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.