Follow Us on Google
By Emma Emeozor
Certainly, Kenya made Africa proud as a village boy was sworn-in as the East African giant’s new president yesterday.
55-year-old William Ruto’s ascendance from the position of vice president to become the number one citizen yesterday throws a big challenge to African leaders who have been unable to imbibe the spirit of good sportsmanship in the political arena.
Though it was not an easy journey as his former boss, President Uhuru Kenyatta mobilised support for the opposition candidate, veteran politician and former prime minister, Raila Odinga, his victory has proven that a determined and patriotic political class can enthrone and sustain democratic values in Africa and indeed that power belong to all irrespective of social background of political contestants.
In his speech Tuesday after he was sworn-in, the former ‘hustler’ responded to the ovation that rented the air at the ceremony that: “A village boy has become the president of Kenya.”
Interestingly, though Odinga did not attend the inauguration ceremony, he had shook hands with Ruto before the ceremony and also issued a congratulatory message the night before.
But what makes Ruto’s inauguration profound was the demonstration of respect for the rule of law by President Kenyatta, Odinga, their supporters and the entire country, after the Supreme Court in its ruling in the election dispute brought before him by Odinga, declared Ruto winner of the presidential election.
Contrary to speculations that the country will be set on fire, as was the case in 2007 and 217, if the apex court’s ruling favours Ruto, the rising tension in the country immediately melted after. All the political stakeholders including Odinga’s camp calmly accepted the court’s verdict and chose to recognise and cooperate with the incoming government to nurture the country’s fledgling democracy to maturity.
This is a rare gesture in Africa where power-seeking politicians, particularly veterans like Odinga don’t easily accept defeat. Ruto received 7,176,141 (50.49 percent) of the votes, narrowly beating his rival, veteran politician and serial presidential candidate, Raila Odinga, who managed 6,942,930 votes (48.85 percent).
Kenya’s Supreme Court’s adherence to the provisions of the constitution on election disputes brought before it and its eventual verdict was a landmark in the political history of the country and Africa at large.
The court did not allow itself to be manipulated by politicians, rather it was firm and acted swiftly to the amazement of the international community. This explains the accolade that trailed its declaration of Ruto as winner.
And in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was kicked out of office by his Conservative Party, and a new prime minster, 47-year-old former Foreign Affairs Minister Liz Russ, was immediately elected to replace him. No fuss and no vacuum were allowed. The political events in Kenya and Britain are great lessons for ‘stay put’ African leaders who believe that they are ‘ordained’ to rule their people forever and unchallenged.
The former prime minister had petitioned the apex court to upturn the election result in his favour, alleging electoral malpractices. But Odinga calmly accepted the verdict to the surprise of pundits who had predicted he will reject the court’s decision since he had the full backing of President Uhuru Kenyatta. The in-house fighting between Ruto and Kenyatta had escalated to the extent that the president had to throw his weight behind Odinga who had been his foe. And for Odinga, 77, it was a fight to finish as he saw the election as his last opportunity to become the country’s president. He had tried unsuccessfully to occupy the coveted seat for five times – 1997, 2007, 2013, 2017, and 2022.
Vested interest gives way to peace, national development
Whatever be the argument for or against the stance of each of the three principal actors, Kenyatta, Ruto and Odinga, what is not in doubt is their respect for the rule of law and commitment to peace and national development, especially at this critical time in the country’s quest for democratic space. Their nod to the court’s verdict immediately weakened their supporters and prevented the type of bloody clashes that had trailed previous elections.
Kenyatta in his reaction pledged to handover to Ruto: He said: “I want to wish well all who have won as they guide our country into the future. I thank you all for the opportunity to serve. All the necessary orders to facilitate this process have already been issued.” The President further asked the electorate to respect the institutions that midwife their new leaders just as he urged the public to constantly put them under scrutiny as a civic duty required of every Kenyan.
Ruto announced that he and Kenyatta have spoken for the first in many months. “We discussed the just concluded General Election and the transition as envisaged by our democratic tradition and practice,” he said.
This was after he had said: “I haven’t talked to him (Kenyatta) in months…I know he worked hard in his own way. I take no offence that he decided to choose and support somebody else and therefore we will remain friends.”
Before calling the president, Ruto had told his supporters and the public that Kenyatta will be respected. “We will respect our president in his retirement… we are honourable people, we are not petty and we are not jealous. He has done a good job and he will have his place in the history of Kenya. Nobody should harbour anything against the president of Kenya.”
