from Judy Miriga
Folks,
Nguyai admitted he was Uhuru’s friend and would take self errand on behalf of Uhuru, that:
Ø Lewis Nguyai was coordinator for meetings and gatherings, that;
Ø Lewis Nguyai met Maina Njenga in Prison,
Ø helped some Mungiki with little funds here and there….
Ø He admitted he gave his phone number to the mungiki leaders…..
Ø Nguyai have no Evidence of extra-judicial killings, that:
Ø Maina Njenga was in possession of illegal firearm, Nguyai agreed with the assertion that Mungiki guys were killing each other,
Ø that there was power struggle within Mungiki and he also kept phone numbers of the Mungiki Leaders……
Ø Nguyai was naratting these greesly episodes while constantly smilling at times giggling…….
Ø Nguyai denied he was given any evidence of extra=judicial killing evidence……
Ø Nguyai denied he did not have Uhuru’s private cell number to contact him and warn him about Mungiki’s interest to contact Uhuru Kenyatta….
Ø Nguyai was with Uhuru on 30th during at the inauguration at the State House…..
Ø Nguyai also agreed that mostly Luos and Luhyas had injuries from the invasion by the Mungiki………that they met the Mungiki who were hostile and were smeared with blood and Uhuru spoke with them on top of the van to calm them down……..
Ø Nguyai agreed that Kagwanja is PNU politicial strategist who owns Mt. Kenya Foundation…..that;
Ø Nguyai was a Member of Parliamentary Select Committee Investigating Organized Crimes……..
Ø Nguyai says, Maina Njenga was released from prison after he Nguya had left the Investigating Committee…….
Ø Nguyai claims that the leaders of Mungiki leaders wanted to extort money from him claining that they blamed Nguyai from not releasing 3 million from the boss (signaling the Mungiki were expecting money from Uhuru the Boss)………and they suspect Nguyai did not deliver……..that;
Ø Nguyai was receiving sms texts from leaders of Mungiki………..until recently last week on Friday……that;
Ø the Witnessed who exonorated Uhuru were to be paid by Uhuru………
Ø Nguyai admitted that between Dec. 2007 and 2008 he met 2 Mungiki leaders who flagged his car down and introduced themselves.
Ø that Mungiki leaders introduced themselves to him and would follow him to Jakaranda hotel and talk to him at the packing lot, that the Mungiki would normally intercept Nguyai at the hotel’s gate and follow him to the parking lot….. at other times as well.
Ø Nguyai admitted that he suspects the Jacaranda hotel belonged to Njenga Karume, former MP.
Ø Nguyai admited that he had heard that Mungiki was an illegal and banned outfit from the Government order……
Ø Nguyai admits he coordinated Prayer Meeting at Uhuru Park homecoming and there was a committee who organized details of it……..
Ø Nguyai says he was associated with Uhuru as a friend and an associate…..he attended numerous rallies with Uhuru……
Ø That George Thuo asked him to organize a fundraising meeting. that youthfull businessmen and Mps attended the meeting. Fred Gumo joined the meeting for peace rallies. Johnstone Muthama of ODM-K, joined delegation of team that went to Tigoni……Wangige, Soita Shitanda and Elias Mbau also attended….Kay Defense team shows photo of …….Gumo, Nguyai and Uhuru took photo by Lewis PA
Ø Nguyai admits he is a KANU member as well as Uhuru
Ø that KANU opted to back Kibaki in 2007……
These statements and evidences by Defence Team are simplifying matters, they literally agree closely to confirm extra judicial killings against public/citizens took place……that there were insufficient Legal Justice and government protection to safeguard public interest to uphold Human Rights, freedom and dignity……….
To a layman’s eyes, I can read lots of total irresponsibility to protect, carelessness to service delinquency from political leadership with total disgregard to human empathy and dignity……….exposing human Rights Violation, Crime and Abuse to excessive pain and sufferings were clearly noted at Pre-Trial Defence Team……….It will depend on the Court how they will go about their legal professionalism rulling to confirm Trial or not to confirm….. Though there is no secret that EVIDENCE ARE BARE………Information were more evident from the Defence Team more than the ICC Hague side, but this does not show or prove the Prosecution are not prepared…………I believe the Prosecution have plenty cooking in their pot………
But the question now remain therefore, who is responsible for legitimizing registration and funding of Mungiki? Where do they get their income?
To whose interest was it formed and why? Knowing now that it is an illegal crime gang, what has the government done since Moi Tenure and Kibaki to protect public from Mungiki menace? Why is its popularity growing, who are the consumers of Mungiki………???
