From: Judy Miriga
Folks,
The Reform Change Accord mandated for New Constitution shall not be legitimate if there are conflicting views of non-compliance to the Law in such instances as:
1) Integrity examination threshold to avoid conflict of interests
2) Blocking Diasporas Right to vote and collectively engage in the electioneering process as Mandated in the New Constitution.
3) Flaws noticed in Election processes from failing to provide sufficient Educational awareness to voters in the local community to understand concepts of the New Constitutional management and public service deliver prospects so that people engage in electioneering from informed choices
4) Irregularly awarding Certificates to favor some contestants under questionable circumstances and without going through credible balanced procedure for background check and clearance under accountability and transparency
5) Failing to provide an Independent Transitional team headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court according to the New Constitutional mandate in honor of Reform Accord Agreement of Chapter six
6) Without resolving issues of Land Grabbing and putting those responsible to face justice
7) Failing to resettle the Internally displaced as demanded
8) The unconstitutional and irregular way Kibaki took to Gazette Land Commissioners is worrisome and is seen as an indication that Land Grabbing will continue to be a sore in Kenya for more decades to come before it can finally be resolved
9) Failing to resolve and put behind bars those involved in saga of the Goldenberg and Anglo Leasing scandals
10) Failure to effectively resolve election mishaps, flaws with rigging anomalies for example such like those found to have been engaged by Kimemia and thereby disqualifying Kimemia or demanding reasons why he should not be forced to resign for engaging in politics with intention to deliberately manipulate and confuse legitimacy of election process from being free and fair.
The second debate which just ended proved from the candidates horse’s mouth that corruption and land grabbing is real which many of them are guilty of and accepted responsibilities but denied they did any wrong and therefore, we believe these were deliberate reasons why candidates avoided Integrity Examination threshold background checks for which case clearance in awarding of certificates are suspicious shrouded with lots of doubt whether election of March 4th 2013 shall be peaceful, credible, free and fair.
It is our considered justified appeal to do the right thing the first time by suspending March 4th by a few more months in order to rectify the flaws and anomalies so that we are able to put the Transitional Team in the right perspective before we allow conflict of special interest to spoil for the Reform Change we have struggled for all these years.
Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
– – – – – – – – – – –
Candidates tackle integrity, wealth gap in final debate
Updated Tuesday, February 26 2013 at 07:35 GMT+3
By Moses Njagih
Nairobi, Kenya: The second and final presidential debate took off last evening with all candidates, including Jubilee flag-bearer Uhuru Kenyatta, whose side was at first hesitant, in the BrookHouse School auditorium.
The candidates were first made to confront the contentious issues of economic woes facing Kenya, and in particular the high cost of living, the minimum wage and the huge gap between the poor and the rich.
The candidates were later to move over to the issue of land ownership, emotive and sensitive in the country because of historical inequities and disparities in distribution, particularly at Independence.
The issue generated the hottest debate as pressure piled on Jubilee flag bearer Uhuru to declare if indeed it were true if the family of Kenya’s Founding President Mzee Jomo Kenyatta indeed owns “half of the land” in Kenya.
He was also asked by one of the candidates how he would impartially and fairly address the issue of land ownership when he himself was an interested party.
But the question of the day was how many acres the Kenyatta family, which Uhuru defended, sourced every hectare it has on a willing-buyer-willing-seller basis, own. Uhuru avoided the question but later conceded in Taveta alone, the family owns 30,000 acres, of which it has donated 4,000 acres to squatters in that specific parcel.
Grabbed land
But Raila, who was also put on the spot over his family’s acquisition of former publicly-owned Kisumu Molasses Plant, brought in the fact that Uhuru’s running mate, Mr William Ruto, is facing accusations that he grabbed land from an internally displaced person in his Eldoret North constituency.
“I have never been accused of grabbing any land. The land we own as a family is acquired through willing-buyer-willing-seller. We shall ensure that land is used as a factor of production,’’ Uhuru responded while insisting, “the National Land Commission should be left to handle the emotive issue of land in this country.”
“No organisation from Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to all other State agencies have come up with any accusations against me on land,” Uhuru went on.
