The real reasons why ODM is headed for a split can be revealed today. And the Waki report, it has emerged, is just being used as a smokescreen by the Rift Valley MPs, led by Agriculture Minister and MP for Eldoret North, William Ruto. The picture that is emerging is that the planned disengagement by the Ruto-led group from mainstream ODM has been in the works since the formation of the grand coalition government. The structure of the coalition government has been a source of friction among ODM MPs. The MPs are claiming that Raila Odinga, the ODM party leader, has reneged on the promises he made to the Rift Valley region which is a vote-rich region and overwhelmingly supported Raila in December 2007 elections.
The main cause of this friction has been the feeling that ODM was slighted in the filling of government positions after the signing of the coalition agreement by President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Actually the MPs have identified two levels in which they felt cheated. At one level is the feeling that ODM, through the Prime Minister position, did not get real executive powers to be in a position to influence the running of government. On the other hand, the Rift Valley MPs complain that they were short-changed by Raila in the distribution of slots in the ODM end of the coalition government, especially in relation to cabinet appointments. MPs from the south rift have been vocal on this issue as they feel they got a raw deal.
The other cause of discomfort has been the planned eviction of residents of Mau Forest which is being spearheaded by the Prime Minister. Mau Forest is the biggest water catchment area in Kenya whose demarcation for settlements has resulted in devastating climatic changes around the forest and the rivers and lakes that depend on it. Residents of downstream areas have reported increased incidences of flooding. The move to evict residents has roundly been opposed by the Rift Valley MPs, let by the Ruto. One of the reasons for resistance is that most of the MPs are beneficiaries of a disputed allotment of large tracts of land in the forest. Most of the allocations took place during former President Moi's tenure and most allottees were key supporters and civil servants in his government. The MPs insist that alternative land for resettlement with the same quality will have to identified before the residents can move out of the forest. They see the insistence by Raila that they should vacate the area as a betrayal of the same Kalenjin community that gave him overwhelming support.
However, the main opposition relates to deflated egos for some of the legislators who had high expectations that they would bag plum cabinet appointments once the coalition agreement was signed in February 2008. Indeed, it took great sacrifice by Kibaki and Raila to come up with the cabinet list. Each had to leave out key lieutenants from the cabinet, although in the end they ended up with bloated cabinet of 40 ministers and twice as much assistant ministers. Now the ODM MPs who missed out on cabinet posts have been in the forefront calling for the enactment of a law to recognise official opposition in parliament. The move has been opposed by Raila, arguing that recognising an opposition will weaken the coalition government. On the other hand, William Ruto has been in support of the move to have an opposition in Parliament.
Then comes the Waki report on post-election violence. The report is proving to be the final straw in the relationship between Raila and Ruto. Despite efforts to project a united front, the differences that have been building since March 2008 have now come into the open. Raila has called for the full implementation of the report. Ruto has read a sinister motive in Raila's stand and trashed the report as made up of 'rumours, hearsay and innuendo'. Raila's supporters, mainly from Luo Nyanza have supported his stand, while Rift Valley MPs have supported Ruto's call to reject the report. Now, Ruto is reported to have threatened to ditch ODM. Raila insists that leaders must not hide behind ethnic cocoons when matters of national interest are being discussed, in an apparent move to call Ruto's bluff.
The differences between the two leaders seem to be irreconcilable and the question is not if, but when the two together with their respective supporters are going to part ways. ODM as we know it will emulate the route taken by FORD in the 90s and the original ODM Kenya. That the schism between the two leaders is likely also to lead to the collapse of the coalition government is not far fetched.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Waki Report - Kibaki and Raila in a dilemma as The Hague approaches
Despite an earlier promise by President Kibaki to urgently commence the process of implementing the Waki report, the cabinet last Thursday did not discuss the issue at all. The reason given was that the issue was not on the agenda paper for the day. And who sets the agenda for cabinet meetings? The president and Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, through the Secretary to the cabinet, Francis Muthaura. Meanwhile the panic by politicians is evident as the date for the suspects with ICC approaches.
While the real reasons for not discussing the report may not be known, serious questions are being raised by MPs opposed to the Waki report with a majority being Rift Valley Orange Democratic Movement Party (ODM) MPs and also some Party of National Unity (PNU) MPs. These questions, unless tackled in a sober approach might make the implementation of the Waki report almost impossible, especially in relation to the proposed prosecution of the key persons involved in the organizing and financing of the post-election violence. The Waki commission handed over a list of 10 individuals to Kofi Anan to be handed over to the International Criminal Court based at The Hague (ICC) if the coalition government fails to appoint a local tribunal for whatever reasons.