Why do they have comfortable access to Moi and share political rally platform? Who is behind their protection…..???
I am buffled…….
Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
– – – – – – – – – – –
Why Mungiki sought to meet Uhuru
By Athman Amran and Wahome Thuku
Local Government Assistant Minister Lewis Nguyai met with top leaders of the Mungiki sect several times between January and March, 2008 attempting to be connected to President Mwai Kibaki and other top politicians.
The Kikuyu constituency MP said he met two Mungiki leaders referred to at the ICC court as Mr X and 12 in January at the Jacaranda Hotel, Nairobi, in January 2008.
“They told me it was most desirable to get to President Kibaki,” Nguyai told the court.
Nguyai told the court that if they could not get to the President they would then want to be connected to Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Environment Minister John Michuki or Internal Security Minister George Saitoti
“They told me I should specifically get Uhuru. They wanted to make contact with Uhuru Kenyatta,” Nguyai told the ICC when he was being led in his submission by Uhuru’s lead lawyer Steven Kay.
Nguyai said that although he did not connect them with Uhuru he gave them his telephone contact and got theirs after ascertaining that they were top leaders of the Mungiki sect.
“I met with them from January, February and March. I met with them eight times and were never in contact with Uhuru,” Nguyai told the court.
The two Mungiki leaders wanted to be connected to top leadership claiming that they had plans to end the violence that broke out after the 2007 General Election.
“They wanted money and resources and ammunition to fight those fighting the Kikuyu people,” Nguyai said.
After the third or fourth meeting the two Mungiki leaders began asking for token money for transport and to buy credit for their mobile phones.
“I would give them pocket money of between Sh2,000 and Sh3,000,” Nguyai told the court. He said the two Mungiki leaders told him that their network was not in operation because of the violence and thus could not get any money.
Nguyai, however, said he could not recollect whether the meetings took place before the violence in Naivasha.
He however said that after the Naivasha and Nakuru violence the two told him that the work was not done well and that it was carried out by non-professionals.
Nguyai said the Mungiki leaders told him that had they been involved they could have done a much cleaner job.
School fees
The MP said he had particularly become familiar with 12 who had claimed he had lost a number of relatives in the violence and was taking care of a number of children and thus wanted assistance with school fees.
Nguyai helped send the children to private schools in his Kikuyu constituency and added that he even at one time visited former Mungiki leader Maina Njenga at Naivasha prison.
He told the court that Uhuru had told him he wanted nothing to do with the Mungiki as it would be a blow to his political career, adding that he lost in the 2002 presidential elections because some people tried to associate him with the sect.
Nguyai also narrated how rival political leaders came together to calm the situation during the 2008 post-election violence.
Among those who spearheaded the joint peace campaigns by PNU and ODM MPs were Uhuru Kenyatta and Westlands MP Fred Gumo. The two were picked to head the campaign during a meeting at Parliament on January 30, as chaos threatened to spill over from the Rift Valley to Nairobi and Central Kenya.
Testifying before the International Criminal Court, the Kikuyu MP said Uhuru was appointed to head the PNU coalition while Gumo led the MPs affiliated to ODM. And the MPs immediately hit the road addressing mobs that gathered in various markets and towns in Kikuyu and Limuru areas.
Nguyai was testifying in Uhuru’s defence, to prove that the Deputy Prime Minister did not plan the violence but instead worked hard to contain the chaos.
Nguyai said he was at the Intercontinental Hotel when the controversial presidential election results were announced and he drove back to the KICC.
“I went to the swearing in ceremony at State House getting there around 5 or 5.15pm and the ceremony took over one hour. It was a formal occasion conducted by the Chief Justice,”
The MP said he did not see any members of the Mungiki at State House contrary to claims by the prosecution that the sect members had gathered there that day.
Nguyai then recalled how he and other leaders in his Kikuyu constituency moved in to assist IDPs arriving from the Rift Valley in buses and lorries at Kanjeru area.
“The initial reaction of my constituency was shock. Then we started receiving the people and it turned into a humanitarian aid assistance,” he said. “The DO and I set up settlement committee. Since we couldn’t get aid, we wrote to residents in the neighbourhood for assistance.”
He said the IDP were taken in by the locals and there were no camps in the constituency. Nguyai denied that there were meetings organised by the leaders to plan retaliation.
Flight to Rift
He said later he was called by Internal Security Minister George Saitoti to join him in a flight to the Rift Valley as the chaos spilled over to Nakuru and Naivasha.
“We were flown to Karagita in Naivasha where we witnessed first-hand violence,” he recalled.
He said at Karagita town, a large group of the Kikuyu with crude weapons stood on one side of the road and other communities behind flower farms and police were in between shielding them from confrontations.