“I will also be putting a call to my worthy competitors beginning with Raila Odinga… so that we can begin to contextualise how we are going to work together for the people of Kenya,” Ruto said.
He was proud to say, “We are a democracy,” adding, “the majority have their way, the minority have their say… The administration will serve all Kenyans irrespective of who they voted for… The government of Kenya is going to be the government of all Kenyans so they have nothing to worry about.”
On his part, Odinga said on Twitter within an hour of the court’s verdict: “We respect the opinion of the court although we vehemently disagree with their decision today.”
“The judgment is by no means the end of our movement. In fact, it inspires us to redouble our efforts to transform the country into a prosperous democracy where each and every Kenyan can find their full belonging,” He said.
Independence of the judiciary and respect for the rule of law
Now, after years of political strife leading to colossal loss of human and material resources, Kenya has emerged as one of the top evolving democracies in Africa worth emulating by others. But more importantly, it has affirmed both the independence and supremacy of the judiciary in resolving election disputes, a practice that is yet to take root in many African countries. This is a lesson for other African countries.
The judiciary is the third arm of government that plays the onerous role of an unbiased arbiter. Its independence must be not compromised for whatever reason. Ironically, this has not been the case in many African countries, even as they claim to be democracies.
The Kenya Supreme Court deserves salute for sticking to the rule of law and for not compromising its integrity. It did not succumb to ethno-political and economic influence.
Again, the provisions of Kenya’s constitution on election matters, particularly the time for lodging election petitions and the period within which the petitions must be resolved is laudable and should be recommendable for other African countries where election disputes drag on for years in court(s) and even when a candidate may have ended his tenure in office.
Timely dispensing of election matters by the court makes the winner to settle down for work with calm and confidence. It also helps to heal the wounds of campaign and election quickly, giving way for the return of unhindered normalcy in the polity.
On time for lodging election petitions, the constitution says: “With the exception of petitions concerning a presidential election, all other petitions challenging election results must be filed within twenty-eight days after the declaration of the election results by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.
“A petition to challenge the election of a President-elect is to be filed within seven days after the date of declaration of the results of the Presidential election.”
On the period within which the petition must be resolved, the constitution says: “A petition to challenge the election of a president-elect is to be constitutionally heard and determined within fourteen days after the filing of the Petition.
“A petition to determine the questions whether a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament or a seat of a member of parliament has become vacant is determinable within six months of the date of lodging the Petition. A question as to the validity of a county election should be heard and determined within six months of the date of lodging the Petition.”
In the matter between Odinga and Ruto over the 2022 presidential election, the Supreme Court did not only stick to the time frame allowed by the constitution but its ruling was clear and firm.
Electoral victory, not exclusive right of old hands
A disturbing phenomenon in Africa is the notion that old hands (or veteran politicians) are bound or even ordained to be victorious in election(s). This class of political actors bestride the corridors of politics like colossus. They believe strongly in the saying that “Old soldier never die.”They regard any challenge by a neophyte as an affront and therefore leave no stone unturned to cripple such an opponent. They promote “do or die politics” at the expense of the unity, peace, harmony and development of the nation. Indeed, they are ruled by vested interest. But Odinga has shown that after all, the country and its citizens come first.
. . . UK’s ruling party throws out own PM
Interestingly, Britain elected a new prime minister few days after the Kenyan example. After his maneuverings to remain in office against popular opinion, Prime Minister Boris Johnson finally bowed out dishonorably. And a new prime minister has since been appointed.
Undoubtedly, if Johnson was a prime minister in an African country, no man born of a woman would have got the guts to remove him, not even his political party. It does not matter what offence(s) he had committed.
What did Johnson do wrong to have warranted the storm that swept him from office ignobly? He approved rule-breaking party at No 10 Downing Street during the COVID-19 lockdown, contrary to the order that prohibited social events. He was fined by the police.
Secondly, he was accused of cover up for sexual misconduct by a senior party official and thirdly, his Conservative party suffered two major election defeat which made the party’s chairman to resign.
The two election defeat were the loss of the rural southwest England seat of Tiverton and Honiton won by the centrist Liberal Democrats and Wakefield in northern England won by the main opposition Labour Party.
The question that readily comes to mind is: would members of a ruling party in an African country stood up against the prime minister or president and insist he or she must quit? Certainly, the answer is No. When will politicians in Africa learn? This is food for thought.