Various arguments have been advanced by politicians as to why the implementation of the report should go one way or the other. But mostly the arguments have been advanced for selfish self-preservation reasons.
Possible culpability of Raila and Kibaki argument
One of the issues being raised is the level of involvement by the principles in the Grand Coalition Government (GCG), President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, in the post-election violence. The prosecution of the key suspects, whether by a local tribunal or by ICC could be severely complicated if those suspected can argue and show that they acted on orders issued by the party leaders, in this case Kibaki and Raila.
As for ODM side, the argument is that immediately after the announcement of the presidential results for December 2007 elections which favoured Kibaki, Raila Odinga called upon ODM members to go on a mass action to force the reversal of the results. This resulted in levels of violence never seen in Kenya before, resulting in ethnic cleansing mainly in Rift Valley where certain communities suspected to have voted for Kibaki were either killed or forcibly evicted from their homes. They argue that the violence and evictions were spontaneous and not planned in advance.
The PNU side would argue that the Naivasha violence, where perceived ODM sympathizers were evicted, was necessitated by self-defense and the action was sanctioned, as some have argued, by State House. The reaction by the police force to the violence and possible killings by police can be presented as having been necessary to tackle the violence and prevent further loss of life and property, with the government’s (Kibaki’s) blessing.
This is why some MPs are insisting that for the prosecution to happen, the names of Raila and Kibaki should be on the list.
The Waki mandate argument
The other issue is that the MPs are claiming by handing the names of suspects over to Kofi Anan the commission exceeded its mandate. They say the names should have been given to the President and Prime Minister. Also they have roundly dismissed the entire report as collection of fiction, that it is based on rumours, hearsay and innuendo, as per Agriculture Minister and MP for Eldoret North, William Ruto.
But the sad thing is that they have gone ahead and introduced a political (survival) angle. They have used this argument, without substantiating, to cast the report as having been prepared with the sole purpose of hurting the political careers of some individuals. It is widely believed that William Ruto will have a go at the presidency come 2012 elections, which will mean competition with his current party leader and Prime Minister, Raila Odinga. His supporters argue that those calling for the full implementations of the Waki report, including Raila Odinga, have the intention of bursting his presidency bubble, hence their opposition to it. But one issue being ignored is that ODM, including Ruto who was in the team negotiating the coalition deal, enthusiastically backed the setting up of the Waki commission. Secondly, the list of names has not yet been made public, so why are these MPs agitated about it? Is this evidence that they are culpable in some of the crimes committed? Do they suspect that they are on the list?
The guilty are afraid argument
The different positions taken by Kenyan politicians on the report depend on the perception as to who the guilty party is. Initially, immediately after the report was presented to President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, both sides of the political divide, ODM and PNU, fully embraced the report and called for speedy implementation. But as soon as they had read the report positions stated to shift. Initially almost all MPs opposed the report, probably because most suspected that their colleagues were on the secret list. The President himself called for some form of compromise on the report’s implementation in his speech to the country during the Kenyatta Day celebrations. ODM parliamentary group (PG) roundly rejected the whole report, on suspicion that the list has some of its key leaders on the list. The party’s top decision-making organ, the National Executive Council, later reversed the PG position and called for the report’s implementation. Raila has been wavering between full implementation and rejection, depending on which side he wants to please. Eventually, most ODM MPs oppose the report's implementation while most PNU MPs are calling for its full implementation.
Sovereignty argument
The issue here is whether Kibaki and Raila went too far to surrender Kenya’s sovereignty to foreigners. While the role played by Kofi Anan through the African Union (AU) and the international community cannot be ignored, in the heat of the moment the two principles may have subjected the country to unnecessary international scrutiny. The action by Justice Waki to hand over the list of suspects to Kofi Anan instead of the President and Prime Minister is seen in this light.
Supporters of this argument insist that the work of the international community should have ended with the signing of the coalition agreement. The rest, including the commissions that were later set up (Kriegler and Waki commissions) should have been a matter of internal resolution, using internal mechanisms. Therefore, the argument goes, the involvement of Kofi Anan and the ICC in the implementation of the Waki report while we have capable institutions is first an expression of lack of confidence in our institutions and second, a surrender of our sovereignty to foreign powers. However, it is important to note that the ICC will take over the implementation of the Waki report if the GCG fails to constitute a local tribunal.