“It must have been a day or two after the serious conflicts had started.
Nguyai said he and Saitoti addressed the mobs in bid to contain the tension.
“I can’t tell if they were Mungiki or not. Mungiki are amorphous, with no identifying features. Some of them wear dreadlocks and other use snuff. I did not see any of those,”
They then went to the area police station and addressed more IDPs who wanted transport back to their homes.
“We then went to Nairobi-Nakuru highway where people were blocking the road. We talked to them but as we were leaving they reassembled and Saitoti instructed the police to disperse them. As we left we saw police throwing teargas and moving in trucks to disperse them,”
Nguyai, who had just been elected to Parliament on a PNU ticket, said the violence in Naivasha had an effect on Nairobi.
He said January 30, at around midnight, he received a call from a man who he did not know alerting him that there would be a car going round parts of Kiambu that night to call on the locals to rise and revenge on what had happened in Kiambaa.
“I called DC and other elders to see if they could manage the situation,” he told the court.
They following morning, he and other area leaders began the fire-fighting response at Kinoo where hundreds of youths had gathered agitating for revenge.
He then moved to Gitaru some four kilometres away. Gatanga MP Peter Kenneth joined him and they moved to Zambezi where more groups were blocking the highways. They then linked up with Uhuru who had also gone to quell tension in Kikuyu town.
Nguyai identified pictures of Uhuru, who had mounted on a vehicle, in his bid to calm the agitated mob.
“He was trying to pacify the people with a lot of frustrations and make them not take action against the non-Kikuyu,” he said and denied any knowledge of plans to attack the non-kikuyu.
“After that Uhuru asked me to go round the constituency ensuring everything was peaceful,”
He said more tension was reported at Zambezi near the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, which hosts many non-Kikuyu.
Some youth smeared themselves with animal blood in a bid to heighten the tension, by claiming their relatives had been attacked by non-Kikuyu, he explained.
He said after that initial peace campaign, the MPs decided to discuss the issue with other leaders from other parties.
He got in torch with MPs Richard Onyonka, Eugene Wamalwa and others and they organised the meeting at Parliament attended by about 12 MPs.
Peace campaign
Nguyai said as the situation worsened several MPs from various political parties met at Parliament and agreed to embark on peace campaign meetings in the parts of Kikuyu and Limuru.
He also told the court that he received threats and extortion texts from witness 12 demanding Sh3million.
He said, in defence of Uhuru Kenyatta, that the witness demanded the cash to exonerate the Deputy Prime Minister from the alleged involvement in the post poll chaos.
He said the witness started by sending texts in a bid to secure payment, and then later called using anonymous numbers.
“When the witness exhausted all the channels he appeared at the reception of my office and said he had a ‘hot envelope’ and that it had a ‘deadline’,” he said.
Nguyai said the witness asked him to pass the message to Uhuru so that the payment of the cash is fast tracked.
He said the last text message he received from another witness, 11, was Friday last week.
“They tried to obtain the Sh3 million from me,” he said.
Nguyai, however, said he had not received any cash from Kenyatta.
He noted that another Member of Parliament received similar text messages and anonymous phone calls.
The Defense is Helping Ocampo Confirm His Case
http://www.migunamiguna.com/articles/view/index.php?id=227
Miguna Miguna
Published: Tuesday September 27th, 2011
Based on media reports, it’s obvious that the supporters of the Ocampo 6 are itching to uncork the champagne bottle. They erroneously believe that the suspects’ defence team has ripped open the prosecution case and all we are waiting for is the pre-trial chamber’s refusal to confirm the cases. Not so fast.
As usual, most commentators are wailing over irrelevancies. They are focused on non-issues. Many of the so-called experts appear not to understand the ICC process, leave alone basic rules of criminal procedure.
I have heard of claims that the ICC Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo has not produced ‘documentary’ evidence to ‘prove his case’; that he has no telephone ‘records,’ vehicle logs, state house diaries and minutes of the national security advisory council meetings that Ambassador Francis Muthaura chaired before and during the post-election. All the defence counsels have loudly demanded records of meetings and statements from senior current and former security personnel. They have all stated that such failures demonstrate that “Ocampo didn’t conduct any investigations”. Consequently, they have claimed, “Ocampo’s evidence is from the bush; it is concocted.”
Audaciously Muthaura addressed the court, rambled incoherently and compared himself to a “fire fighter who is mistaken for an arsonist by an incompetent police officer who arrives too late at the scene of the crime.” “I have held and continue to hold very senior important state positions because I am effective,” Muthaura thundered.