Responding to accusations against him and his family Raila said: “There was money that was collected out of the deal (sale of Kisumu Molasses Plant). This plant was acquired through an auction alongside 15 other companies. The government had acquired the land compulsorily. Sh2.9 million was collected from some people. The public owns part of the shareholding and are represented in the company.’’
In response to the land issue, Amani presidential candidate Musalia Mudavadi, said: “There is no way one can hide in terms of land ownership in this country. You can use whatever names but it will be known. The constitution says there is a minimum and maximum of what one can own.”
Mudavadi, who is a Land economist, warned that the issue of minimum and maximum acreage must be handled carefully so as not to bring economic ruin by undermining production and land usage for common good.
Alliance for Real Change candidate Mohammed Abduba Dida and his Safina counterpart, as well as Raila, declared their governments would repossess stolen public land, but through constitutional means.
“People at the Coast have been treated unfairly by successive governments, land is not given to the locals. In Rift Valley the situation is the same. We now have a good Constitution and National Land Policy. What is required is to give an enabling environment for the commission to operate,’’ said Muite. Eagle Alliance candidate Peter Kenneth said: “The real issues about land is enforcement. If we don’t deal with this matter concisely, it will continue to haunt us.”
In response to Raila’s claim on frustration of State efforts to address the land issue, Kenneth asked: “Who are the vested interests stopping us from moving forward?”
Goldenberg notoriety
Dida cited complaints in Kiambu County against the Kenyatta family and asked Uhuru how he could be trusted by other parts of the country when his own people are crying about alleged injustice visited on them by the Kenyatta family and Jomo Kenyatta’s government in general.
Before going to land question the moderators — KTN’s Joe Ageyo and Royal Media’s Udwak Amimo — confronted the candidates with direct questions on issues that over the years have tended to cast a long shadow on their personal integrity.
First to take the question of integrity was Muite, who was asked about claims by businessman Kamlesh Pattni of the Goldenberg notoriety that he extorted Sh20 million from him.
Muite declared the scheme was part of the propaganda set up by the regime then against him for spearheading battle against looting public resources. He argued the Law Society, which he then chaired, instituted a private suit on the scandal.
He said that he did not receive any money as alleged, and that Justice Samuel Bosire’s judicial commission on Goldenberg upheld his position. “Individuals associated with me may have got the money but Mr Muite did not receive any,” he said in defence.
Second was Mudavadi, who was asked on the adverse claims on his handling of Goldenberg scandal while Finance minister, as well alleged role in the Nairobi City’s ‘cemetery scandal’, while Minister for Local Government.
On both accusations the Deputy Prime Minister defended himself, saying he in fact was the one who tried to stop the scandals.
On Goldenberg, Mudavadi said: “The law was changed during my tenure at the treasury and it was during the time that stopped this scandal. The Bosire Commission cleared me of any offence”.
Whistle blowing
Karua was asked questions on how she, as Justice minister, handled the Anglo Leasing matter, which claimed the life of a whistle-blower, late David Munyekei.
Karua also denied claims of demonising former anti-graft tsar John Githongo over his whistleblowing role, saying he only defended the government’s position.
“Actually it was during my tenure that the anti-corruption agencies did their work and under my recommendations, ministers named in Githongo’s dossier stepped aside for investigations and have never forgiven me,” she said.
Raila was asked about Kazi Kwa Vijana and maize scandals, and the sale of Kisumu Molasses Plant to his family. He defended himself saying the claims against him were unfounded.
On the Kazi Kwa Vijana scandal, Raila said his office was only coordinating the programme.
The debate took off after recorded pleas by the candidates to their supporters to accept the verdict of the March 4 exercise, and where there would be disputes, resort to the measures mapped out by the Constitution for appeal.
Dida was confronted with a question of how as owner of a business agency recruiting Kenyans for overseas jobs as domestic helps, where they end up underpaid and harassed, he would be expected to rule Kenya when he is not helping in job creation locally.
“I have an agency out to help the plight of Kenyans in the Middle East. This is because of the funny salaries Kenyans get here, that is why I left my job,’’ he responded.
