Police Salary cuts a consequence of Poor Jurisprudence

Recently, the Kenyan populace have been treated to the disturbing news that some graduate police officers of other ranks had their salaries cut as they were demoted back to lower job groups as a consequence of a recent court ruling on the graduate officers in those ranks. “Other ranks” in the police refers to the ranks below the rank of Inspector of Police. Many an opinion have been passed and even the COTU secretary general, Francis Atwoli weighed in on the issue with a feeble plea to Dr Fred Matiang’i. A terrible spectacle considering he  is supposed to be a fighter for workers’ rights. Such fights do not succeed through being nebbish and pitifully prostrating at the feet of authorities in a bid to have them practice fidelity to existing laws. Wake up, brother Atwoli! You losing your mojo.

Many of those opinions seem to blame the government for acting as it did. And government can hardly escape responsibility in a matter like this. Government can not claim to suffer from the same problems individuals suffer from while interpreting a ruling by a judge. They have at their disposal a flurry of legal experts at the state law office that can clearly and objectively interpret the law and advice on how to move forward following a ruling. Either the state law office is sleeping or it does not operate independently as invisaged in the law. State law, interprets the law to suit the political leaderships desires. They are not being guided by their oath of office. 

Blame however, should and must be placed in the right place. The court. In my opinion, this is the right place to put the blame as far as this matter is concerned. The judge pronounced herself on the matters before her desk but failed to interpret that ruling to the parties before her. Whenever a judge makes pronouncements on matters of law, they ought to ensure that the pronouncements so made do no entertain any ambiguities. Thus, I believe from the onset that it’s the responsibility of the presiding judge to clear the air about the correct meaning to the pronouncements she makes. When this is not done, the parties before the court are given a blank cheque to do the interpretation by themselves and this may lead to further actions that may offend other existing laws. 

The matter before the court was whether graduates of other ranks who were not receiving the benefits already being enjoyed by some their colleagues deserved to be given those benefits. After presentations, the judge found that they did not deserve to be awarded such benefits. However, she did not explain whether the ruling also meant that those who were already enjoying the benefits should have the benefits thereof withdrawn – which would ultimately offend the international labour laws by which we as a country are bound. 

Rulings on matters of law, are not supposed to create new legal disputes neither are they supposed to be interpreted in any way that leads to offending other existing laws. Had the judge practiced sound jurisprudence, she could have made pronouncements on the possible consequences of various interpretations of her judgment. Even if we assume that her view could have been that the state law office is supposed to be objective in the interpretation of the judgment and so she may not have seen the reason to venture into such, the blame lies on her for not understanding that governments are perpetually willing to infringe on citizens’ rights and unwilling to cede any ground in that regard. State law office is government and state law office is, especially, political government. 

A few things come out from this protracted conflict between police officers and their employer. Firstly, government action is clearly in contravention of the existing labour laws. Secondly, it appears that there is no properly structured promotion regime in existence within the Police service. Perhaps this is the reason a person can actually retire in the same job group he joined the service. Finally, there is no clear reason why police ranks, which are basically responsibilities, are rigidly tied to the job groups causing very unacceptable stagnation for police officers. In other government departments and agencies, it’s possible to move up a job group without moving up a responsibility. There need for reforms beyond a change in uniform and renaming of the senior ranks. There indeed is.

Hustler Movement more uniting than Azimio La Umoja

The Honourable Raila Odinga’s attempt at another reinvention of himself and counter-narrative to Dr. William Ruto’s Hustler movement was great but seems to be failing to hit the right chords with the populace. Like he has done many times before, the aging Raila came up with his new mantra after he and his ‘brother’ Uhuru Kenyatta’s BBI vehicle faltered in the hands, or should I say desks, of a fiercely independent Judiciary. The BBI would have been a shot in the arm for the enigma’s 2020 presidential bid 'if he were to chose to run.’

After the fall of the BBI, Raila had to dig deep into his political craft to find the last and perhaps this time, the very last bullet. He is adroit when it comes to finding that last bullet. He always has a way of getting it and getting away with it. And the so Raila comes up with AZIMIO LA UMOJA. A great slogan, I must admit but it is my considered view that this slogan is old and tired. This jingle, however you twist and paraphrase it, is the same rallying cry Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel Moi’s KANU, Mwai Kibaki’s PNU, and Uhuruto’s Jubilee party used in their campaigns.

