Kenya Election 2007: Outcomes

[Kenyan-Tanzanian]

Kabla ya uchaguzi niliwahi kuongea na jamaa mmoja Mkikuyu wa Kenya nikimwambia kuwa kulingana na maendeleo ya kampeini na jinsi ambavyo Kibaki alikuwa ameboronga katika kipindi chake cha kwanza, ni dhahiri kuwa safari hii upinzani ungeshinda. Jamaa alicheka sana na kusema niache ndoto ya aina hiyo kwa sababu hadhani kama viongozi wa juu wa dola kama mkuu wa majeshi, IGP na jaji mkuu watakubali kufanya kazi chini ya mtu ambaye hakutahiriwa!

Inaelekea maneno ya aina hiyo yalikuwa pia yanaongelewa kwenye kampeini huko nyumbani na huenda ndiyo yamesaidia kuchochea mapigano hayo.

Ukweli mtupu. Hebu fikiria hasira ya wale waBongo ambao jimbo lao linapakana na Burundi na Rwanda. Baada ya kuwapatia hifadhi wakimbizi wa nchi hizi jirani, wakimbizi hawa hawa walianza kuwadharau waBongo na hata kukataa kurejea makwao kwa miaka miwili au mitatu iliyopita. Sintofahamu hizi wakuu mnazielewa.

Basi jamii fulani Kenya ambayo mkuu umeitaja hapo juu, ina mazoea ya kujiona bora kuliko hata wale ambao wameipatia makazi kwenye majimbo yao. Ni hii chuki na "siasa duni" ambayo ilianzishwa na wakoloni ambayo leo tunavuna matunda yake. Elections hii ilikuwa a "decisive" vote ya kuhakikisha tumejikomboa dhidi ya matamshi na mentality ya jamii ya huyo unayemzungumzia hapo juu Kichuguu. Sasa walipoiba kura na kwakweli wakapewa sapot na CJ, Jeshi, etc walidhibitisha wazi kwamba wanawadharau wananchi wenzao kiasi kwamba wanawezateka nchi nyara na poasipo mtu kutenda lolote. Ole wao, wanajionea kwamba wakenya hawakotayari kuongozwa nao. Wacha Raila na kutotahiriwa kwake atuongoze. Jamii yangu ilimsapot Raila 85% ingawaje wanatahiri, na waKalenjin, waMasai, waswahili, wasomali wote hawa wanatahiri nawanamtambua Raila. Kwa hiyo mentality ya majority ya kabila ya Kibaki ndio kansa inayowakula sasa. Muhimu ni kukumbuka eti baada ya Kibaki wanataka kumsapot Uhuru in 2012 ili power ibaki mikononi mwao. Kwa kifupi hizi ni mbegu za Internal colonialism ambayo matunda yake tumeyaona huko Rwanda na Burundi. Ukijiona bora kuniliko basi kwanini unahamia kwetu? Mbona usibaki mkoani au jimbo lenu kwenye mumeendelea? ODM na Majimbo constitution ndio dawa ya wanafiki hawa. Wakishapata jimbo lao basi wanaweza mchagua Kibaki awatawale huko. Ila kwa sasa, wanapata challenges from all the regions: jana jioni walisafirisha genge lao (militia) haramu liliondwa kwa msingi wa Mau Mau liitwalo Mungiki eti kuenda Nakuru nakufurusha makabila yasiyounga Kibaki mkono. Walipata wajanja. Vijana wa Kikalenjin, wakiluhya na wajaluo waliungana mara moja na kuwawekea mitego. Isingalikuwa jeshi kutumiwa kinyume ya sheria kusaidia kwenye mzozo wa ndani ya nchi leo alasiri hawa maharamia wangemalizwa. Idadi ya wavamizi hawa walioangamia kwenye revenge mission yao iliyotibuka sasa ni 19 na bado namba inapanda. Umoja ni nguvu. Umoja wa makabila mengi ni nguvu zaidi dhidi ya necolonialists au wakolonimamboleo wanautuzulumu na kutunyanganya haki yetu.

