What Kibaki Is Not Saying On Succession

 BY MUGAMBI KIAI

A story in The Star reported President Kibaki, for at least the second time in public, declining to name his preferred successor. “These people are funny," Kibaki was qouted as saying. "They are talking everywhere, with this one saying this, that one saying that. And they are asking, 'Why hasn’t Kibaki said anything?'".
President Kibaki is obviously correct not to name a successor. Kenya is still the land of the big man and to name a successor may immediately translate into a state project. The last time this happened in 2002, former President Moi anointed Uhuru Kenyatta as his political successor in Kanu and the presidency; catalysing an almighty political revolt within the independence party. This revolt finally tore the party down the middle and was a key factor in Kanu's humiliating electoral defeat later that year; from which it has never recovered since.
Discussing presidential succession has been a very slippery slope in Kenya. Under the old order, public debate around presidential succession was outlawed. Under President Jomo Kenyatta, this was achieved using the threat of legal indictment. This happened when a group coalescing around the Gikuyu Embu Meru Association (Gema) tried to initiate a change to the constitution in the 1970s to stop the automatic ascent of the Vice President to acting President in the event of the death of the President. This was meant to derail the succession of Moi to the presidency in the event of Kenyatta’s death.
Not wanting any public discussion of this issue, former Attorney General Charles Njonjo shrewdly decreed it was treasonable to discuss Kenyatta’s succession. Njonjo used Section 40 of the Penal Code: “Any person who…compasses, imagines, invents, devices or intends the death, maiming, or wounding, or imprisonment or restraint, of the President, or the deposing by unlawful means of the President…or the overthrow by unlawful means of the Government is guilty of the offense of treason.”
Of course, it was a ridiculous argument: This section targets the unlawful conception and planning of the removal of the President and does not in any way impinge on any debate on the democratic succession of the President. Indeed, under Section 6 of the old constitution, presidential vacancy following the death of the President was provided for: “If the office of the President becomes vacant by reason of the death or resignation of the President…”
Njonjo’s ruse, however, worked and stifled any debate around Kenyatta’s succession. Moi would automatically succeed Kenyatta on the latter’s demise in 1978. Discussing succession in the Moi state was anathema- it was deemed to be a personal challenge and affront to him. However, the issue of the Moi succession still rose to prominence during his second term under multiparty rule when it became clear that he was constitutionally barred from running for a third term.
Reactions around this issue were varied. Within the ruling party, the objective was not to offend Moi and the vast majority led by then Vice President George Saitoti took the line that the Moi succession was a non-issue. Others, like the late Kipkalya Kones, suggested that the best way to navigate around this thorny issue was to repeal the constitutional provision limiting the president’s tenure.
But a few would not relent, however. Former MP for Cherangany Kipruto Kirwa wrote an open letter to the President on the issue. Previously politician Jackson Kibor had also publicly raised this issue only to lose his seat as a Kanu branch chair. But the trend was still to avoid the issue until it was time for Moi’s exit. It was at this point that he unsuccessfully attempted to engineer his own succession.
Perhaps Kibaki has learnt from Moi’s debacle on this issue and has, thus far, desisted from taking the same path. Obviously, President Kibaki’s reticence on his preferred presidential candidate will not stop or end the debate. With increasing regularity, candidates are now tossing their hats into the ring as presidential contestants: A fact that the President is –wrongly- critical of.
Kibaki’s unease seems to center around the multiplicity of presidential candidates from Central Kenya. Here is The Star report: Without mentioning names, Kibaki hit out at politicians from the Central region who he said are fighting to be his successor after he retires next year.
One of the key criticisms of a multiplicity of presidential candidates is that it has a “spoiler” effect on those who have a realistic chance of winning the seat. Ironically, this was a criticism that was leveled against Kibaki himself after the 1992 general elections when he was accused of “spoiling” for Kenneth Matiba, who emerged runner-up to Moi: a simple addition of Matiba’s and Kibaki’s votes in those elections topped Moi’s votes. Obviously, however, elections are not that simple and given the 'un-free' and unfair conditions surrounding general elections at the time, it cannot be automatically suggested that a Matiba candidacy in the absence of Kibaki would have guaranteed a Matiba victory.
Today, those from Central Kenya who have declared their candidature for the presidency include Martha Karua, Peter Kenneth, Mutava Musyimi, Uhuru Kenyatta and Paul Muite. The million dollar question is: Who is spoiling for whom? Given how the major political alignments that support Kibaki have been seen to gravitate around Uhuru, perhaps without naming his preferred candidate, is Kibaki indeed signaling whom he’d prefer as his successor?
Mugambi Kiai is the Kenya programme manager at the Open Society Initiative for East Africa (OSIEA). The views expressed in this article are entirely his own.