The coalition/party collapse argument
The argument is that the implementation of the Waki report will result in the collapse of the coalition government and also political parties. The ensuring differences over the report have put a lot of strain within political parties, mainly within ODM and PNU and most observers predict political party breakups and realignments very soon. The stains are also likely to spill over to the coalition government, given the different positions adopted by the coalition partners. Already, ODM’s NEC has taken a different position from that adopted by the PG. On the other hand, parties on the PNU side like ODM-Kenya, NARK-Kenya, FORD Kenya, have repeatedly adopted different positions and made decisions independently as individual parties.
The differences do not just relate to the adoption or rejection of the report. Even those who support its implementation are divided as to the process to be adopted. While Justice clearly indicated the process to be followed, some politicians are busy looking for ways to circumvent the ICC route. Others are proposing a local tribunal with Kenyan judges only. This is just to show that with time running out, there are wide rifts as to how to proceed with the report.
What is amusing in all this drama is that while the politicians adopt various positions on the report, they are not consulting the people they represent to get direction on how to proceed. Various opinion polls by radio and TV stations have shown that most Kenyans are for full implementation of the report. And they don’t care what the consequences will be.
While the real reasons for not discussing the report may not be known, serious questions are being raised by MPs opposed to the Waki report with a majority being Rift Valley Orange Democratic Movement Party (ODM) MPs and also some Party of National Unity (PNU) MPs. These questions, unless tackled in a sober approach might make the implementation of the Waki report almost impossible, especially in relation to the proposed prosecution of the key persons involved in the organizing and financing of the post-election violence. The Waki commission handed over a list of 10 individuals to Kofi Anan to be handed over to the International Criminal Court based at The Hague (ICC) if the coalition government fails to appoint a local tribunal for whatever reasons.
Various arguments have been advanced by politicians as to why the implementation of the report should go one way or the other. But mostly the arguments have been advanced for selfish self-preservation reasons.
Possible culpability of Raila and Kibaki argument
One of the issues being raised is the level of involvement by the principles in the Grand Coalition Government (GCG), President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, in the post-election violence. The prosecution of the key suspects, whether by a local tribunal or by ICC could be severely complicated if those suspected can argue and show that they acted on orders issued by the party leaders, in this case Kibaki and Raila.
As for ODM side, the argument is that immediately after the announcement of the presidential results for December 2007 elections which favoured Kibaki, Raila Odinga called upon ODM members to go on a mass action to force the reversal of the results. This resulted in levels of violence never seen in Kenya before, resulting in ethnic cleansing mainly in Rift Valley where certain communities suspected to have voted for Kibaki were either killed or forcibly evicted from their homes. They argue that the violence and evictions were spontaneous and not planned in advance.
The PNU side would argue that the Naivasha violence, where perceived ODM sympathizers were evicted, was necessitated by self-defense and the action was sanctioned, as some have argued, by State House. The reaction by the police force to the violence and possible killings by police can be presented as having been necessary to tackle the violence and prevent further loss of life and property, with the government’s (Kibaki’s) blessing.
This is why some MPs are insisting that for the prosecution to happen, the names of Raila and Kibaki should be on the list.
The Waki mandate argument
The other issue is that the MPs are claiming by handing the names of suspects over to Kofi Anan the commission exceeded its mandate. They say the names should have been given to the President and Prime Minister. Also they have roundly dismissed the entire report as collection of fiction, that it is based on rumours, hearsay and innuendo, as per Agriculture Minister and MP for Eldoret North, William Ruto.
But the sad thing is that they have gone ahead and introduced a political (survival) angle. They have used this argument, without substantiating, to cast the report as having been prepared with the sole purpose of hurting the political careers of some individuals. It is widely believed that William Ruto will have a go at the presidency come 2012 elections, which will mean competition with his current party leader and Prime Minister, Raila Odinga. His supporters argue that those calling for the full implementations of the Waki report, including Raila Odinga, have the intention of bursting his presidency bubble, hence their opposition to it. But one issue being ignored is that ODM, including Ruto who was in the team negotiating the coalition deal, enthusiastically backed the setting up of the Waki commission. Secondly, the list of names has not yet been made public, so why are these MPs agitated about it? Is this evidence that they are culpable in some of the crimes committed? Do they suspect that they are on the list?