The feeling you get now from the monotonous call for unity especially when it comes from a politician is that it is a mere skin thin campaign tool only said to get the votes. After many failures by the previous users to attain even a semblance of the united nation we all dream of, few if any citizens would believe it to be said in good faith. It has come to be believed that politicians rip big from the divisions in the country and can never genuinely intend to achieve a united country. Thus, Raila’s catchphrase has failed to arouse enough interest and stir up sufficient curiosity in the electorate about the prospects of a Raila experiment.

Secondly, these unity calls have become some campaign to mobilize around tribes. So that it has come to be construed as calls for tribal alliances. It most certainly seems to mean that tribes rally behind a kingpin who will the represent them in the unity talks. Take one Kenya alliance for instance; the negotiations around it are based on what numbers (usually tribal) a principal comes with to the negotiating table. This has been the most used method in unity campaigns but it has failed again and again as it has become clear in the minds of many that these kingpins use their tribes for personal glory. At this point it appears that although these tribal chiefs still hold a significant sway on their various tribal groupings, the hold is beginning to wane with frightening speed.

This is the reason William Ruto’s Hustler movement seems to play the trick. Hustler movement is not presented as tribal unity call. And even though there are people within the hustler team that still speak tribe in campaign rallies, you can tell the most eloquent among them, the hustler in chief, presents it as a call to identify with values that make us all Kenyan. Hustlers have no tribe. They cut across and share the same challenges. A hustler in Mombasa and a hustler in Kisumu are the same. A small business owner in Garissa has the same problems as the one in Nakuru.

I am not sure the DP had the intention of achieving unity through his hustler movement or is it collateral effects of having people together because of the similarities of their problems. But one thing is sure; we are more united when we have a sense of facing a common enemy. We have done so during terror attacks, in times of natural calamities and other disasters.

What Ruto did was to make the vast majority of the poor and middle class and some moderate rich to understand that as a people who are striving to become better, our common enemy is a leadership that does not put our interests first. But that is not all. Ruto also manages to explain very well that we also have common goals. To end poverty, improve health care, grow the economy and create jobs. This is why he is the undisputed front runner currently. His message is well packaged and though some may doubt his sincerity, DP Ruto has managed to figure out how to speak to the hearts of many Kenyans.

Initially, the message seemed Marxist —an attempt to divide the country along class lines and many a critique took advantage of that to sell a narrative until they realised Dr. Ruto was too hot to be cooled by merely trying to assign a new meaning to his narrative. Even at that, my opinion is that were better off divided along class lines than tribal lines. Classes are fewer than tribes and therefore more unity than the disintegration born out of tribal divisions.

Whether intended or not, the unity prospects of the hustler movement are on the scale of what NARC almost achieved in the 2002 election before the self serving politicians killed the dream in 2005. It is an opportunity that Ruto must seize and build a national identity around values that make us Kenyan. An identity that Kenya has not had since independence. Ruto can give effect to chapter six of our supreme law if he wills. It is the chapter that was meant to foster our values and national ethos. It is where the Kenyan identity lies and should be taught in school right from beginner to tertiary levels. The only problem has been an unwillingness by the man on top to give full effect to the law.

William Ruto has the passion, the ability, zeal and now the tool to enhance and instil a sense of nationhood in the citizenry. He can create a government we all can be proud of. He can make all of us proud to be Kenyan. He can restore the pride of our flag and national anthem. We can do it. YES WE CAN!

To avert disaster Uhuru Kenyatta must Learn from Moi.

Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi is a name many do not associate with a lot of good in the history of Kenya’s political leadership. During his leadership, so much happened. Groans and grumbles begun, of his leadership after the failed 1982 attempted coup and to be fair to the man, much of what he became after that unfortunate coup attempt was a direct reaction to the event. He became fearful and careful; intolerant and reactionary; brutal and prompt. He led by an iron fist. Those who were grown then will tell you he was cunning as a fox and his moves became as unpredictable as the coming of Christ. In private, he was feared like hell while in public he cut the figure of a very friendly fellow, easily tickled by a funny remark, and often rushing to join and jig with a welcoming band of school kids or local women dancing a happy welcome folk for him. Moi was a phenomenon.