Picha hapa chini: Vijana waliovamiwa na genge haramu za Mungiki/PNU wakipambana nao vilivyo jana saa 11 hivi:

 

[MzalendoHalisi]

Essence ya Majimbo ni Wakikuyu warudi Central Province? Then hii itaigawa Kenya zaidi!

Mimi naona kuna mbegu mbaya Kenya over Kikuyu imejengeka na kulelewa na wanasiasa tangu zamani -wizi wa kura just ignited the fire!

Mimi saa ingine ndo maana naongelea EA Federation- that a national from any country is free to move and mix up anywhere- hii itapunguza ukabila Kenya. Wakikuyu wataenda Uganda au Tz! Kama Wachaga wanvyokaa kwa amani Mbeya!

If Kenyatta had agreed with EAF in 1960s na kuwa nchi moja huenda haya mabo yasingetokea!

 

[Kenyan-Tanzanian]

Essence ya Majimbo ni Wakikuyu warudi Central Province?

Sio lazima warejee Central ila wawaheshimu jamii zingine za Kenya ili waishi nao kwa amani jinsi Wachagga wanawaheshimu wanyakyusa.Ile siku wataanza kuwadharau jamii asili ya Mbeya basi linalofanyika huku litafanyika huko tu. The laws of social existence are universal. Respect is what binds society, not wealth.

 

[Kichuguu]

Swali: Hivi kenya mnataka kutuambia kuwa mnaheshimu mtu kwa kilchoko juu ya shingo yake au kwa kilichoko katikati ya miguu yake.


K-T: Picha hii kweli inaonyesha kuwa vijana wamechoka kabisa na kusema sasa basi, risasi kwa mshale; tutaelewana huo mbeleni.

 

[Mnhenwa Ndege]

Raila rules out becoming Kibaki’s prime minister

Story by BERNARD NAMUNANE
Publication Date: 1/26/2008
Opposition leader Raila Odinga has ruled out the option of taking up the post of prime minister in President Kibaki’s government as a way of ending the current political crisis.


ODM leader Raila Odinga speaks with Mr Ali Treki, the Libyan minister of African Affairs and secretary to the African Union at the Grand Regency Hotel in Nairobi. The minister is in the AU mediation team. Photo/ANTHONY KAMAU.
Speaking a day after the first meeting with the President since the disputed elections, Mr Odinga said the only options on the table for discussion were the resignation of President Kibaki and a re-run of the presidential elections, possibly with formation of a transitional government to take charge pending new elections.

“I have never said I was considering taking up a position of prime minister under Kibaki,” he said and promised to meet the President again for talks on equal terms.

“I would meet Kibaki again but he should stop making embarrassing remarks like being ‘duly elected’. He should not call himself, the duly-elected and sworn-in president. That is the bone of contention,” Mr Odinga said.

The Lang’ata MP described the meeting between him and President Kibaki on Thursday arranged by mediator Kofi Annan as “useful” but insisted that justice must be done.

Mr Odinga ruled out the prime minister option as the Annan mediation team spent the day trying to understand the electoral process and what could have gone wrong.

Having already received presentations and documents from the Kibaki and Odinga teams, with each side trying to show they won the elections, the former UN secretary general met members of the Electoral Commission.

The team — that includes former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa and Mrs Graca Machel, the wife of former South African President Nelson Mandela — struck a first on Thursday when it succeeded in bringing President Kibaki and Mr Odinga for a face-to-face meeting at Harambee House, Nairobi.

A top UN official attached to Mr Annan’s secretariat at the Serena Hotel told the Saturday Nation that the validity of President Kibaki’s victory was on the table for scrutiny, among other issues. “The validity of the leadership of this country is among the issues that are on the table. It is an issue that is at the heart of the stalemate and the team is interested in it,” said the official.

The issue was placed before the team by Mr Odinga and the ODM Pentagon members on Wednesday. Mvita MP Najib Balala said: “The first thing that we stated was that Kibaki (President) must accept that he lost the elections to our captain (Mr Odinga). We presented all the information we have to justify our position.”

The matter of President Kibaki’s legitimacy came into sharp focus at the meeting on Thursday designed for President Kibaki and Mr Odin

 

[Mnhenwa Ndege]

Duly elected

The ODM team was annoyed with President Kibaki's speech which emphasised that he "was sworn in as the duly elected President of Kenya".

