Joshua Mbaga-Laugh
Factory.
WHY UHURU KENYATTA
WITHDREW FROM THE 2ND
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
LEAVES A LOT TO BE
DESIRED. THE FULL LETTER
TO THE PRESIDENTIAL
DEBATE TEAM
Dear Sirs,
RE: MEMORANDUM OF THE
KENYAN PRESIDENTIAL
DEBATE
Kenya’s first-ever Presidential
Debate took place on 11th
February, 2013. While saluting
the organizers for
orchestrating such a historic
and seminal event; it would be
remiss on our part if we did
not bring to the fore blatant
acts of omission and
commission that regrettably
raise doubts on the need and
value of having our Candidate,
Uhuru Kenyatta, appear in the
second and final round on
25th February, 2013.
BIAS AND MODERATOR’S
OBSESSION WITH THE ICC
FACTOR
It was clear from the start
that Moderator Linus Kaikai
had an axe to grind against
Uhuru Kenyatta. He had
evidently been coached and
directed to set the stage for
the other candidates to
directly attack the Deputy
Prime Minister, Honourable
Uhuru Kenyatta, in the guise
of addressing the vital subject
of good governance.
As a moderator, Kaikai
overstepped his mandate
while addressing the
governance issue and used the
International Criminal Court
(ICC) matter to probe only
Kenyatta on his ethical
qualifications and
performance as a leader while
not applying the same level of
scrutiny to any of the other
candidates’ glaring ethics and
integrity issues
By stubbornly persisting with
that issue for more than 30
minutes, Kaikai displayed his
open bias against Kenyatta’s
leadership and quite willingly
set the stage for other
candidates to gang up on him,
and question his moral, ethical
and integrity status should he
be elected the Fourth
President of Kenya.
Kenyatta may have been
slightly distracted by the ICC
line of questioning, but finally
emerged stronger by providing
credible answers over the
challenge, which he described
as a personal matter and one
which he is ready to live with
as he defends his innocence at
the ICC.
“Which candidate does not
have personal challenges: ,
asked Kenyatta, a line of
debate that Moderator Kaikai
deliberately chose to ignore
since it did not fit into his
preconceived ideas and
biases.
Kaikai should, however, be
told in no uncertain terms that
his line of questioning was
totally prejudicial and designed
to antagonize and
disadvantage the Jubilee
Presidential candidate.
Fortunately, the DPM
maintained his calm and
composure amidst all the
provocation, displaying the
grace under pressure that is a
hallmark of the maturity
befitting a national leader.
Aside from testing Mr
Kenyatta’s patience and
displaying the arrogance, bias
and political affiliations of
Kaikai; the debate in itself
served no particular purpose
other than providing Kenyans
with an unsatisfactory and
shallow plastic discourse that
added no value to their
knowledge or understanding
of the pertinent issues
relevant to their everyday
lives.
Why didn’t Kaikai, for
example, take up Muite’s
gauntlet to challenge Raila
when the Safina leader
pointed that the CORD
Presidential candidate should
bear the greatest
responsibility over issues
arising from the ICC debacle?
A good moderator should
have seized this golden
opportunity from a lawyer to
interrogate Raila on the ICC. It
would have made the debate
all the more memorable,
probative and informative.
Kaikai should be advised that
the key purpose of any
presidential debate is not to
let rivals plough through the
misery – or personal
misfortunes – of competitors
but to market their credentials
and manifestoes competitively
to the Kenyan voters, in the
overall hope of influencing
undecided voters and ensuring
all voters make informed
decisions.
It was profoundly
unprofessional and tasteless
for Kaikai to use the ICC
indictments as a platform for
allowing the other candidates
to ride roughshod over Uhuru
without equally raising
questions related to their
suitability and competency. If
Kaikai had genuine intentions
of exposing the weaknesses
of all the candidates in the
debate, then he would have
dredged into the shady past
of candidates like the Prime
Minister, the Right Honourable
Raila Odinga, Hon Peter
Kenneth, Paul Muite, Hon
Martha Karua and Hon
Musalia Mudavadi, and former
PS John ole Kiyiapi, all of
whom are burdened by
varying degrees of either graft
allegations or issues of moral
probity.
It is with a heavy heart that we
say that, throughout the
debate, Kaikai behaved like a
guided missile with a pre-
programmed target –
Candidate Uhuru. This is the
last impression that a
professionally convened and
moderated presidential
debate should impart.
The Kenyan media’s inaugural
Presidential Debate got off to
a false start. It was a tainted,
loaded and totally skewed
spectacle.