In our current politics, we have at our disposal two of Moi’s best students in president Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto (or three if you consider Raila’s short stint in Moi’s political classroom significant). They are now two of the most dominant players in our political arena. Anybody who cares to be honest can agree that President Kenyatta II has in many occasions shown traits that are reminiscent of the late retired president’s days in office. His attempt to control the judiciary via an illegal attempt at amending the constitution, the fact that the police now seem to notice and discover economic crimes committed only by nearly everyone who chooses to be against him, his control of the police through security amendment laws 2015, name it, have often sparked fear and worry in many a citizen who care about democracy.

President Moi, however, in the 2002 election pulled a very unexpected surprise in accepting the results of the election of Mwai Kibaki as president. It was a surprise due to the fact that many expected him to cling power or attempt rigging the election in favour of his man, Uhuru Kenyatta. It was later to be revealed by William Ruto that even his very students went to statehouse expecting him to do ‘SOMETHING' with regard to the way the election was going before Kivuitu announced Kibaki as president elect. In that election, Moi did two admirable things; he refused to meddle in the work the defunct ECK and he ordered his man, Uhuru to concede defeat. Anyone who was alive during that election can tell you that had Moi not done these things, perhaps we could have had a worse situation than 2007.

This is the lesson that I hope president Uhuru Kenyatta learns from is mentor. He has the unique opportunity to play the exact same card to avoid calamity. He must not meddle with Chebukati and his commission. He must be ready to order his man, whoever that may be, to concede defeat if it happens that things don't go his way. But more importantly, Uhuru is in a unique position because he can allow the country to go into the election with both front runners as his men. This will mean he can have influence on both and can order either of them to concede whichever way the election goes and as long as he lets the election be free and fair. The president must cut significantly the influence his cabinet and principal secretaries have on various agencies to avoid stupid actions that may plunge the country into anarchy. As the African adage goes, he must remove the hand of monkey from the pot of soup before it turns to human hand.

The president must resist the temptation to be engulfed in the hate that goes on in politics and his government. He must leave behind a country —well, not so much economically— a peaceful one at least. Any action that may lead to what has now become widely expected in nearly all elections, as was the case in 2002, must be managed the same way Moi did. Otherwise we’ll have another visit by ICC. Except this time, the suspects won’t have many defenders especially if they seemingly have no future in politics.

Stop defining Hustler Nation if you don’t identify with it.

Kelvin Nyamache Nyakeriga is a brilliant young man and definitely an example for many young people to emulate. There’s no gainsaying the fact that he is what many of his age mates can only dream to be. I respect that.

However, the young man is the purest, most undiluted among the Ruto-hating species. A near fanatic of Ruto’s political nemesis, Raila Odinga. In one of his many criticisms against the deputy president, Kelvin attempted to define for the hustler nation what, in his view the true meaning of a hustler president should be. And in his attempt, he pulled out a really fitting example, apt for his rant, in Jose Mujica, the former Uruguay president.

Kelvin seems to suggest that a true hustler president should choose to live like president Mujica and no other way. To him, Hustler means simply living like a poor man or ordinary life. Needless to say, Mujica chose that life because it’s the life he lived before he became president. He simply elected not to change his lifestyle or switch residences upon his election as president.

The word Hustler even in the dictionary can be interchangeably used with the word hard worker. How Nyakeriga ends up with the meaning akin to Catholicism’s OPUS DEI beats my imagination. Reading his article, I felt like he was deeply at pains to give a new meaning to the hustler nation. Living an ordinary life is a faith base choice and Mujica was an example of what being in love with ordinary life is. It had nothing to do with being a hustler or hard worker so to speak.

Let’s begin from the very basic fact that the young man doesn’t and has never identified with the Hustler movement. On that basis alone, it can be safely argued that he has never had interest in finding out the foundation upon which it’s built. Consequently, he should be the least expected to attempt to explain its meaning or assign traits to the should be adherents thereof. Considering, his political inclination, he would be least expected to understand the true meaning of the movement but in the very least he is expected not to attempt to lie about its meaning. Here’s hoping that he truly doesn’t understand it and the errors in his write up are genuinely out of sheer lack of understanding and not a deliberate attempt at misleading.

Much as I hold the young man in high esteem, it’s my considered advice that he avoids the politics of ANYTHING GOES. That’s what we are all trying to depart from. As a young man, you should abhor the principle of END JUSTIFYING THE MEANS. The means we use must remain as pure as the ends we seek. Focus not on stopping someone from ascending to power but on making sure those who do, use the right means. The survival of out democracy hinges on our ability to hold to account both the process and conduct of the players. Like athletics detests doping, so should our politics despise the use of BY FIRE BY FORCE.