Immediately after the encounter ODM secretary general Anyang' Nyong'o convened a Press conference and denounced the President's remarks.

"Mr Mwai Kibaki abused the occasion by attempting to legitimise his usurpation of the presidency. His demeaning and unacceptable behaviour was meant to undermine the mediation and prolong the suffering of the people of Kenya," he said.

President Kibaki was declared the winner after receiving 4,584,721 votes against Mr Odinga's 4,352,993. Saturday Nation has also established that President Kibaki and a team of ministers in his reconciliation committee have put up their own case before the Annan team to prove the case that the Head of State was in office legitimately.

President Kibaki and the team led by Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka met Mr Annan on Thursday morning at State House where they presented documents on the tallying of election results, rigging in some areas and the violence that has rocked the country since the announcement of the election results, which they say was planned beforehand.

Sources at the meeting said the Kibaki team ruled out a re-run of elections on grounds that nearly 500,000 voters displaced and hundreds killed would be denied a chance to vote for their preferred leader. Other sources say that the Kibaki team has also ruled out power sharing, saying they cannot share power with a group they accuse of organising the killings.

 

[Mnhenwa Ndege]

Rights group seeks evidence on killings

Published on January 26, 2008, 12:00 am


By Saturday Standard Team

Human rights groups are casting the eye on post-election violence with attention shifting to gathering evidence that could help nail its perpetrators.

Top on the priority will be determining if the violence was spontaneous or pre-planned.

There will also be attempts to unravel the mystery of whether it was ethnic cleansing or genocide and funding.

On Friday, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, which was created through an Act of Parliament, said it is gathering evidence. The commission revealed it has enlisted the assistance of high-level investigators from an international body based in Italy. The organisation known as ‘No Peace Without Justice' has provided similar expertise in the Sierra Leone and Kosovo conflicts.

Ms Winfred Lichuma, a commissioner with KNCHR, said the purpose of the investigation is to find out what happened and who is responsible for the human rights violations.

"The investigation will seek to establish where alleged ‘ethnic cleansing' took place, who incited this, planned, funded and directed the actions. Where security agents used excessive force we shall seek to know under whose direct command they executed the instructions," Lichuma said.

Lichuma said core to the investigations is the need to create a database of evidence that will be used to prosecute those found guilty of human rights violations.

"The primary purpose of the documentation and investigation is to find out what happened, why the violations occurred, who is responsible and what can be done to deal with the persons responsible," she said.

The report from the investigations will be made public in two months.

The commission's vice-chairperson, Ms Florence Jaoko said information from the investigations would establish the basis for further interrogation and action by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The killings and displacement, now estimated at 700 and 350,000, have also caught the attention of the international press and rights groups.

The Human Rights Watch on Thursday posted on its website its findings on violence in Rift Valley in which the finger of culpability pointed at local elders, against whom it said it has gathered evidence.

"Some opposition leaders are right to challenge rigged presidential poll, but they cann't use it as an excuse for targeting ethnic groups," said Mr Georgette Gagnon, acting Africa director at Human Rights Watch.

"We have evidence that politicians and local leaders fomented some post-election violence, and the authorities should investigate and make sure it stops now."

But on Friday Orange Democratic Movement leader Mr Raila Odinga, whose side is disputing Electoral Commission's declaration of President Kibaki as the winner, said ODM was clean.

"It is a misplacement and a misconception to blame the violence, which broke out in many parts of the country on an individual or one party. We have always preached peace,'' he said in reaction to a new report on the violence in the Rift Valley.

The Kenyan police are already investigating responsibility for the violence in the Rift Valley, but its forces are overstretched by the nationwide electoral crisis. In the light of apparent plans by some groups to attack camps for internally displaced persons, Human Rights Watch called on the police to ensure that all locations of displaced people are protected.

 

[Mnhenwa Ndege]

Crimes court watching Kenya

Story by KENNETH OGOSIA
Publication Date: 1/26/2008
The International Criminal Court is closely monitoring the recent post-election violence in Kenya and is ready to intervene, subject to various conditions.