ELEPHANTS THAT WERE
NEVER BROUGHT INTO THE
ROOM – OTHER HARD
QUESTIONS
Kakai excitedly introduced the
ICC issue as the only
elephant-in-the-room,
conveniently forgetting there
were many other jumbos that
are a matter of public
knowledge and media record.
He clearly chose not to
introduce them into the
debate room. It is unclear why
neither of the two moderators
probed Odinga over his
alleged role in several multi-
billion shilling instances of
grand corruption; most notably
the Triton, Maize, and Kazi
Kwa Vijana scandals that have
blighted the Prime Minister’s
Office for a number of years.
Worse, Odinga was not grilled
on his suitability for office
having confirmed in writing
that he participated in the
1982 coup attempt, an illegal
and unconstitutional
enterprise aimed at
overturning the constitutional
order in Kenya. Although he
admitted to playing a key role
in this treasonous plot in his
2006 authorized biography by
Nigerian academic Babafemi
Badejo – Raila Odinga: An
Enigma in Kenyan Politics –
this is one issue that Odinga
has successfully managed to
keep out of the public domain
in recent years, and Kaikai
appears to be one of his foot-
soldiers in this maneuver.
In addition, the two
moderators failed to put
Deputy Prime Minister Musalia
Mudavadi on the spot for his
alleged role in the complex
Goldenberg Scandal when he
served as Finance Minister.
Narc-Kenya leader Martha
Karua was not grilled on her
dubious role in the South
Ngariama Ranch and
allegations of moral
impropriety, all hard issues in
the public domain.
Peter Kenneth was not
questioned on his suspected
role in scandals involving the
Kenya Re-Insurance
Corporation and the Kenya
Football Federation (KFF)
when he was the head of the
two institutions.
And James ole Kiyiapi was not
questioned on his suspect role
in the Education Fund scandal
while Paul Muite was not
taken to task on allegations
that the Goldenberg Scandal
chief architect Kamlesh Pattni
paid him KSh20 million. Pattni
made the allegations,
complete with facsimiles of
the cheques involved, and a
senior business associate of
Muite’s confirmed that the
cheques were indeed banked
in their firm’s account.
These were major elephants-
in-the-room and Kenyans
were waiting for the hard
questions to be asked, a point
one of the pre-debate
analysts, the Nation Media
Group’s Macharia Gaitho, had
loudly alluded to ahead of the
debate.
Why did two such highly-rated
moderators fail to ask the
hard questions? Why did they
allow the debate to tilt so
unevenly in one direction? It
was a failure that smacks of
deliberate strategy,
prefabricated elsewhere, off-
stage.
No doubt Kaikai had listened
to what the pre-debate
analysts were expecting on
behalf of the Kenyan voters
but was suspiciously only keen
on introducing one elephant-
in-the-room, the ICC issue;
which was discussed for over
30 minutes.
We contend that the
allegations against Uhuru’s
rivals, whether confirmed or
not, go to the heart of the
ethics of the said candidates
and are covered by the new
Constitution. The moderators’
failure to address the issues
simply confirms their bias
against Kenyatta.
KAIKAI THE RAILA PARTISAN
Perhaps the choice of Kaikai
as Moderator was not a well-
thought-out decision by the
organizers. This moderator has
previously and publicly
displayed a soft spot for the
Prime Minister. Kaikai is
known to have expressed
interest in seeking a
parliamentary seat in Narok
on an ODM ticket in the 2007
elections, but was reportedly
talked out of his ambitions
and promised the post of
Director of Communications in
a Raila Presidency.
CHOICE OF PRE/POST
DEBATE ANALYSTS
The composition of pre- and
post-debate analysts was
deeply flawed. First, the
organizers did not consult
Presidential campaign teams
on the said composition, thus
it was abundantly clear that
the inclusion of hostile civil
society activist Ms Atsango
Chesoni was designed to
pump up bias and hostility
towards Kenyatta and thus
alienate a large bloc of voters
who depend on “talking
heads” like her to make their
decisions.
It was exceedingly bad
judgment on the part of the
organizers to include Ms
Chesoni amongst the analysts,
considering that she is the
Executive Director of the
Kenya Human Rights
Commission, one of the civil
society bodies that have
unsuccessfully been fighting in
court to have Kenyatta
blocked from contesting the
Presidency.
