What makes you say JK is absolutely right? What if he is not telling the whole truth?
I think the best thing for me is to repeat this in Kiswahili;
kumbuka kitu kimoja; serikali na huenda hata Ikulu, haihusiki na hili kwa kusema nendeni mkamteke Ulimboka
Nilimaanisha I doubt goverment issued a direct command that Ulimboka should be abducted, tortured or even killed. Lakini serikali iliamrisha vyombo kama Usalama wa Taifa kupata taarifa za nani yuko nyuma ya mgomo wa madaktari. That much I know for a certainty.
Sasa JK anaweza kuwa anasimamia hoja kwamba they never issued direct orders kwamba ili kupata habari za nani yuko nyuma ya mgomo - nendeni mkamteke, kumtesa na kumwua Ulimboka.
I then said, at implementation level, katika kupata habari, the "superior" wa field sucurity officials ndie anayeweza kuwa alitoa agizo kwamba "abduct Ulimboka na take him to a safe house". Sidhani kama kabla ya kufanya hivi atapiga simu Ikulu kuuliza "hivi ili kupata habari nani yuko nyuma ya huu mgomo wa madaktari, tumteke, kumtesa na kumuua Ulimboka?"
Na pia nilisema wale field security agents waliomteka Ulimboka could have taken matters into their own hands, without asking for guidance from their superior - though I doubt this.
Kwa hiyo JK could be right katika context hiyo kwamba government never issued a direct order kwamba nendeni mkamteke, kumtesa na kumuua Ulimboka. Government is never interested in the operational details of how intelligence get their information. Government does not order intelligence personnel to pull out victims' nails.
In South Africa, De Clerk said the apartheid government never issued orders to torture and kill freedom fighters! It is the same context JK is using here, and technically, he could be right, in asmuch as De Clerk could have been right.
Sasa this is different from saying "the government has absolutely nothing to do with it", something I never said, and even JK and De Klerk would never dare say that - if they know anything about indirect responsibility.