It can only be requested to do so by the Government and the UN Security Council and acceptance is subject to its own independent investigations into cases of alleged crimes against humanity. According to reports from The Hague, the court's seat, the ICC's intervention is subject to four conditions.

Hirondelle News Agency has quoted the special prosecutor as saying the first condition is that the permanent court only has a subsidiary jurisdiction, complementary to national criminal agencies.

The Government and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) have both threatened to appeal to the ICC.

ICC cannot intervene if a case referred to it is already the subject of an investigation by national jurisdictions or if the state decides not to prosecute or does not have the will or has no capacity to do so.

Only the most serious crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression are covered and they must have been committed after 2002 (date of entry into force of its Statute). Kenya signed the Statute in August 1999 and filed its instrument of ratification in March 2005. The reported attacks could qualify for crimes against humanity if they were perpetrated against precise ethnic groups.

"Kenya is a state party of the ICC and the office of the prosecutor follows all allegations of crimes within its jurisdiction. The statute of the ICC enables it to exercise its jurisdiction if a situation is submitted to the prosecutor by a state party or by the Security Council of the UN but it also allows it to exercise its jurisdiction under the terms of an investigation opened by the prosecutor by his own initiative," the office of the prosecutor said.

Kenya has been thrown into political turmoil that has degenerated into inter-ethnic violence, resulting in hundreds of deaths.

The ICC has formed special tribunals to prosecute people accused of crimes against humanity in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone.
But the tribunals have not prevented violence from being perpetrated against civilian populations throughout Africa.

Violence erupted in Kenya immediately after the December 27 presidential election results were announced, officially giving victory to President Mwai Kibaki. The results were rejected by ODM leader Raila Odinga, who claimed electoral fraud.

The violence has resulted in more than 600 deaths, according to official sources, but observers estimate that this figure could be higher. The UN says the violence has displaced about 250,000 people.

 

[Mnhenwa Ndege]

State and opposition blamed

The Monday issue of the New York Times ran a story that blamed the Government and the opposition for the violence.

"At first the violence seemed as spontaneous as it was shocking.... But a closer look at what has unfolded in the past three weeks, since a deeply flawed election plunged Kenya into chaos, shows that some of the bloodletting that has left more than 700 people dead may have been premeditated and organised.

"Leaflets calling for ethnic killings mysteriously appeared before the voting. Politicians with both the Government and opposition parties gave speeches that stoked long-standing hatred among ethnic groups. And local tribal chiefs held meetings to plot attacks on rivals, according to some of them and their followers,'' reported the American paper.

"What is not clear is if there were a systematic plan to start a nationwide ethnic war, and whether high-level political leaders played a role beyond possibly inciting violence through hate speech,'' concluded the writer.

KNCHR appeared to walk the line that saw perpetrators of the violence in Rwanda paraded before a special international criminal tribunal, though it appeared to lean on getting the possible trials tried at the International Criminal Court.

"Information arising from the exercise will support the work of other processes, including the proposed truth and justice commission. It will also be forwarded to the ICC, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN security council," Jaoko said.

This gives a new twist because both the Government and ODM have also said they will also be seeking justice in the international court. ODM will, if it goes ahead with its threat, and the international body accepts to adjudicate, be seeking indictment against the Government over the flawed elections and the murderous rage with which the police treated its supporters. Most of those killed by police through use of live bullets were ODM supporters.

The Government would on the other, if it is not bluffing, be seeking justice for the victims killed in the violence it has tagged ethnic cleansing. But all the groups have to first satisfy the ICC that the local court system is either unwilling or incapable of giving a judicious ruling on what is at hand.

Evidence of the planning and execution the Government and the KNCHR could be building up could include records of telephone conversations, intelligence reports, especially on tracking, as well as still and motion pictures. Analysts believe that given the magnitude of the violence, the process could already be ongoing.

On Friday Lichuma said following the announcement of the disputed presidential election results serious human rights violations have taken place. She said pursuant to the commission's mandate they will seek to investigate and establish the human rights abuses reported from various parts of the country.

The teams of investigators will from next week visit the affected areas to interview wananchi.