The guilty are afraid argument
The different positions taken by Kenyan politicians on the report depend on the perception as to who the guilty party is. Initially, immediately after the report was presented to President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, both sides of the political divide, ODM and PNU, fully embraced the report and called for speedy implementation. But as soon as they had read the report positions stated to shift. Initially almost all MPs opposed the report, probably because most suspected that their colleagues were on the secret list. The President himself called for some form of compromise on the report’s implementation in his speech to the country during the Kenyatta Day celebrations. ODM parliamentary group (PG) roundly rejected the whole report, on suspicion that the list has some of its key leaders on the list. The party’s top decision-making organ, the National Executive Council, later reversed the PG position and called for the report’s implementation. Raila has been wavering between full implementation and rejection, depending on which side he wants to please. Eventually, most ODM MPs oppose the report's implementation while most PNU MPs are calling for its full implementation.
Sovereignty argument
The issue here is whether Kibaki and Raila went too far to surrender Kenya’s sovereignty to foreigners. While the role played by Kofi Anan through the African Union (AU) and the international community cannot be ignored, in the heat of the moment the two principles may have subjected the country to unnecessary international scrutiny. The action by Justice Waki to hand over the list of suspects to Kofi Anan instead of the President and Prime Minister is seen in this light.
Supporters of this argument insist that the work of the international community should have ended with the signing of the coalition agreement. The rest, including the commissions that were later set up (Kriegler and Waki commissions) should have been a matter of internal resolution, using internal mechanisms. Therefore, the argument goes, the involvement of Kofi Anan and the ICC in the implementation of the Waki report while we have capable institutions is first an expression of lack of confidence in our institutions and second, a surrender of our sovereignty to foreign powers. However, it is important to note that the ICC will take over the implementation of the Waki report if the GCG fails to constitute a local tribunal.
The coalition/party collapse argument
The argument is that the implementation of the Waki report will result in the collapse of the coalition government and also political parties. The ensuring differences over the report have put a lot of strain within political parties, mainly within ODM and PNU and most observers predict political party breakups and realignments very soon. The stains are also likely to spill over to the coalition government, given the different positions adopted by the coalition partners. Already, ODM’s NEC has taken a different position from that adopted by the PG. On the other hand, parties on the PNU side like ODM-Kenya, NARK-Kenya, FORD Kenya, have repeatedly adopted different positions and made decisions independently as individual parties.
The differences do not just relate to the adoption or rejection of the report. Even those who support its implementation are divided as to the process to be adopted. While Justice clearly indicated the process to be followed, some politicians are busy looking for ways to circumvent the ICC route. Others are proposing a local tribunal with Kenyan judges only. This is just to show that with time running out, there are wide rifts as to how to proceed with the report.
What is amusing in all this drama is that while the politicians adopt various positions on the report, they are not consulting the people they represent to get direction on how to proceed. Various opinion polls by radio and TV stations have shown that most Kenyans are for full implementation of the report. And they don’t care what the consequences will be.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Cracks In ODM Over Waki Report
The myth of the show of unity in Kenya's Orange Democratic Movement Party (ODM) after a show of unity by the party's Parliamentary Group (PG) a week ago over the Waki report on the post-election violence was broken after the party's top decision-making organ, the National Executive Committee overruled the PGs decision to reject the report.
While this came as a reprieve for the party after countrywide condemnation of the earlier position, it set the party up for a split down the middle. Most ODM MPs, especially from the Rift Valley province, suspect that their names are included in the Waki list of 10 names handed over to Kofi Annan for prosecution by a local tribunal facilitated by parliament and appointed by the president, failing which the case will be taken over by the International Criminal Court (ICC) based at the Hague. This is the reason for great opposition of the report by the party.
The change of tack vindicates the Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, the party leader, who had indicated some support for his MPs despite his earlier call for full implementation of the report after it was handed over by the Waki commission.
Two reasons can explain this change of heart. One is that ODMs coalition partners, PNU, had earlier fully embraced the report and called for its full implementation, thereby projecting ODM as the guilty party, i.e. the guilty are always afraid. This projected ODM in bad light and the Executive committee had to work on reversing this image. Secondly, this was as a result of ODM leadership coming to their senses and realising that the report's implementation was an un-stoppable train. Waki had cleverly included clear escalation clauses if there were to be any roadblocks in the report's implementation.
As i have indicated before, Kenyans are prepared for whatever consequences that will occur with the implementation of the Waki report. Whether this will cause a break-up of the coalition government, ODM or PNU, even if we have to go for another election, so be it. We are ready. As the death of impunity in our country is finally in sight.