Really? Are those accurate, fair and balanced assertions? Has Ocampo actually produced no evidence as alleged?
Irrefutably, crimes against humanity were committed in Kenya between 2005 and 2009 as Ocampo has asserted. Nobody in his right mind can claim that the thousands of Kenyans that perished during that period were responsible for their own deaths. They didn’t commit suicide; did they? Everyone agrees that those innocent civilians were killed in cold blood mainly by police, Mungiki and other armed civilians. Others were burnt to death in their houses or in churches. From all available evidence, the attacks were planned, organized and coordinated.
Other than William Ruto and Joshua Sang – who have claimed without any evidence that the violence was spontaneous – the four other suspects have not disputed the fact that the violence was planned, organised and deliberate. It’s undisputed that some people sat down, plotted and executed the crimes. Ocampo has shown the ‘division of labour.’ There are those who provided knowledge, training and experience. These were the serving or former military and police officers. Naively, Ruto called one of them to testify “in his defence.” But he ended up proving Ocampo’s case.
Others provided logistics and intelligence. Many others produced money, weapons and transported the perpetrators to locations where the crimes were committed. Undeniably, the police, the military and the national intelligence service failed to prevent the crimes from occurring.
Although Muthaura has produced many letters from top government officials, none explains why those officials did absolutely nothing to prevent the crimes – many of which were committed in broad daylight by state agents – from occurring. Why haven’t those crimes been investigated and the culprits punished if the state was innocent, capable and willing to deal with them? Nobody expected confessions from those top government officials if they were personally involved. So, the court will treat their statements as self-serving. They are also untested.
Ocampo has depicted chilling examples of state complicity. In many instances, innocent civilians were pulled out of commuter vehicles between Naivasha and Nakuru and hacked to death. Many of these brutal murders were broadcast live on TV and we all watched in horror as those crimes were being committed. Media clips show people in police uniforms watching as those crimes were being committed. Were those genuine police officers or were they Mungiki? If they were genuine, how come they didn’t protect the victims? If they were Mungiki, who gave them police uniforms and arms?
Most people recall the numerous attempts Ocampo made to obtain statements from senior security officials that were in charge of the “scenes of crime” at the time. However, instead of facilitating the statement taking process, high ranking government officials placed roadblocks including obtaining an illegitimate court order from a High Court Judge that purportedly stopped the entire process. Why didn’t the government simply tender all the records in its possession, power and control to the ICC? Those are public records. They don’t belong to the responsible security officials. Their cooperation wasn’t necessary.
Kenya is a state party to the ICC. Under the Rome Statute, it has a positive duty to cooperate with the ICC. It should have referred the cases to the ICC, pursuant to its written undertaking to Ocampo in 2009. As such, Kenya’s failure to hand over evidence to the ICC has been a deliberate attempt to undermine and circumvent the ongoing investigations and judicial process. How then do we turn around and blame Ocampo for what our government has done?
Even more curious: why should some people think that the pre-trial judges will not interpret the many letters, statements and video clips purportedly in defence of Muthaura as a continuation of the culture of impunity and deliberate attempts to undermine the ICC process? The judges are neither naive nor are they stupid. They can interpret the true meaning of those statements. They also know why Muthaura, Uhuru Kenyatta and Hussein Ali haven’t been relieved of their top posts.
Hasn’t Ocampo “mentioned” virtually every single senior government official that has filed a statement defending Muthaura to be somehow implicated in the alleged crimes? So, the judges are most likely going to view the statements as self-serving or an attempt by them to protect themselves. They may also be protecting one of their own. Nothing new or novel there.
Are Ocampo’s witnesses anonymous as claimed by the suspects? Of course not! The suspects don’t need to “see” the witnesses in order to respond to their evidence at this stage. The judges know who the witnesses are. Their identities have only been shielded by the court in order to protect them from death squads, which nobody denies exist and have eliminated hundreds of potential witnesses.
How about the claim that Ocampo’s witnesses are “confessed” criminals who shouldn’t be believed? Well, confessed criminals are almost always considered better witnesses because they are directly linked to the crimes. They have firsthand knowledge. The best evidence is from people who were directly involved – and Ocampo seems to have them in droves.
The credibility and reliability of evidence will be tested at trial during cross-examination. That will be done to prosecution and defence witnesses alike. At this stage, all Ocampo is required to demonstrate is that he has “sufficient” evidence to sustain a trial. The fact that the defence has produced evidence that contradicts the prosecution evidence shows there are triable issues. End of story. The pre-trial judges have no mandate to assess credibility of witnesses. Trial judges will do that – at trial.