"Parallel to the ongoing search for a political settlement among the main political actors, the search for justice and accountability must begin in earnest," KNCHR said.

The commission has vowed to name all those implicated in the violations without regard to their political affiliation. The rights body will also push for the prosecution of those responsible to avoid a repeat in the future.

 

[Mnhenwa Ndege]

Why recognition concept is important

Story by GITAU GIKONYO
Publication Date: 1/26/2008
Following the violence occasioned by the December 2007 disputed elections, questions have been raised as to whether the Government of President Kibaki who was sworn in is legitimate.


He receives President Yoweri Museveni at the JKIA when he arrived this week for the mediation talks. Photos/FILE.
The European Union, Britain, and the United States are yet to formally recognise the Kibaki government as legitimate. The United States, which had been the first country to congratulate Kibaki upon re-election later withdrew citing election anomalies.

In Britain, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Ms Meg Munn, stated recently during a session in the House of Commons that "Our Government has not recognised the (Kibaki) Government and is calling on both leaders to co-operate in a process of mediation."

Diplomatic row

This remark caused a diplomatic row between Kenya and Britain and the Kibaki Government summoned the British High Commissioner to voice its anger.

Closer home, President Museveni became the first African leader to congratulate Kibaki on his "re-election as President of Kenya."

President Museveni's hasty endorsement raised eyebrows, prompting accusations and allegations that his government had something to gain from a Kibaki win. He stood his ground justifying it thus: "I, as required by Diplomatic Conventions, called to congratulate him."

Why then is recognition important? The concept of recognition emerged in the mid 18th Century. Prior to this, recognition was not an issue since the concept of sovereignty meant the location of the supreme power within a particular territory ruled by kings, monarchs or leaders of the times.

With the emergence of revolutionary states came the need for recognition by former states.

The recognition of a state under international law is a declaration of intent by one state to acknowledge another power as a "state" within the meaning of international law. Recognition constitutes a unilateral declaration of intent. It is entirely at the discretion of any state to decide to recognise another as a subject of international law. Recognition thus presupposes that a state really exhibits the characteristics of a state within the meaning of international law.

According to the prevailing three-element doctrine, this requires state territory, a state people and state power – a government that is effective and independent both externally and internally as an expression of state sovereignty.

Three elements

In addition to the three elements mentioned, a state or an international organisation can also set further conditions for recognition – for example compliance with the UN Charter or the observance of human rights. If a state is recognised before all the preconditions for recognition are met (premature recognition), this is contrary to international law and legally ineffective.

New states are generally recognised as such by other states if their origin is considered legitimate and irreversible. A state that prematurely recognises another is in breach of the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of a state (Art. 2 no. 4 of the Charter of the United Nations).

The recognition of states must however be distinguished from the recognition of governments as different considerations apply in each. Where the recognition of governments is concerned, the central element is the exercise of sovereign power over the state. A change of government makes no difference to statehood or to the recognition of the state as such. When a state recognises a government, it acknowledges a group of persons as competent to act as an organ of the state in question and to represent it in terms of international law.

Usually, a change of government in a state is recognised as a matter of course by the international community. But in cases of coups d'etat, or other inconsistencies with the general principles of the state's constitution, recognition becomes questionable.

The only precondition for the recognition of a government under international law is its effective exercise of sovereign power; first and foremost, control of a substantial part of the territory and of the apparatus of administration. Special cases arise where a legitimate government loses all or part of its power over the state and even flees abroad, becoming a government in exile.

Legitimate government

In practice, the former government sometimes continues to be recognised as the legitimate government (the de jure government), even if it has lost effective control of the state – at least temporarily – and this control is being exercised on the ground by a new, different government (the de facto government).

If a state maintains normal diplomatic relations with a new government, this is merely a declaration that the new government is effective, not that it is legitimate.

One doctrine holds that a government that has come to power by coup d'état or revolution should not be recognised or regarded as legitimate until it has received democratic confirmation by referendum, for example.

When discussing the recognition of government, it is implied the state remains physically the same even if it is given a new name and only the government or head of state changes. The question of recognising a new government is the question of acknowledging a new representative of a state to the international community, nothing more. But this is not a trifle matter since the only way for the state to do business with other states is if it has a recognised representative.