While this came as a reprieve for the party after countrywide condemnation of the earlier position, it set the party up for a split down the middle. Most ODM MPs, especially from the Rift Valley province, suspect that their names are included in the Waki list of 10 names handed over to Kofi Annan for prosecution by a local tribunal facilitated by parliament and appointed by the president, failing which the case will be taken over by the International Criminal Court (ICC) based at the Hague. This is the reason for great opposition of the report by the party.
The change of tack vindicates the Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, the party leader, who had indicated some support for his MPs despite his earlier call for full implementation of the report after it was handed over by the Waki commission.
Two reasons can explain this change of heart. One is that ODMs coalition partners, PNU, had earlier fully embraced the report and called for its full implementation, thereby projecting ODM as the guilty party, i.e. the guilty are always afraid. This projected ODM in bad light and the Executive committee had to work on reversing this image. Secondly, this was as a result of ODM leadership coming to their senses and realising that the report's implementation was an un-stoppable train. Waki had cleverly included clear escalation clauses if there were to be any roadblocks in the report's implementation.
As i have indicated before, Kenyans are prepared for whatever consequences that will occur with the implementation of the Waki report. Whether this will cause a break-up of the coalition government, ODM or PNU, even if we have to go for another election, so be it. We are ready. As the death of impunity in our country is finally in sight.
Kenya Internal Refugees Tear-gassed
The grave situation facing Kenya's internally displaced persons (IDPs) was brought to the fore yesterday. The IDP situation was as a result of ethnic cleansing operations by certain tribes led by their leaders in Kenya immediately after the announcement of the winner in hotly contested and controversial presidential elections in December 2007.
Yesterday some of the IDPs who are yet to be resettled by the government, despite promises to do so, arrived in Nairobi, the country's capital city, to seek audience with President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister, Raila Odinga. They had travelled for more than 500 kilometers to get to the city, from Eldoret, Trans Nzoia and elsewhere. They wanted to be told categorically about the plans to resettle them, after almost a year in dilapidated refugee camps. The group was composed of mainly elderly women and children. This was happening as the so called leaders zoomed nearby in their 4x4 fuel guzzlers, peering at them in amusement from behind their dark-tinted car windows.
The result? As they confidently marched in the city, they were met by heavily-armed anti-riot police contingents who dispersed them by shooting rubber bullets in the air and lobbing tear-gas canisters at them. That was the end of their quest to meet the two gentlemen.
That no government functionary was willing to listen to them is an indication that our leaders are insensitive to the cause of the normal mwananchi. The leaders seem to have forgotten what caused the internal displacements once they got into positions of power. Furthermore the same IDPs were the ones who voted one way or the other for the same leaders.
The internal refugees are not in a position to fend for themselves, without urgent government intervention, and a solution should be implemented as soon as possible to minimise their suffering. At worst, the coalition government should give itself until the end of this year to resolve this issue, once and for all.
Yesterday some of the IDPs who are yet to be resettled by the government, despite promises to do so, arrived in Nairobi, the country's capital city, to seek audience with President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister, Raila Odinga. They had travelled for more than 500 kilometers to get to the city, from Eldoret, Trans Nzoia and elsewhere. They wanted to be told categorically about the plans to resettle them, after almost a year in dilapidated refugee camps. The group was composed of mainly elderly women and children. This was happening as the so called leaders zoomed nearby in their 4x4 fuel guzzlers, peering at them in amusement from behind their dark-tinted car windows.
The result? As they confidently marched in the city, they were met by heavily-armed anti-riot police contingents who dispersed them by shooting rubber bullets in the air and lobbing tear-gas canisters at them. That was the end of their quest to meet the two gentlemen.
That no government functionary was willing to listen to them is an indication that our leaders are insensitive to the cause of the normal mwananchi. The leaders seem to have forgotten what caused the internal displacements once they got into positions of power. Furthermore the same IDPs were the ones who voted one way or the other for the same leaders.
The internal refugees are not in a position to fend for themselves, without urgent government intervention, and a solution should be implemented as soon as possible to minimise their suffering. At worst, the coalition government should give itself until the end of this year to resolve this issue, once and for all.
Kenyan MPs Blackmail Government Over Plans To Tax Them
It was another sad day for Kenyans.
