Ten Years on, Ten More Questions
At the crack of dawn on an August morning 10 years ago, two butchers on their way to the market bumped upon a white pickup that seemed to have crashed by the roadside at a lonely junction, near Naivasha, a 100 km west of Nairobi. In the dim morning light, the pair made out the body of a large white male, lying on his back, a shotgun at his feet and blood oozing from where the back of his head should have been. Also in conspicuous view, was a big pink rosary.
Two hours, later when the police arrived and a crowd had gathered at the scene, body was identified as that of Fr John Anthony Kaiser, a Mill Hill Missionary priest from Ngong Diocese, who was well known for his human rights crusade. He was an American priest who first came to Africa 36 before then as a missionary, freshly ordained. In the few years before his death, Kaiser had become the epitome of human rights in Kenya or the voice of the people, unafraid to speak out against the corruption that permeated the Kenyan government.
Silencing Critics
In an email to colleagues in the US, published in an article appearing in the Riverfront Times of St. Louis, Cornelius Schilders, former bishop of Ngong, Kaiser’s old diocese said that “In public forums and in the Kenyan and international press, Kaiser accused then Kenya’s president, Daniel arap Moi, of staging bloody tribal wars in order to drive people from their land and seize it for his cronies.” It was because of the priest that stories about the harsh conditions at Maela camp, a government dumping ground for internal refugees began to appear. Facing international embarrassment and the loss of foreign aid, Moi decided to close down the camp and disperse the refugees. Government soldiers arrived in Maela on Christmas Eve of 1993 but Kaiser refused to let them in, blocking the church entrance with his bulky frame. He was spirited away, beaten and left for dead in the forest but, somehow, survived.
For the remaining days of his life, Kaiser was harassed by agents of the Kenyan government. They tailed his car at night and threw rocks through the windows of his house. And yet, he was not cowed by all these. Many people who spoke out against the oppression and corruption disappeared, says Bishop Cornelius in his E-mail. Throughout the 1990s, Kaiser had been followed, harassed and even beaten and placed under house arrest by Kenyan police. He fought on. In 1998, when Moi set up the Akiwumi Commission to look into the causes of ethnic violence, Kaiser was determined to testify, and when he finally did in February 1999, his testimony caused a sensation. He claimed the government had instigated the tribal clashes, and named names including President Moi himself. The Akiwumi Commission struck Kaiser’s testimony from the record. Having taken on many issues and running into trouble quite often, a sympathetic government security agent warned him of plans to assassinate him.
So, what Really Happened that Fateful Morning?
Talking to media on the day the body was discovered, Naivasha police told journalists that he had been shot in a “gangland-style execution.” Andrew Kimetto, then Nakuru police commander, described Kaiser’s final hours to media thus: “Kaiser’s truck was hijacked and driven off the main road into the forest. He was pulled from the truck and forced to kneel and say his final prayers. An assassin then shot him in the back of the head. The killers drove the truck back to the Naivasha-Nakuru Highway, dumped his body in a ditch and disappeared.” He added that the crime scene had been staged to look like a suicide. Kimetto ordered an investigation into the murder.
The Big Concoction
But just as sudden as his death, a suicide theory emerged from nowhere and seemed to carry the day. “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Kaiser - cite_note-33#cite_note-33.” Kenya’s chief government pathologist and a pathologist from an independent human rights organization present at the autopsy concluded that the missionary was killed from a muzzle distance of about 3 feet (0.91 m), “From which suicide would be impossible. “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Kaiser - cite_note-34#cite_note-34 However, an FBI expert from Texas, who did not examine Fr. Kaiser but only saw photographs, concluded that Kaiser had committed suicide. “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Kaiser - cite_note-35#cite_note-35.” The Moi government readily concurred. “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Kaiser - cite_note-36#cite_note-36.” The FBI report said colleagues described him as “out of sorts,” “tense,” “scared,” “exceptionally nervous” and “haunted.” He was seen crying at Mass and spent nights awake with a shotgun by his side, and when he did sleep, “Father Kaiser could be heard calling out the names of prominent Kenyan politicians.” The report continued.