A recognition doesn't necessarily imply that diplomatic relations will be established or maintained, though, the only limitation the recognising state brings upon itself is that it can hardly recognise any other government of the state unless the already recognised government falls from power. What this means is that whereas the Kibaki government may not be recognised by USA, EU, Britain etc, these states cannot recognise another government in Kenya until the Kibaki government falls from power and a new government is sworn in.

When can change of a government be called into question? International law allows states to exercise great discretion when granting or withholding recognition, especially when a new government comes into power by violent means.

Generally, a change of government isn't called into question as long as the Head of State remains the same. Recognition is accorded to the Head of State, and so no problem of recognition arises when a revolution does not affect the Head of State. For instance in 1967 in Greece, the government was overthrown by a military coup, but the formal Head of State, the king, remained and there was no question of recognition. However when the military deposed the king in 1973 and thus changed the Head of State, the question of recognition arose. No problem of recognition arise when there is a constitutional change in the Head of State, for example, when a British monarch dies and is succeeded by the eldest son.

States have often used recognition as an instrument of policy; for instance USA uses it as a mark of approval. Indeed during the Cold War, the recognition of governments were often relative to the policy of the new government. If the government's alignment in the Cold War was unchanged, the powers often saw little need to question the change, regardless of how the change of government came to be.

However, where a country undergoes a parliamentary and presidential vote, the new government that is voted in is usually recognised through messages of congratulations to the Head of State from other heads of state. It does not matter that the incumbent is re-elected. If the change is unconstitutional or is seriously questioned, other countries make statements of recognition depending entirely on political and not legal considerations.

The criterion for the recognition of a new government is debatable. Some argue it is only a matter of politics. However some of the criteria that have been used at one time or another includes public support/democracy which is at times ambiguous. It can safely be argued that the non-recognition of Kibaki government so far is largely because it is viewed as lacking public support.

Another criterion is legitimacy and human rights. What is legitimate will usually found in the state's Constitution. Thus in the case of Kenya, it would be a question of the government winning in a free and fair election following guidelines as laid out in the Kenyan Constitution.

In a situation where the international community does not recognise the legitimacy of a constitution, they usually compare the situation with what is constitutional in their own states. Nowadays however, under the hegemony of liberal democracy, the criterion of public support often surpasses legitimacy as criteria.

Even though issues of human rights are often brought up in international politics as a tool to discredit and condemn states, it has only rarely been used as criteria for recognition of governments. At present, it is in practicality supplanted by the criteria of public support.

There are therefore no discernible patterns when one criterion is used over another but it is clear that public support/democracy is highly rated.

There are a few restrictions in regard to recognizing governments. For instance, a premature recognition can be considered an unlawful intervention in the internal affairs of a state. This was the case when Germany and Italy recognised the nationalist government of Franco in 1936 when the Spanish Civil War was far from decided.

Unlawful intervention

Failing to recognise a change of government when the old has obviously fallen from power could also be considered an unlawful intervention. The insistence by which imperial China, France, Italy and the United States maintained diplomatic relations with the government of the Tsar long after the Russian revolution is an example of this. The western powers' recognition of the Taiwanese government in lieu of the communist Beijing as the true government of China after World War II might also be an example.

Non recognition is usually combined with economic sanctions in an effort to destabilise or at least delegitimise, governments that have lost favour from the recognising state, or never had it.

However the use of sanctions against an entire population to effect regime change, whether the target is Iraq or Cuba or any other country, is both immoral and ineffectual.

Withholding recognition has been used in an attempt to force changes of policy on a new government, as illustrated by the non-recognition of the Communist government in China in 1949 by the United States. The United States normally follows a policy known as the Stimson Doctrine which was established by Secretary of State Henry Stimson in 1931.

Recognition gives legitimacy. However it should not, and need not, indicate approval. Generally speaking, where a new government is in effective control of the territory and seems likely to continue, recognition should not

 

[Kitila Mkumbo]

Mimi saa ingine ndo maana naongelea EA Federation- that a national from any country is free to move and mix up anywhere- hii itapunguza ukabila Kenya. Wakikuyu wataenda Uganda au Tz! Kama Wachaga wanvyokaa kwa amani Mbeya!

