Similarly, Mr Odinga might have informed Mr Kibaki as passively as a book as to whom to nominate.

And just as I may have rejected a biblical statement, so Mr Kibaki would have been under no obligation to take Mr Odinga’s word.

A consultation is a meeting with an expert. We consult our doctors about what is ailing us. If we are wise, we will feel obliged to heed the doctor’s advice. But a doctor is not Caesar. That is why — since we are not always wise — we may ignore him.

I nowadays serve a new weekly called Kenya Today as its editorial training consultant. As a rule, my young wards respect my word. My age, experience and reputation effectively see to that. But there is no law to force them to do so.

On the recent nominations, however, Mr Kibaki is unlikely to have gone to Mr Odinga as an expert, much less as a disinterested party.

In this case, the only expert the President might have consulted was either Dr Annan himself or the Justice minister or the Attorney-General or the Chief Justice.

A consultation is any formal meeting with a specific agenda, in which, after a give-and-take exchange, an agreement is expected.

Meetings to thrash out disagreements on the Nile’s waters are consultations of that kind. Our weekly or fortnightly Cabinet meetings are another example.

But — as Mr Odinga recently found out in Abidjan — no wise party goes to such a meeting with any illusion because an agreement or consensus is as slippery as a conger eel.

This kind of consultation cannot apply to the two Principals because their disagreement is on the method of nomination — not necessarily on the nominees.

A consultation is any act of discussing something with somebody or some group to arrive at a decision.

The government may later say: “The decision to build a dam was taken after (or in) consultation with the local people.” The discussions may have informed the decision, but not necessarily.

The government might have rejected the local people’s opinion and gone ahead with the dam.

Minister Esther Murugi — probably a good person who merely needs a few lessons on public relations language — recently told some Maasai petitioners that IDPs would be resettled on a disputed piece of land “wapende, wasipende!”

Merely informing some “stakeholder” that something is about to be done — without expecting the stakeholder’s opinion to change anything — is what seems to have happened between the principal shareholder and another shareholder.

Mr Kibaki probably gave Mr Odinga a list of names merely — in bureaucratic parlance — “for your information only”. The Premier had reacted negatively. But the President, feeling that, by merely informing the Premier, he had obeyed the treaty, had gone ahead to make his nominations.

I believe that, given the delicateness of such a treaty, an agreement based on close one-on-one discussions is what is meant by “consultations”.

But, if so, Dr Annan must carry blame for failing to spell it out.

And, because of the extreme peril to which it puts our country, our Principals would do well to consult with Dr Annan and abide by his word.

ochiengotani@gmail.com