Sir Fred Allan.

Parenting is a hard task; Fatherhood is not for the Faint hearted.

It has been said in many a section of our communities that the world is sick. Its sickness, a gradual but deadly pestilence that has nearly eroded completely the essential ingredient called fatherhood. Fatherhood, or lack of it is a difficult argument and many have put forward great presentations in defense of either their stand or their emotions. Yes, I said emotions, for this is what the blame game has degenerated into. It’s now almost a debate between feminists and chauvinists on who is to blame for the sickness of the world.

Parenting is often a complex and difficult task. Even more complex is fatherhood especially when you wish to bring up kids who espouse the very best of human values. The complexity is mainly due to the fact that we always want our children not only to do better than us but also to be better all round including being better human that us. A daunting task indeed. Training children to be better than you is not walk in the park let alone training them not to be like you. Yep. Not to be like you. Meaning you have a duty to try and teach them something you’ve never been. No prostitute wants to inspire her kids into prostitution. Nor does any womanizer. Nor yet, any thief.

We all know the things we do that are not right. Everyone has a thing or two about them that they are not proud of, and if you are in a family setting, it is a continuous struggle to ensure your kids do not pick it up whether as a habit or some kind pop up behaviour. That person that we are away from the view of our family. The liar, the swindler, the cheater, the thief. And so we pretend. We put up acts that are not true. And often as parents we struggle.

But most importantly, the difficult task of being a father can be challenging for a man. If you have been blessed with both boys and girls, the task of having to teach them different ways they should expect the world to treat them is extraordinarily humongous. The idea is that boys must be taught to be tough and not to expect favours while girls are often taught not to accept anything less than the standards the father sets for them. This kind of double sided parenthood is hard to adapt by the contemporary parent who takes the hugely flawed view of equality. This view (erratic in my opinion) has led to us bringing up boys and girls with the same expectations and that is not good for order.

I was recently confronted by a friend whose friend’s younger brother sent him a message complaining that his brother had not bought him a gift on his birthday and was feeling so unappreciated. The brother is twenty two years. That’s a boy who has been brought up to expect the things girls should expect and to me that is a problem of fatherhood— dysfunctional fatherhood. I do not want to insinuate that there is anything wrong with a brother doing some birthday gift for a brother but to expect it and feel entitled to be treated with such by a brother at twenty two —twenty two for love of life— is definitely not a good mentality in a male young adult.

I was brought up by a father who never beat his female children and as an adult, I now understand why he never did. Surprisingly, we were never bothered about it and it seemed as normal then as it seems now. Moreover, as grownups, we now understand that it was actually proper to do so. That kind of different treatment given to us by our father prepared us to expect different treatments from the world. We have different expectations, approaches and mind-sets towards life.

In being a father, a man must teach boys to expect nothing from the world and girls to not accept anything less than RESPECT for their dignity. This mentality prepares both for a tough future. Boys become tough enough to wade through the vagaries of life and girls strong enough to stand their ground and accept nothing short of respect.

This is not to say that boys should not demand respect. Am saying that they are meant to face the rough and tough without fear. To know that the world has expectations of them while they do not have much to expect of the world. In any case it is men who believe they owe the world a service that make great impact in life. Not those who thinks the world owes them.

Moves by Anti-Ruto Brigade Quite Desperate and Dangerous

Fear mongering and mudslinging is the latest move by anti-Ruto brigade within the Kenyan political arena. The past seven days have seen hordes of photo-shopped pictures and video clips dangerously doing rounds on WhatsApp groups, Facebook posts, and have thus spread far and wide. Many a pretender to political commentary have made nonsense of themselves trying to push a narrative from the clips and photos while pro Ruto army did not hesitate from answering back with their own political jabs without contrition. It has been a messy week to say the least in the political streetwise.

Of major interest to me is the clip in which William Ruto is on JKL answering a question from veteran Koinange on the land clauses in the then proposed draft constitution. Ruto give his very unqualified interpretation of the land clauses in the draft as he explained why he was opposed to the draft. In there he mentions that what he understood the clauses to imply was that some non natives would be required to move from lands and leave them to natives in which case he uses Kitale and mentions a few tribes to drive his point home. Suffice to say that he was wrong in his lay interpretation and his fears were utterly unfounded. 