It is clear that the race is
between Uhuru Kenyatta and
Raila Odinga, but it still beats
logic why six other candidates
were allowed to participate in
the debate. We had
forewarned the debate
organizing committee way
back last year in a minuted
formal meeting that inclusion
of debaters beyond the front
runners, which is an
internationally accepted norm,
would significantly diminish
the probative value of the
Debate. Our advice was not
heeded, the Constitution was
incorrectly invoked, and
consequently the public
interest was not served.
Clearly some of the organizers
were keen to use the Debate
to further their own political
agendas and support their
favoured candidates.. For
example, Samuel K. Macharia,
the proprietor of Royal Media
Services (RMS) – which
contributed one of the
moderators – has openly
opposed Kenyatta’s
candidature and aligned his
broadcasting empire to
bolstering Odinga’s
campaigns. He was recently
appointed head of CORD’s so-
called Summit, becoming the
first media owner in Kenya to
participate directly in the
affairs of a political formation.
It is public knowledge that the
debate organizers were not
keen on the inclusion of
retired teacher Mohamed Dida
Mohamed and Senior Counsel
Paul Muite, who were only
allowed in when they obtained
court orders. This means that
as it now stands because of
the confused first debate
precedent, under Section 108
of the Constitution, which calls
for “equitable and fair”
coverage of all the candidates,
candidates who stand no
chance whatsoever of winning,
will and must participate in
the second debate.
HISTORICAL FACTS
While moderators have a right
to dig up past historical facts,
such rights should only be
invoked if they add
value ,enrich the overall tenor
of the debate and are relevant
to the voters without serving
to drive a greater wedge than
already exists between rival
sides. Therefore, it was
unhelpful and rather
sensational for Kaikai to replay
the post-Independence power
struggle between Jomo
Kenyatta and Oginga Odinga
that culminated in the latter
being detained. This is one of
the reasons for the “bad
blood” between the Kikuyu
and Luo. It can be argued that
replaying the fallout of
1966-69 was needless, except
to inflame the old emotions
and recreate suspicions
between the two communities
to further split the vote
blocs.It was highly insensitive
of Kaikai to bring the matter
up when Kenyans are still
healing from the wounds of
the tragic 2007/08 post-
election violence.
What’s more, the issue of
timing was actively
disrespected. Initially, the
organizers had promised the
candidates and the Kenyan
audience a two-hour debate.
However, due to
disorganization, the skewed
emphasis on the ICC issue and
lack of strictness on the
amount of time candidates
had to give their responses;
Kenyans ended up with a
three-and-a-half-hour Debate
that left both the participants
and the audience exhausted.
The candidates were on their
feet all of this time and some
of them had just arrived from
various grueling campaigns in
far-flung corners of Kenya.
This subjected the candidates
to unnecessary fatigue at a
time when they literally had to
think on their feet and
perform for the cameras.
Such blatant lack of respect
for time amongst media
professionals exposed the
organizers’ many weaknesses
in running the inaugural
debate. It is not worth
participating in a second
Presidential Debate under
such conditions and such
manifest lack of
professionalism.
AUDIENCE COMPOSITION
We also noted that the
organizers of the debate took
it upon themselves to invite
members of the audience
without consulting with the
stakeholders. While this is not
the greatest of our grievances,
we however note with concern
that some of the organizers
personalized the debate to
the extent of inviting relatives.
In addition, international non-
governmental organizations
(NGOs) that have been hostile
towards the Kenyatta
campaign in general also got
invitations into the hall instead
of local activist groups that
have been on the frontline
promoting civic education and
fighting for the right of the
ordinary person to be
recognized as a stakeholder in
Kenyan politics.
CONCLUSION:
With all due respect, we are of
the opinion that with less than
a fortnight to go before the
polling day; our Candidate’s
time can be better spent on
the campaign trail rather than
participating in a skewed,
shambolic and farcical Second
Debate.
The fact the media have
already cornered themselves
by having all the Presidential
candidates participate in a
lengthy, tedious and ultimately
pointless process that does
not bother to follow the most
basic rules of moderated
debate, including timing,
should not be used to box the
Jubilee team into the awkward
corner of another
unproductive debate.
It is our position that the voter
has a right to directly connect
with the candidates on the
ground and preparing oneself
for two days in readiness for
the proposed second debate
is not time well spent.
Based on these facts, we want
to make it clear that the
Jubilee Presidential Candidate,
Uhuru Kenyatta, will not be
taking part in the second
debate.
We, however, wish to reiterate
our readiness to meet with
members of the Organizing
Committee to discuss these
concerns.
Yours Faithfully,
Jubilee Presidential Campaign
Team
TULIA.........UFUNZWE!