Never used to give him a second thought as I considered him to be of royal or privileged pedigree and thus detached from the common woman or man.

However, things changed when Hague summoned him. In my mind, it confirmed that whatever measures he is alleged to have taken to stop the Kikuyu persecution was what a Kikuyu warrior should have done with pride, defending his people against aggression. From then henceforth,he became my man.

If he organized Mungiki or Kamatimu to hit back in Naivasha and Nakuru (That became the Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Kenya) then let it be and I will stand by him to the end.

In the meantime, I don't care about Mzungu interests in the country, they can go to Uganda or Togo. They have never benefited Africa since time immemorial. Check your records over Botswana if you doubt me. I know some small mind will quote Zimbambwe but we will be out of the woods eventually.

Check this..

Botswana’s success was the result of good post-colonial policy choices. Khama’s market-friendly polices led to high growth, and high
growth produced better policies that led to more growth. Thus, Khama’s policies were the exogenous shock that helped Botswana get on
a sustainable high-growth path.

This conclusion has far-reaching implications for the way we approach struggling nations in sub-Saharan Africa. If the wealth and poverty of most sub-Saharan African nations is largely the result of colonial and historical factors, then countries might be trapped by their past—even if they adopt good policies, their history and culture will not allow them to escape the poverty trap.

If, instead, the story of sub-Saharan Africa is one in which anti-market policy decisions were
made by Marxist leaders at the end of colonialism, then there is far more hope for struggling nations. One good leader, like Khama, is all it would take for an African nation to escape poverty. Policy choice—not historical determinism—is the real story of Botswana’s development in particular and sub-Saharan Africa’s stagnation which has over the years been aggravated by IMF policies on Africa in general.

Link

@Sure is a Socket!

Ruto was apparently duped into running the 'repossesion' campaign for his people together with others and he was championing for 'their rights' then. When Uhuru eventually decided he must also 'fight for' his people and unfortunately, Ocampo came calling amidst all the chaos, Ruto was left on his own. He hoped to sell 'BETRAYAL' to his people when the ICC charges became a reality just like his comrade Uhuru was selling the idea that he was defending his people. Now that the ICC cases have brought the two together, Someone else is now the person who actually sort to drive a wedge between two communities that had lived alongside each other for long by deception for his own selfish ends. Ok, the resentments between the two communities were there all along, thanx to years of bad politics but 2007 the mother of all bad politicking.