However, the way the clip has been truncated to sell a narrative is not only desperate but also displays a dire desperateness on the part of the anti-Ruto team. It appears to me like there is a feeling of hopelessness in that camp in their quest for an alternative narrative to the Hustler’s bottom up economic model which has attracted a huge chunk of lower and middle class. The dire need for that counter narrative is sending that camp into panic mode as elections draw ever closer and closer at a pace that looks like a week every day. I must add that it’s a bed they made for themselves with the comfort of a handshake and BBI and so they must sleep on it. If they had wanted, they could have made the best of both worlds as the official opposition and at time major partners in the government. They did not.

The clip is dangerous. It shows the lengths some of us are willing to go just to gain some advantage in politics and it doesn’t matter to them whether the national fabric is torn in the process. That video can mislead some Ruto supporters to start a move to root out non natives in the misunderstanding that that was what Ruto said. Hence, the narrative, if bought, can lead to the destruction of the very lives of the people it seeks to protect by not electing the Deputy President. If the narrative is not bought (it likely won’t be) is a bad smack on the face of the anti-Ruto brigade. It is imperative that his political opponents craft a proper counter narrative devoid of the dangers posed by their current flirtations with trouble. Popcorn please!

This is the point; William Ruto, like him on hate him has tremendously influenced how we do politics and what we say during campaigns. He has largely brought the country to a point where we can have genuine conversation on what should be our approach to economic management and as they say Mghalla muue na haki yake umpe, the DP has his sins like everyone in the field. He has, nonetheless, brought us here where we can discuss issues. Let us not pull all of us down in the desperate desire to see him fail to clinch the presidency. It seems like the DP is poised to singlehandedly pull a 2002 moment with his non tribal hustler movement and if he does, I hope he stays true to his assertions. If he pulls this off, it will be a step in the right direction as far as rooting out tribalism is concerned. If he walks the talk, William can create a sense of nationhood and make all of us understand that the principles that make us Kenyans are greater than the feelings that make us our tribes. Here’s hoping and praying.

Handing over Ritual is Not a constitutional requirement

The constitution of Kenya 2010 is an interesting document and has been dubbed in some quarters as one of the best and most progressive in the world. It’s the manner in which it deals with possible legal stand offs that’s most admirable. A supreme law should be precise and straight forward in its letter and strongly implicit in its spirit. Ours appears to be such despite some discomfort in some of us. But it is the zeal with which the Judiciary has stood in defence of the Constitution that is most admirable. Of course this is not to downplay the role played by the lawyers who argue in favour proper application of the law; I suppose the advocates form a core part of the legal fraternity by extension are part of the Judiciary.

As it stands, if elections are held today, William Ruto stands the highest chance of winning and if things don’t change significantly— and I suspect they won’t— we are headed for a William Ruto presidency. I say a Ruto presidency because I do not expect anything to stand in his way if he wins. Our law envisages a smooth transition from one administration to another whether or not any player in our politics is okay with such transition. The main part of the transition is the swearing in in the presence of the Chief Justice or her deputy in the absence thereof.  Our law is in the mould of the  American one.

For some time now, there has been, albeit silently, talk of a possible refusal by an incumbent to hand over power to a president elect for whatever God forsaken reason that may be. Those who think, suggest or even imagine this can happen are still stuck in the sadly very African perception of power. The way our law is set is such that it has to be changed for anyone to hold power beyond the election and swearing in of another president. Power is given by the people through an election and lost through the same means. You cease to hold it the moment another person is elected and sworn in. 

One may argue that the swearing it may be prevented but even this is not possible. The only way you can stop a swearing in in to stop the Chief Justice from carrying out his responsibility of swearing in the new president. The CJ being a holder of an independent office can not be ordered not to carry out her constitutional responsibility of swearing in the president elect. It’s a process that’s guided by law and no one can chose which part of the law to obey and which one not to. Every other ritual outside of what the law provides is simply a ritual that is inconsequential to the process. Understand the Kenyan law, power is assumed by the new president. He needs no hand over to assume it just like in America.

Such talk is cheap. It’s thoughtless. It’s dangerous and foolhardy. It is a serpentine and disturbing flirtation with trouble and entertaining such thoughts is being completely oblivious to the fact that we are only one stupid act away from anarchy. If we didn’t learn from Rwandan genocide in 1994 we should have learned from 2007 post election violence. If there be anyone among us who has not learnt from those two unfortunate events, she must never be allowed to drop us into chaos. Civility is being able to dislike someone but still defend his rights. Democracy is voting one person, party or group but accepting and defending the right of another to lead once they win. We have peace today. Let us guard it jealously. Let those who have wisdom understand.