If Kenyatta had agreed with EAF in 1960s na kuwa nchi moja huenda haya mabo yasingetokea!

It is for this important reason that I have always supported the EAF as vital and sustainable solution to this stupid ethnocentrism. Bahati mbaya watu wengi wanakataa au kuunga mkono EAF kwa sababu zingine kabisa, hasa za kiuchumi.

 

[DAR si LAMU]

..kitila na mzalendo,

..kufikiria kwamba EAF itaondoa au kupunguza ukabila kenya na hivyo kufanya kenya itulie it's a bit naive!

..infact,kwa hali ilivyo sasa,it'll only complicate issues!trust me on this!

 

[Dua]

EAF ni alinacha na ni hadithi ya Pwagu na Pwaguzi, kama pale pale Kenya hawakubali kuongozwa na mtu wa kabila lingine itakuwa sembuse wakubali kuongozwa na mkwere?

EAF is dead and burried.

Rejea wale waliokwenda kwenye kila mji kuwakilisha EAC kwenye uchaguzi Kenya walishindwa kutoa kauli wakati walikuwa wanalipwa kuja kueleza ukweli - mambo ya kijinga kabisa tena waache kujipeleka peleka kwenye hizi chaguzi kwa kutumia pesa vibaya ambayo ni ya wavuja jasho. Wao wakae tu pale Arusha wale pesa zetu wafyate mkia kabisa.

 

[Kitila Mkumbo]

..kitila na mzalendo,

..kufikiria kwamba EAF itaondoa au kupunguza ukabila kenya na hivyo kufanya kenya itulie it's a bit naive!

..infact,kwa hali ilivyo sasa,it'll only complicate issues!trust me on this!

Ndani ya EAF itabidi wajione wakenya zaidi kuliko wakikuyu/wakamba/wajaluo etc. Ni kama vile ambavyo ndani ya muungano wetu waunguja na wapemba wanajiona zaidi kuwa ni wazanzibari kuliko uunguja na upemba wao. Wale waliowahi kusomasoma kidogo kuhusu group dynamics wanajua kuwa namna moja rahisi na ya uhakika ya kuua ethnocentrism is to make the group larger so that those groups that thought they were large and powerful can be absorbed in a more powerful and superior group. hii ni principle ambayo imetumika sehemu nyingi kuua primitivity perpetuated by tribalism, sasa sijui kwa nini useme "it is naive".

 

[MzalendoHalisi]

Kitila, Dar si Lamu, Dua

In the same grounds- hata mauaji ya Rwanda 1994 yasingetokea kama tungekuwa na EAF Rwanda na Burundi wakiwa wanachama! Watutsi wangweza kuu kujichanganya na makabila mengine throuh migration na kuhamia Tz, Uganda n.k Wahutu na Watutsi wangejitambua zaidi kama Rwandese.

We need a strong EAF kupunguza matatizo ya ethnic tensions in the region kama ilivyotokea Kenya!

Why are we so sckeptical on the benefits of intergration? Kama sii Muungano may be leo tungekuwa tunaongelea Pemba na Unguja kama nchi- angalia Comoros na matatizo yaliyopo!

The more we delay EAF- the worse! Sababu za kiuchumi ziwe secondary!
Kwani ndoa faida ni za pesa tu?? Kuna ulinzi, watoto, n.k. Mapenzi ya pesa saa ingine hayadumu!

 

[Dua]

Mzalendo

Hivi matatizo yetu ya muungano na Zanzibar mbona hatuwezi kuyamaliza na Zanzibar ina raia chini ya millioni moja? Kuna shida gani? Je tukiwa na muungano wa nchi tano ambao wamejenga chuki miongoni mwao tutaweza? Uganda M7 ameshindwa kuleta amani kule kwake pamoja na ubabe wake wote ule, hili sio swala rahisi kama unavyotaka tulichukulie.

Kuna msemo unasema usione vinaelea vimeundwa.

