Uhuru taken to task over Hague trials in debate

By JAINDI KISERO jkisero@ke.nationmedia.com  ( email the author)

Posted  Tuesday, February 12  2013 at  00:30

In Summary

• Jubilee flag bearer told he should have stepped down from race, but he says post is elective and Kenyans should decide

SHARE THIS STORY

  

 0
inShare

The International Criminal Court, tribalism and recent warnings by foreign governments on the likely diplomatic implications of a win by the Jubilee coalition in the coming elections were some of the highlights of the first presidential debate on Monday night.

Speaking on the subject, Jubilee presidential candidate Uhuru Kenyatta argued that the ICC trials would not deter him from running the affairs of the State if he is elected president.

Mr Kenyatta stated that the job he sought was an elective position and therefore was not subject to the requirement for public officials to step aside when named in connection to crimes.

But his views were opposed by Narc Kenya presidential flag bearer Martha Karua and Mr Mohammed Abduba Dida of the Alliance for Real Change, who argued that under laws governing ethics for public officers, Mr Kenyatta’s presidential candidature was not proper. “The culture of justice is that if you are suspected, the norm is that you step aside until you’re cleared, why is it different with Uhuru and his friends?” asked Mr Dida.

Cord presidential candidate Raila Odinga supported the position, remarking: “The government cannot be run through Skype”.

A great deal of time was spent on apportioning blame on how the Jubilee flag bearer and the other three persons accused by the ICC ended up at The Hague, with Ms Karua, Mr Kenyatta and Mr Odinga giving contradicting accounts over who supported the local tribunal and at what time.

Ms Karua, who was at the time the Justice minister accused Mr Odinga, contrary to his assertions of having supported a local tribunal, of abandoning her on the floor of the House during debate on the tribunal.

But it was Safina leader, Paul Muite, who stole the limelight by making the controversial statement that  the presidential candidates in 2007 deserved to be at The Hague. He promised to investigate Mr Odinga and President Kibaki, if he is elected president.

The debate produced candid remarks on the issue of tribalism and ethnicity.

The moderator, NTV’s Linus Kaikai, broached the sensitive subject of the perennial rivalry between the Luo and Kikuyu which — he asserted — was partly responsible for ethnicity in Kenya.

“Do you agree that the rivalry between you and Mr Uhuru Kenyatta is but a replay of what happened between your parents?” he asked, directing the question at Mr Odinga.

Both Mr Odinga and Mr Kenyatta said they had no personal differences, exchanging pleasantries and addressing one another as “my brother”.

Ms Karua accused the duo of being in denial.

Ethnic coalitions also came up as an issue with moderators accusing Mr Odinga and Mr Kenyatta of having constructed parties around tribes.

Contrary to expectations, there was no major showdown between Mr Odinga and Mr Kenyatta on the issue of land. The two candidates have lately been sniping at one another.

With the presidential debate for the first time providing the viewers with an  opportunity to see the presidential candidates face off in front of cameras without  their minders and teleprompters, expectations were that the land factor would produce fireworks.

There were also expectations that the presidential debate would provide new insight into the circumstances under which Mr Kenyatta and the flag bearer of the Amani coalition, Mr Musalia Mudavadi, parted company.

With most of the opinion polls suggesting a tight two-horse race between Mr Odinga and Mr Kenyatta, the remaining candidates fought to project themselves as moderates representing the middle ground.

On almost all issues, Mr Mudavadi, Ms Karua, Mr Peter Kenneth, Prof James ole Kiyiapi and Mr Muite strived to portray themselves as belonging  to the centre. Mr Dida struck a more independent line.

For clear reasoning on the country’s contemporary problems, breadth of coverage of issues, the candidates did a fairly satisfactory job.

But the debates did not project any major clashes of views and visions on how the Kenyan society should be restructured. The prescriptions were rather ordinary and lacking in radical thinking.

If anything, what came out clearly is that ideas and policies of the major presidential candidates have converged over the years.

Every presidential candidate agrees that the solution to eradicating tribalism is equal distribution of resources and implementation of the Constitution to the letter.

Because of the manner in which the debate was structured with all the eight presidential candidates on parade, the expected major showdown between some of the political adversaries did not happen.

Viewers did not get an opportunity to discern demeanour and temperament. Neither was it possible to discern fluency. With candidates allowed to make general comments without having to address one another, the whole thing ended up looking more or less like alternating informercials than a debate.

Additional report by Alphonce Shiundu