National budget
Prof James Kiyiapi of Restore and Build Kenya party was asked about the loss of over Sh100 million in Free Primary Education programme, while he was the Permanent Secretary.
He explained he was innocent as he had just joined the Ministry of Education and asked the candidates, who were in government then, to explain why the truth had not been uncovered on the FPE funds.
Uhuru was asked about the ‘computer error’ that rocked the Ministry of Finance’s national budget when he joined the ministry and read his first Financial Statement. Uhuru denied there was any financial loss and insisted it was just an error.
After the debate, watched by millions across the World, the candidates are now left to make their final statement on the race for Kenya’s Fourth Presidency, on their final rallies over the weekend.
John Okumu26 February 2013 10:19 AM
I loved this second debate,it was more substantive and thorough.I loved Amimos tough questions on integrity and corruption which caught the candidates off guard.This is how any public contender should be questioned.It clearly emerged that even those whom we think are squeaky clean like Mudavadi may have some explaining to do after all.All in all, we Kenyans need alot of work where integrity and corruption is concerned.It is clear that it has been so entrenched that what was shocking is actually talking about it.Things are changing fast .Martha is the only one that did not seem to have alot of entreched integrity issues.So i rank Peter Kenneth,Martha Karua,Kalonzo Musyoka high on the non corruption issues.Uhuru did very well in answering the questions i have to admit.Kenneth had done his homework especially on the question of what the minimum wage should be which i think Kiyapai gave a long winded answer on this question.The candidates were very well prepared all in all and it is goog for policy formulation in Kenya.All those good ideas can be incorporated so that everyone can win
Makao26 February 2013 12:09 AM
There were fairly good responses today on questions compared to first debate. However, there were flip-flops all over where candidates failed to explicitly explain how they will in details manage economy. Further, Uhuru talked of controlling price of products meaning the government will decide how maximum a product can cost. Economically, this is wrong and can’t apply. Price ceiling is a disastrous measure that can not apply. Price of commodities are defined and determined by market forces and strength. Trying to set price limit maximum or minimum will lead to situations witnessed in 90’s like hooding of products, high demand and low supply or non at all. Slup title deeds? How and who will determine who qualifies for land title deed there for example in Kibera? Government once announced that residents were to be allocated upgraded housing by government, it was open of hell-gate of corruption. People all over rushed there claiming to residents including the wealthy and influential.
steve jakomala26 February 2013 7:29 AM
i fail to understand why the politicians were punching with gloves as far as land issues are concern. Uhuru accepted that in Taita Taveta alone they own 30,000 ha of land, Dida gave a report about complaints in Kiambu there are several thousands of other ha of land else where. the questions are: being a president who had the prerogative to dish out land and at the same time had access to the national fund is it a coincidence that he owns these huge pieces of land without either allocating them to himself irregularly or using coercion to aquire them. Uhuru wants to be the president, the chief abitrator to kenyans, how can he convince those who looted this country to return the looted property including land if he can not convince his family to do the same? the evidence againsl Rutos land case is telling, how can two top people with vested intrest in illegally aquired land preside over land injustices in this country leave alone the serious case at the hague? Kenyans let us put ourselves first not tribe not community
Sharp minded voter26 February 2013 10:25 AM
Politicians are such lairs when they are conducting campaigns. The opponents of Uhuru keeps attack him about the lands he and his family own, Martha accepted that what she said that Uhuru owns half of Kenya is an outright exaggeration, Raila “my brother Uhuru is just an innocent inheritor”. Marha was further put to stop because when she was a minister the report of who has big tracks of land was produced and Uhuru and his family was not even on the list. Uhuru categorically stated that he has not been accused of impropriety or fraudulent acquisition of land and has no court cases pertaining to land and put Raila at task to state which court matters he has. We may conclude that this land issue is emotive and an imaginative creation of politicians just as acampaign gimmick that there politicians pull to discredit their Uhuru and a plot to smear mud and taint his name. He is free from corruption. The debate set matters straight and it is very wrong to use lies and propaganda on campaign platform to cheat Kenyans
—
Jobs in Africa – www.wejobs.blogspot.com
International Jobs – www.jobsunited.blogspot.com