Criticisms Can Help Determine Good Leaders

Thursday, 12 May 2011 15:41 BY GODWIN MURUNGA

Eldoret MP William Ruto(l)Deputy PM Uhuru Kenyatta(c) and VP Kalonzo Musyoka wave at wananchi along outering rd.upon arrival from the ICC.Photo/Philip Kamakya

Allow me to comment on Miguna Miguna’s statement on Uhuru Kenyatta, the one about Uhuru ‘excelling in extra-curriculum activities like smoking and drinking’ that Karen  Rothmyer highlighted in her column on 11th May 2011. You will recall that this statement was initially publicly uttered by the Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, and was severally aired on television and published by several newspapers including The Star. Is it not time we asked if this statement is in fact true? Or put the other way, why has Uhuru Kenyatta failed to sue the people who are making this statement publicly and without fear?
For a start, politicians and knowledgeable writers like Miguna Miguna hardly make statements that can easily get them in trouble. As a barrister, Miguna Miguna knows the rules around libel. He also knows too well that the Kenyan judiciary has a record in slapping the harshest punishment in defamation cases. Indeed, we were all recently treated to discussions on Justice Alnashir Visram and his landmark libel award of Kshs. 30 million to the then powerful politician, Nicholas Biwott .
We also know from ongoing interviews in search of the Chief Justice that Kenyan courts have been dogged by corruption. Corruption tends to favour not only the rich but those among the rich who couple their wealth with political power. Every interviewee confirmed that the judiciary was either in ICU or HDU to borrow Mbogholi Msagha’s phrase. Given the advantages that this judicial scenario confers to Uhuru Kenyatta and the damage that Miguna Miguna’s statement carry to any politicians, why has Uhuru Kenyatta treated the statement as if it is a joke from a high school bully?
 In my view, it is Uhuru Kenyatta’s reticence on this statement, rather than Miguna Miguna’s statement, that should in fact worry us. When pushed to the wall, Uhuru’s reaction was more telling: his abusive reference to Raila Odinga’s mother and wife. Not only did he interject by questioning if they [Raila] think that ICC belongs to his mother but he also proceeded to query if we [Uhuru] drink with his wife?
In the first instance, this reaction damaged Uhuru’s well-cultivated image as a calm, thoughtful young leader. Second, it also raised the possibility that Raila Odinga had touched a raw nerve. I was initially tempted to dismiss Raila Odinga for cheapening himself through bare-knuckle attacks. But on second thought, Uhuru’s reaction made me wonder if as a registered voter, I should pay due attention to this allegation.
It is the possible truth of this claim that should arrest our attention. Rather than dismiss it, the allegation gives us a chance to probe Uhuru Kenyatta’s presidential ambition. I understand the temptation to censor when debates seem to test the boundaries of what is acceptable but concur that we must insist first on substantiation. Yet in demanding substantiation, we have to recognise that the burden of proof rests both with the critic and individual being criticised. Further, we must also acknowledge that in certain cases, the proof of a claim is circumstantial or out of reach of the critic. It must therefore be allowed that a critic will criticise an individual without proof if the critic knows that the individual will never take legal action because they are aware of their guilt.
In the case of Uhuru Kenyatta or any other aspiring leader of a country, the burden of proof must not simply rest on substantiation by the critic. Indeed, aspiring leaders like Uhuru, Raila, Kalonzo or Ruto must also acquit themselves in the court of public scrutiny. In any case, there is no established forum where the ethical standing and vision of these aspiring leaders are critically probed except through media analysis of their credentials.
And we now have a precedent in what the Judicial Service Commission has been doing to applicants for the position of Chief Justice. Not only has the Commission probed them in relation to their judgements and responsibilities as judges or public figures, they have also put to them allegations made by the public and required the interviewees to acquit themselves in the court of public opinion. The questions have been comprehensive and hard-hitting to the point where some within the viewing public think that some Commissioners have personal vendetta against the applicants. In my view, if personal vendetta sheds light on the individual who will occupy a high office that interprets and issues final judgements on our constitution, this is a sacrifice they should be willing to undergo to ensure that the best possible candidate is appointed.
In other words, it is upon Uhuru Kenyatta to acquit himself over this smoking and drinking allegations. The options available to him are many. He could acknowledge it as true and convince us that this will not affect his leadership of the country if elected. This is the line Barack Obama took regarding his habit of smoking and we haven’t seen it affect his leadership. Alternatively, Uhuru can deny it and sue Raila Odinga and Miguna Miguna to demand that they substantiate the claim or withdraw and apologise. The more Uhuru Kenyatta keeps quiet about this allegation or responds in a manner that does not shed clear light on it, the rumour mills in Nairobi will continue to give ‘undue’ credence to the allegations.