Here is Kenyatta and Ruto’s initial mistake

President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya chose neighbouring counterpart Museveni as chief guest during his swearing-in ceremony on Tuesday. PHOTO BY Agencies 

By Okello Lucima

In Summary

By thrusting Museveni front and centre of their inauguration, Kenyatta and Ruto, have made a false start to their presidency; raising eyebrows, casting doubts and uncertainties over the future of Kenya’s nascent democratic constitutionalism.

Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto were sworn in as President and Deputy President, respectively, on April 9. This was the second time Kenyans managed a peaceful, orderly and democratic transfer of power.

Because of the significance of this for Kenya, East Africa, and Africa, continental watchers were bound to scrutinise the guest list to see who was invited and who was not; hanging onto every syllable spoken; and decoding every gesture made, by the new leaders or their guests, to gauge for hints about which direction they will take Kenya.

Many were surprised by the choice of Gen. Museveni, Uganda’s dictator, as chief guest at the inauguration. Since the occasion marked the second time a Kenyan government democratically changed and power transferred from one president to the next, one would have expected key speeches and symbols to reinforce notions of democratic governance, transparent and accountable leadership, and the rule of law. Accordingly, the Kenyan government or its new leaders should have carefully weighed their choice of who spoke, about what, and made appropriate selection, to satisfy internal Kenyan expectations, and yearnings of regional, continental, and international democracy constituencies.

The mistake
In choosing Museveni, the new Kenyan leadership made a false start. Presidents Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania or Jacob Zuma of South Africa, African leaders whose countries made successful democratic transitions and peaceful, orderly transfers of power; and where genuine multiparty democracy is entrenching or being consolidated, should have made excellent choices.



However, Kenyatta and Ruto settled for Museveni, someone without any shred of democratic credibility, as chief guest.

Museveni is not a go-to leader, who might be considered to embody the hopes and aspirations of Ugandan, Kenyan, East African, or African democratic and progressive forces. By inviting him over Kikwete and Zuma, who are more credible representative symbols of the open and democratic society which inspires Kenyan democratic and constitutional aspirations, the new Kenyan leaders regressed.

In Museveni, they dredged up ‘rule by strong men’; a nightmare Ugandans are in struggles to shake off; but experiences Kenyans have long repudiated. In that respect, Museveni represents a past Kenyans long transcended, and offers nothing refreshing or inspiring, that Kenyans may appropriate in consolidating democratic governance and constitutionalism.

First, Museveni presides over a state riddled with cronyism and nepotism; patronage, corruption and outright looting of public resources. Second, Museveni has introduced a Public Order Management Bill in Parliament seeking to severely restrict/curtain basic rights and criminalise freedom of assembly, association and expression, by making it illegal for three or more people to discuss or criticise him, his party and policies.




Third, Museveni’s Minister for Ethics and Integrity (sic!) has introduced the Anti-pornography Bill outlawing miniskirts on grounds it is too erotic for Ugandan men! Fourth, on the orders of Museveni, a Marriage and Divorce Bill has been withdrawn from Parliament’s order paper.

 

The Bill sought to empower women by recognising their contributions to production and valuing their reproductive accomplishments within marriage, family and society; promoting women’s sexual health, sexual and reproductive rights, and gender equality; and criminalising gender based and sexual, and domestic violence against women.



 Fifth, Petroleum Production and Sharing Agreements between the Uganda government and international oil companies are secret; their contents known to Museveni and those closest to him.

Last, but not least, Museveni has arrogated to himself roles and functions of every and all national institutions, ministries, departments, and commissions by making the State House a super ministry; a one-stop clearing house for all State matters in goods and services. Hardly anything, including allocation of city plots or town markets, happens without personal involvement of Museveni.

Wrong guest



Kenya is far ahead of Uganda in consolidating democracy, institutional governance, accountable leadership, and the rule of law. Museveni was the wrong guest, engaging in inappropriate subject of conversation, on this signal occasion for Kenya’s democratic future. His remarks on the International Criminal Court (ICC) were self-serving, hypocritical, and unhelpful for the new leaders of a nation grappling to come to terms with alleged criminal responsibility for brutal deaths of thousands of their own citizens and a nation unanimous in their ‘Not Again!’ resolve to end impunity and consolidate democracy.

Unlike Museveni, Kenyans likely believe the gruesome, politically motivated massacre of more than 1,000 Kenyan citizens is not merely ‘regrettable; it was criminal. Therefore, ‘condemnation’ is not sufficient atonement for crimes against humanity; the perpetrators must be held accountable.

Furthermore, Kenyans probably believe human rights violations, and crimes against humanity, are subjects internal and exclusive to a State or trumped by considerations of State sovereignty.



Because crimes against humanity is extraterritorial; and where and whenever they occur, the Duty to Protect principle must be invoked to vindicate the rights of victims.

The suggestion that killings such as happened in Kenya in 2007 could be ideologically justified is despicable. Let there be no doubt; African dictators like Museveni, who killed their ways to, and are holding onto power by brutally humiliating their citizens, must not find any political platform or moral space to justify impunity.

Museveni was, however, partly right on the selective prosecutions by the ICC, under previous Chief Prosecutor, Moreno de Ocampo. There is well-founded disaffection that the international community has used the ICC and Special International Criminal Tribunal framework to go after suspected criminals in Africa, Arab Middle East, and former Yugoslavia. This perceived selective and discriminatory practice, actually benefitted rather than disadvantaged Museveni. When it served his purpose, he was the first to run to the ICC in 2004 to restrain Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Besides, Museveni was, and is, the biggest beneficiary of international (especially American and British) political and diplomatic patronage, than any other African despot in recent times.




 While Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Tanzania, Ghana, Nigeria etc, came under scorching criticism and intense pressures to democratise in the 1980s, Museveni was given unique exceptions by the West, to continue with one-party dictatorship and to openly suppress democratic rights at home. Moreover, using brutal counterinsurgency strategies which collectively punished communities in northern and eastern Uganda, an international conspiracy of silence was contrived to shield him. Without such insulations, Museveni could have probably been indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity; including crimes of plunder and genocide for his exploits in northern and eastern Uganda, DR Congo, and Rwanda.

It is a wonder how Museveni’s bloody footprints in northern and eastern Uganda, DR Congo and Rwanda escaped the dragnet of the Rome Statute or Special International Tribunal framework which ensnared Omar al Bashir in Darfur; Charles Taylor in Sierra Leone; and Muammar Gadaffi in Benghazi.

Let no one be fooled, Museveni’s latest denunciation of the ICC springs from well-founded personal fears and uncertainty about the future, as his international protection and support networks wane; promising the likelihood of his being abandoned and exposed.

Mr Lucima is the spokesperson for the Uganda Peoples Congress. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of UPC.