Kenyan Members of Parliament boxed the coalition government into a corner when they dilly-dallied in passing the government budget for the period 2008/9. The reason for this was the inclusion in the current budget to tax the MPs on allowances totaling to almost Ksh 1,000,000/= (US$ 14,000) per month. Kenyan MPs are the best paid in the whole of Africa and among the best paid in the world. The tactic they used was to absent themselves whenever debate on the budget was on the order paper. Kenya is classified as one of the poorest countries in the world, with a per capita income of less than US$ 500.
The absenteeism had been going on since the budget was read by the then Finance Minister, Amos Kimunya in June 2008. Indeed, in July 2008 Mr. Kimunya was impeached by parliament over the Grand Regency Saga and it was suspected that one of the catalysts for the impeachment process was the inclusion of this tax proposal in the budget.
Now, the government had until December 31, 2008 to have the budget passed by parliament, otherwise it would have no powers legally to implement any of the tax measures come 1st January, 2009, resulting in an awkward situation where the government has no authority to collect taxes to fund its programs. Of course the MPs were privy to this and hence their behaviour. The acting Finance Minister, John Michuki, had to rescue the situation by agreeing to delete the 'offensive' clauses.
This is in essence a very grave situation. The Kenyan MPs order of business every 5 years after elections, save for 2008, is to allocate themselves all sorts of enhanced allowances over and above their salary, accumulating over time to the figure indicated above. Most of the current MPs were elected in December 2007 on the pledge that they would be willing to have their hefty allowances taxed to contribute to national development, just like every other citizen. This is the reason why Mr. Kimunya was all too willing to include this taxation clause in the budget. The tax allocated from this source was around Ksh 800,000,000 (US$ 11 million).
This action is further evidence that Kenyan MPs are in it for money and wealth and not service to their constituents. They are not willing to sacrifice like everyone else to contribute to the national kitty. As a result of their rejection to be taxed, the government will have to look for alternative sources of funds to minimise the expanding budget deficit. Obviously the people to suffer are the current overbuddened tax payers who will be the first target for more tax, and then the wananchi in general who will have to do with less government funding for projects.
That they are not willing to be taxed like everyone else casts them as insensitive and greedy. It is high time that the MPs rose to the occassion and changed tack on this issue.
Kenyan Members of Parliament boxed the coalition government into a corner when they dilly-dallied in passing the government budget for the period 2008/9. The reason for this was the inclusion in the current budget to tax the MPs on allowances totaling to almost Ksh 1,000,000/= (US$ 14,000) per month. Kenyan MPs are the best paid in the whole of Africa and among the best paid in the world. The tactic they used was to absent themselves whenever debate on the budget was on the order paper. Kenya is classified as one of the poorest countries in the world, with a per capita income of less than US$ 500.
The absenteeism had been going on since the budget was read by the then Finance Minister, Amos Kimunya in June 2008. Indeed, in July 2008 Mr. Kimunya was impeached by parliament over the Grand Regency Saga and it was suspected that one of the catalysts for the impeachment process was the inclusion of this tax proposal in the budget.
Now, the government had until December 31, 2008 to have the budget passed by parliament, otherwise it would have no powers legally to implement any of the tax measures come 1st January, 2009, resulting in an awkward situation where the government has no authority to collect taxes to fund its programs. Of course the MPs were privy to this and hence their behaviour. The acting Finance Minister, John Michuki, had to rescue the situation by agreeing to delete the 'offensive' clauses.
This is in essence a very grave situation. The Kenyan MPs order of business every 5 years after elections, save for 2008, is to allocate themselves all sorts of enhanced allowances over and above their salary, accumulating over time to the figure indicated above. Most of the current MPs were elected in December 2007 on the pledge that they would be willing to have their hefty allowances taxed to contribute to national development, just like every other citizen. This is the reason why Mr. Kimunya was all too willing to include this taxation clause in the budget. The tax allocated from this source was around Ksh 800,000,000 (US$ 11 million).
This action is further evidence that Kenyan MPs are in it for money and wealth and not service to their constituents. They are not willing to sacrifice like everyone else to contribute to the national kitty. As a result of their rejection to be taxed, the government will have to look for alternative sources of funds to minimise the expanding budget deficit. Obviously the people to suffer are the current overbuddened tax payers who will be the first target for more tax, and then the wananchi in general who will have to do with less government funding for projects.
That they are not willing to be taxed like everyone else casts them as insensitive and greedy. It is high time that the MPs rose to the occassion and changed tack on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