 

Tuju’s Rant Is a bad dent on Government

Mr Raphael Tuju is a man with to sides, quite literally. He is two things but he is not half one and half the other. Nay. He is one thing, wholly, and then  the other, wholly as well. He is cabinet Secretary in the Jubilee government with no portfolio. But, he is also the Jubilee party Secretary General. This means that he represents the party interests in the government and he represents government interests in the party. Seemingly a tough balancing act I must say. But it may not necessarily be as tough as it may look. He is serving the purpose for his appointment.

Let me break it down. President Uhuru Kenyatta has from the onset seemed very uncomfortable with the rules laid down by the constitution of Kenya 2010 with regard to many things including conduct and establishment of government, independence of institutions, separation of powers and nearly everything else. How else do you explain his attempt at effecting around seventy five (75) amendments in that sacred document through illegal means? It has been his norm to use unorthodox means to beat the requirements of the law or forego his constitutional obligations. This qualifies as a discussion for another day, though.

The president has never been comfortable with the requirement of the supreme law that Cabinet Secretary positions must not be held by serving members of parliament. He has always wanted politicians doubling as members of the executive and parliament to allow himself a little more latitude in his quest to control parliament. But since that was not possible under the law, he launched a three pronged attack on that principle.

First, he created an utterly meaningless and obviously illegal position of the Chief Administrative Secretary (CAS) and into it appointed many politicians and retained the position despite declarations by the courts that it is unconstitutional. Secondly, he proposed amendments to the constitution to allow parliamentarians to be selected as CSs. Thirdly, and this I consider big, the  cunningly appointed a politician into the cabinet in the person of Mr. Raphael Tuju and assigned him no role. This way, Uhuru achieved two things; an implicit but direct and powerful link to parliament via the party organs and explicit control over Jubilee members of parliament via the power wielded by the Secretary general of the party. And, boy, hasn’t he succeeded big time?

Now, Raphael Tuju as two things, plays two roles. Whenever he speaks from any government office as CS, he speaks for Jubilee party in government. When He speaks from Jubilee house as party Secretary general, Tuju speaks for the Executive in Jubilee. Period.

Thus, the CS without portfolio’s attack on the DP from the party headquarters was actually government attacking its own deputy president. What he said and how he conducted himself can therefore be accordingly construed as Cabinet position on and attitude towards the Deputy president. At this point, the fight within Jubilee is dangerously bare knuckled. We need to be careful and for a president who speaks unity of the nation every few sentences of his speeches, he’s rendered shamefully hypocritical by his own cabinet appointee. After Dr. Matiang’i recently gave an absolutely irrelevant explanation of why security of the DP was changed by providing a list of the properties owned by the deputy and Tuju confirming the real intention behind it by asking the DP to explain the quick wealth increase, the president’s hand in the woes of his deputy can be seen all over and this makes nonsense of his unity call.

It’s time for the president to rise up above the politics of the day. I am sure the man Uhuru Kenyatta is a good man with good intentions. Even his discomfort with the law is possibly the making of guys who refuse to accept that they can no longer use parliament to get things done by simply engineering some artificial blackmail via demand for ministerial statements. I suspect that people who have issues with the DP are working round the clock to keep the misunderstanding between him and his deputy as it is. Unfortunately, this looks destined to leave the country more divided and with deeper political wounds that ever. What the men close to the president are doing and the advice they’re giving him is antithetical to what would have been his biggest legacy. A united Kenya.

ARE YOU A PREACHER OR A MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER

• It might be true. It might even be helpful. But is it preaching? 
• Some preaching that is considered great by many is nothing more than a motivational speech. It might be true, it might even be helpful. It may help you succeed at work. But too often all one has done is changed the title from the latest pop-psychologist’s seminar from “how to succeed” to “how to fulfill God’s purpose” where God’s purpose is defined as “succeeding in this life.”

It is almost rampant in some circles. In fact, some see this as the epitome of “relevant” preaching. The person comes and learns a skill or a mindset that will help them finally break the boundaries that keep them from that promotion. Maybe others finally decide to go back to school or change their career. Perhaps others find ways to become better planners and thus are more effective in their financial life. And then the preacher sits down. Sometimes the people shout, other times they sit there contemplating the message, but in too many cases what is missing greatly outweighs the benefits of these messages.