 

[MzalendoHalisi]

Mzalendo

Hivi matatizo yetu ya muungano na Zanzibar mbona hatuwezi kuyamaliza na Zanzibar ina raia chini ya millioni moja? Kuna shida gani? Je tukiwa na muungano wa nchi tano ambao wamejenga chuki miongoni mwao tutaweza? Uganda M7 ameshindwa kuleta amani kule kwake pamoja na ubabe wake wote ule, hili sio swala rahisi kama unavyotaka tulichukulie.

Kuna msemo unasema usione vinaelea vimeundwa.

Dua,

Sasa jawabu ni nini? Tuache kwanza kulaumu! kama tungekuwa na EAF tangu early 60s hili eneo lingekuwa limesonga mbele zaidi!

Hii ndo hoja! And actually umimi- ahaa mimi Mzanzibari, ahha mimi Mkwere, ahh mimi Buganda!!! Je hii imetufikisha wapi?

Eti leo hii mtu wa Kigoma kufika Burundi anahitaji passport!

Viongozi wetu kwa umimi wa Kenyatta ndo waliochelewesha EAF na mimi naona hii imechangia sana yanayotokea leo hii Kenya!

This is my position!

 

[Dua]

Mzalendohalisi

Maji yakimwagika hayazoleki. Kuna mapungufu mengi sana katika hii miungano, hata EU bado wanabishana kuhusu hili.

Tuimarishe utawala wa demokrasi na kuheshimu sheria ambazo tunajiwekea, leo hii rais yoyote Afrika anafanya anavyotaka kama vile amewanunua wananchi inawezekanaje? Marais wote wanatumia madaraka yao vibaya hakuna wa kuwawajibisha lazima tubadilike na tuone sheria zinafuatwa na wote sio kwa akina Dito na watu flani flani. Angalia Zimbabwe mugabe is the Law, Kenya Kibaki ingawa aliapishwa kinyemela sasa yeye ndio sheria, M7 ndio usiseme kabisa. We need to put our houses in order.

 

[Kitila Mkumbo]

Dua: we are not trying to suggest a union of the "purities". Tuna matatizo kibao, lakini tunaweza kuyatatua katika umoja wetu kuliko katika kanchi kamoja kamoja. Matatizo tuliyonayo ya muungano wa TZ na Zanzibar siyo ya kufanya tujutie huo muungano. Ni matatizo yanayoweza kutatulika tukiamua. Kwa hiyo muungano wa TZ na Zanzibar haupaswi kuwa a negative example, this ought to be and is indeed an inspiration for us to think of bigger federation like EAF and even AU. Kama anavyosema Mzalendo, tungekuwa kwenye EAF, ya Rwanda yasingetukuta wala haya ya Kenya yasingekuwepo, huu ndio ukweli!

 

[Mtanzania]

Waungwana,

Mimi naona tusijidanganye na mambo ya EAF mpaka pale nchi wanachama zitakapokubali misingi ya demokrasia pamoja na utawala bora.

Pension ya amani ni fairness and a just system, sasa hata tuwe kwenye muungano wa Afrika nzima, kama kwenye majimbo yetu, kutakuwa na watu kama akina Kibaki, Museven, au hata Mkapa, ambao wako tayari kuua watu ili kulinda madhambi yao ya wizi, basi hizo vurugu zitatokea tu.

Zitaacha kuwa za nchi na sasa zitageuka kuwa za majimbo.

Kama tungelikuwa tumeuungana kwenye EAF, je mambo yanayotokea Kenya sasa, tungeyhazuia vipi?

Tufanye kama wenzetu wa EU, tutengeneze misingi ya utawala bora ambayo inakubaliwa na wananchi wetu walio wengi. Nchi isiruhusiwe kuingia mpaka imetimiza hiyo misingi yote.

Kwasasa sidhani kama hiyo EAF itasaidia. Labda tuweke nguvu kwenye kushirikiana kiuchumi kabla ya kufikia federation yenyewe.

Mfano mzuri ni mauaji ya Pemba na Zanzibar, pamoja na muungano wetu wa miaka 40, mbona Jamhuri ya Muungano wa tanzania haikuweza kuzuia hayo mauaji? badala yake ndio ilikuwa inapeleka majeshi kwenda kuua wananchi waliokuwa wanaandamana kupinga wizi wa kura.