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.