When a sermon is merely a motivational speech, what is missing? At least two things:

The Cross is Missing

The first thing that is missing from this kind of preaching is the cross. Sometimes the preacher may tack it on at the end, but even in those cases the cross is reduced from the pinnacle of God’s work on behalf of humanity to simply a mechanism to help me do better at work. The cross, both Jesus’ and ours, is totally missing. The idea of our sin causing the death of Christ in some way is totally absent from this message. The idea that we are to take up our cross and follow is also absent.

In short, the Gospel is missing from many of these presentations and thus no matter how eloquent or well visited, this kind of preaching is missing the real power that comes from preaching “Christ and Him Crucified.”

The Coming Kingdom is Missing

In many of these sermons, the idea of God’s coming kingdom is totally missing. Whether it be how we are to prepare for the coming kingdom, or whether it be how the coming kingdom is different from the current “kingdoms,” this aspect of true preaching is often missing from the “motivational preaching” sermons.

If you are not preaching the cross and the coming kingdom, then one must ask oneself, what are the eternal consequences of my present preaching? If someone comes to your church after hearing about a cancer diagnosis, what does your sermon about being a success have to do with that one? If someone is in the midst of despair and needs to hear a word about the coming kingdom where righteousness reigns, what does your message have to say to them?

People can get motivational speeches in any number of places, but when they come to church they have come to hear a preacher. There is a time and place for the motivational speech, but if you as a preacher use up all of your time being simply another place, then you have not done your duty. For a preacher to degenerate into a facsimile of Oprah Winfrey or Tony Robbins is to step down from the height of speaking God’s words to humanity to speaking good advice gleaned from the best human thinkers.  

GUEST.

Matiang’i’s Answers to Security committee, petty

 The events of the past week in the Kenyan political arena were as interesting as they were annoying. The political storm that brewed in the wake of government’s withdrawal of the Deputy President’s security (for that is what it was) has been enormous and the conversations sequel to it captivating. Interestingly, the deputy , who is often portrayed by his detractors as an aggressive and easily agitated fellow, has been hugely calm and impressively restrained in the way he has handled the hullabaloo. He somehow still found a way to score political points by welcoming the AP officers with a courtesy cup of tea and a public display of his personal hospitality.

The man who in my opinion screwed up things, again, was the CS for interior Fred Matiang’i. The man’s explanation of the actions of the government to the parliamentary committee on security were at best pedestrian and at worst petty. The matter was never concerned with the properties owned by Mr. Ruto that are being secured by the police but the withdrawal of the closer layer of GSU security officers from his residence and the subsequent replacement thereof by AP officers. This would have been answered simply by explaining that it was a one to one replacement occasioned by the reasignment of duties. But to delve into the number of properties owned by Ruto and which the police are providing general security for is not just dishonest but also petty. It is a desperate attempt at discrediting the Deputy President as the leader of the Hustler Movement. In their simplistic understanding of the Hustler Movement, they seem to think that is a movement of the have nots and so should be led by a poor man. Quite absurd. Everyone knows the William Ruto is not a poor man. They simply want to continue propagating their propaganda that the Hustler Movement is an anti rich movement. The Hustler Movement is not anti-rich. It's pro-poor and middle class.

 It’s not unbeknownst to many in Kenya that properties of most VIPs are by government security personnel and an attempt to make it look like only the DP’s property is nothing short of desperate pettiness. It's an attempt to mislead the public And the pertinent answers were not given in the wake of pertinent questions even if our parliamentarians too seemed to ask silly questions. In fact the whole session looked like a wealth declaration exercise albeit by non owners of the declared property. A waste of time and resources. The DP had indicated that he was okay with being guarded by the Aps and much of what was discussed was irrelevant to the issue at hand. 

The most important questions would have been these:

1. Why were the GSU officers withdrawn?

2. Why did the reassignment of duties happen at around this time?

3. What was the number of GSU officers withdrawn and what number of Aps replaced them.

4. Was the reassignment of duties done in private residences of the deputy president, supposedly in accordance with the law? If so, could such reassignment happen in relation to the president’s Gatundu and other private residences?