Nobody expects the court to give any credence to the claims that Ocampo hasn’t produced telephone records, vehicle logs, etcetera. Everybody knows that those records aren’t safe from manipulation and changes. They have been in the custody, power and control of some of the suspects. In my view, so far, Ocampo has produced enough evidence to have all the charges confirmed. If I were the suspects, I would now focus on preparing my defence at trial.
*Mr. Miguna is a Barrister & Solicitor in Ontario, Canada. He is also an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya.
NSIS set to be opened for public scrutiny
By Kenfrey Kiberenge and Cyrus Ombati
One of Kenya’s most secretive State units, the National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS), is set to be opened up for public scrutiny if the proposed law is adopted. Security experts point to the proposed complaints commission and a Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee – which were not provided for under the NSIS Act of 1998- as clauses that would ensure oversight and checks and balances.
African Centre for Security director Simiyu Werunga says the Bill as largely incorporated opinions from stakeholders. “All these oversight mechanisms are welcome as they do not exist in NSIS and they will open up the agency to public scrutiny,” he said. The complaints commission has the powers to recommend the removal of the service’s director general.
The parliamentary committee will serve as an oversight body to the service and Parliament will have a chance to vet nominees to head the unit. The Bill further seeks to limit some rights and fundamental freedoms like that of right to access to information held by service to the extent of protecting personnel from demands to furnish persons with classified information, disclosing and publishing information relating to the operations of the service and that of their members joining a trade union and picketing. The draft specifies qualifications of the director-general, effectively locking out politicians from contention.
According to the draft, the DG will ensure the service, in its functions is not influenced by considerations not relevant to their work in undermining a particular section of the population or political party in the country. However, experts have raised concern that some clauses in the Bill are against the new Constitution . Members of the civil society have already expressed reservations about the clause that advocates legalising phone tapping by the new intelligence unit. The Bill has been drafted by the National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS) to reform the agency and replace it with NIS.
Werunga, notes that the Bill empowers the complaints commission to recommend the removal of the NIS director general but withdraws this power by providing that the President may revoke a suspension anytime without referring to the commission.
“The President should be allowed to rescind the suspension only after consultations with the organ that recommended the action,” opined Werunga, adding his centre would make recommendations for amendments to present to the Constitution Implementation Commission. Mr Philip Onguje, the coordinator of Usalama Forum, expresses concern over some clauses that stretch the powers of the service beyond what is contemplated in the Constitution.
Complete redrafting
“The complaints commission clause will require complete redrafting. The section stresses generalities of state security, makes reference to the President and limits the operations of the commission in manner that defeats the purpose of its establishment in the first place,” adds Onguje.
Further, Werunga argues that the Bill fails to provide an acceptable appointment procedure of the NIS director general that would guarantee gender, regional and ethnic balance as demanded by the Constitution.
The Bill simply states that “President shall nominate a person for appointment as the director general and submit the name to the National Assembly” which must approve or disapprove the appointee within two weeks. “The Bill should be clear on how gender, regional and balance will be achieved in the appointment meaning the President can use that leeway to reward cronies,” charged Werunga.
While praising the proposed law for setting up a parliamentary oversight intelligence committee, the security expert, however, questions why the Bill locks out county assembly representatives from the oversight committee.
The Bill proposes a committee to be known as the Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee consisting of members of the National Assembly elected in accordance with the standing orders of the National Assembly. The committee will provide oversight over the administration, expenditure and policy of the service and report to Parliament.
But in an unprecedented move, MPs to the committee will have to be vetted by the NIS and shall before assuming their duties, make and subscribe to an oath of secrecy. “The Service is arrogated power here to vet and confirm who sits in the parliamentary committee that is expected to oversee it. This borders on the ridiculous,” charged Ogunje. The Bill outlaws revealing of any information MPs sitting on the committee access in the course of duty.
Werunga further took issue with the provision under the proposed Bill that the parliamentary committee should conduct its functions (read hearings) within a ring of secrecy and in a manner consistent with the protection and promotion of national security. “If the committee’s mandate is to provide oversight over the administration, expenditure and policy, what is so secret about administration for instance or policy? Expenditure we could understand,” said the expert.
This provision might also clash with the new Parliamentary standing orders, which has allowed all committee proceedings to be public. When Speaker Kenneth Marende brought the changes to allow for public hearings, NSIS, which is being replaced by NIS, had objected saying some information was too sensitive to be heard in public. Further, the Bill proposes that the NIS director general present a report within three months of a calendar year to only the President, National Security Council and National Intelligence Council.
But according to Werunga, the reports should also be handed to the Minister for Defence and the Parliamentary Oversight Committee.