5. Is the deputy President’s residence regarded as private?

In the matter of the DP’s security, the president’s advisors have once again screwed up and that has helped his deputy. It’s important that the president begins to be careful with the advice that comes his way at this point in time having greatly flopped with the BBI. A president who speaks unity of purpose in every of his speeches must not be seen to side line a front runner in the homestretch to the 2022 election. A war of egos doesn’t help his course.

Castigating Ruto’s Words Wrong and Selfish

It’s harrowingly difficult to be conscious and unbiased and still not be drawn to the events of the past week in Kenya’s political arena. Jokes have been told, memes and cartoons created in the typical Kenyan humorous ways, and on more serious notes articles written and social media posts done in this regard. The political orogeny created in and around the streets from what I’d call a very ordinary statement by the DP is amazing and hugely bemusing.  

Granted, the DP is the man of the moment politically speaking and his every statement is analysed and reanalysed word for word by our ever hungry media vultures and erstwhile political pundits, friend and foe, ally and adversary, expert and pretender, even smart and silly. The DP is not a man without controversy. He loves the limelight and he’s taking his moment with both hands and will definitely try to remain in the journalist’s focus in the foreseeable future. I mean that is what politicians feed on. His bottom-up proposal of an approach to economic management seems to resonate well with the majority and, here’s expecting more fireworks!

In his statement, the deputy president used the word WE, while making a clearly very general and common statement on the constitutional reform process and the struggles that be. And for that he has been castigated by all and sundry from a no small pool of his non-supporters. Some well informed and others following the wave even if they don’t get it.

What I find a little surprising is that people who claim to own the process and some of our so called statesmen have joined the fray in condemning the words of the Deputy president calling his a liar because in their understanding, he has no right to claim the struggle because he was on the side of a regime that was fighting against the second liberation. This is the hypocrisy that I find both amazing and disturbing. The struggle for a new Kenya was a struggle of all and for all. We don’t fight such battles for personal glory. We do so for all— those who support the struggle and this who don’t. We fight to liberate Kenya from the hands of her tormentors and while at it we use statements like ‘Kenyans want this’ and ‘Kenyans have spoken' etc. This statements do not refer to a section of Kenyans but to all Kenyans. The understanding is that even those who don’t support the struggle need it even if they don’t realise it. This mentality is supposed to be carried forward to eternity, long after the battles have been won.

In the struggle for independent Kenya, there were people who were collaborators of colonial masters. They were neither asked not to join in either celebrating the victory nor prevented from claiming the struggle because the statesmen of the time understood that they were fighting against physical as well as mental slavery. Today we claim to have defeated the colonialists even if we know we were born decades after independence was attained. We’re happy to claim so whether or not our forefathers were collaborators of the colonialists. The men who fought for independence did so with the knowledge that they may never be alive to even merely witness the birth of an independent Kenya. But they knew they’d be happy to see an independent Kenya for all Kenyans. Their struggle was never for personal gain or glory even if we glorify some of them today.

The disgusting hypocrisy on display exemplified by the unprecedented castigation of the DP’s words is on another level and utterly disappointing. We’re all owners of the constitution of Kenya 2010 whether or not we supported it. We owe our allegiance to that constitution and we have a responsibility to defend it with the same passion and vigour with which it was fought for. And now we know that it is facing greater threat from those who seem to personalize both the struggle for it and the  document itself than from those who either did not support it or were not interested at all. This is a document for us and for generations yet unborn. This constitution is ours individually and ours collectively. We must defend it with the same passion and dedication that the judiciary has.

And yes, William Ruto has as much right to claim the struggle for the new constitution and responsibility to defend it as everybody else. The idea that those who were core fighters in the struggle have more right over our Constitution and greater say in what happens to it is as misplaced as it is dishonest. It is like saying that those who did not support it or did not want it altogether are not obligated to follow and uphold it.

We are unnecessarily vindictive and disrespectful. While William Ruto is not a perfect man, he is a leader with some significant clout and trying to exclude him is not a smart move whether we realize it or not. We have to struggle honestly and we have to be less vindictive if we are to be true statesmen. All struggle is for the good of the future generations. Our children and their children and those of our adversaries. We know that we may not be there to enjoy what we fight for or if we get there, we may be too week to enjoy it. We fight nonetheless. Martin Luther King Jr in one of his speeches told Americans this before he was assassinated, “I have been to the mountain top. I have seen the promised land. I may not get there with you, but I promise you WE shall get there.” This is a statesman’s mentality.