Yet that was all they relied on. Nothing about the threats he had received, the kidnappings, the stones to his house. Just the nervousness and fear. They did not even bother to read an open letter to his family and friends shortly before he died: “I want all to know that if I disappear from the scene, because the bush is vast and hyenas many that I am not planning any neither accident, nor, God forbid, any self-destruction.” Suicide is a mortal sin, a violation of everything Kaiser stood for as a Catholic priest.
Kaiser was Murdered, but Who Did it?
The Catholic Church condemned the report and began pressuring the government of Kenya and the United States to launch an inquest into Kaiser’s death. The Kenyan courts finally began the inquest in 2003, after Moi had been swept from power. It dragged on for more than four years, with frequent recesses and a change in the magistrate halfway through. 111 witnesses gave testimony and the magistrate called the FBI agents to the stand three times, but they never appeared or gave any explanation for their absence. The inquest ended on June 12, 2007, after hearing from the witnesses. The presiding magistrate, Maureen Odero, ruled on August 1, 2007 that Kaiser was murdered, added that the “Suicide Theory” was based on a pre-conceived notion, but stated that “she could not — on the basis of evidence tabled before her in the inquest — point out with certainty who the priest’s killers were.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Kaiser - cite_note-44#cite_note-44
Of What Use are the Ceremonies?
In Kenya today, the American missionary remains a national hero. Children are named after him. Every August 24, a big celebration for his life and times here is held. But that is almost all. Beatrice Odera of the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission at the Kenya Episcopal Conference (KEC) says the objective of the celebrations is to advocate for the progress of the case in the court. One wonders what case they are talking about with no single suspect in custody ten years later, no investigations ongoing and nothing much from the church hierarchy.
According to Fr. Vincent Wambugu, the KEC secretary general, after incessant prayers and reflection, the bishops decided that the late priest’s anniversaries should be held locally in churches rather than congregating for a national celebration. “The bishop’s wish is for the court to bring the investigations to a reasonable conclusion. Our strong message for this occasion is that the government should speed up investigations so that this matter can be put behind us,” the priest told The Seed in an interview.
A Litany of Murders
Ten years later, with a lot of encouraging talk and little action from the church hierarchy,one can only count, with amazement, not the number of suspects in custody but the number of missionaries sent to their early graves. Fr. Jeremiah Roche, an Irish Kiltegan Missionary was stripped naked and brutally murdered on the night of December 10, 2009 in his house at Keongo parish, in Kericho Diocese. A seemingly straight forward murder case, there is nothing to show for it except nine suspects in custody, unnecessary postponements and now, the transfer of the magistrate handling the case.
An Italian Consolata Missionary, Fr. Giuseppe Bertaina was also murdered in January 2009 by thugs, who walked into his office in broad day light at the Consolata Institute of Philosophy, Lang’ata, Nairobi. The thugs tied up the 82-year-old priest, stuffed his mouth with papers and fled with an unknown amount of money. According to Brother Kenneth Wekesa, IMC, who is following up the case, “the culprits have defended themselves and now we are awaiting the state council and the doctor’s findings.”
Then there is Bishop Luigi Locati, murdered on July 24, 2005 in Isiolo Diocese. A murder suspected to have been planned by one of his priests. Thirty five witnesses have given evidence and eight more are lined up. Another brutal murder happened in Ngong Diocese in 2004 where Irish-born priest of St Barnabas Parish Matasia, Fr. John Hannon of Society of African missionaries was killed by unknown people.
Mother, Protect your Children
The list of death is agonizingly long. And so is the deafening silence. But what is more agonizing is that mother church is doing nothing about it. Kill a policeman, there is fire and brimstone to pay. Kill a Muslim cleric and you will be smoked out of your hideout. Kill a Catholic missionary or even a bishop and issuing long pastoral letters seems to be the operating theme.
There is only one way to ensure quick justice is delivered for the innocent blood of missionaries shed all over the country. Only one way to ensure butchers going about their business at wee hours of the morning see only the blood of animals at slaughterhouses and not of Catholic missionaries. Take a stand and let the world know you will not sit by and watch your foot soldiers killed for leisure.
*The writer is the Communications coordinator of the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru and Assistant Editor CISA. This Article first appeared in The Seed Magazine of August 2010.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not represent the opinions of CISA.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
“Yes Win” that Gave Kenya a New Constitution
*Dominic Vincent Nkoyoyo
On 4th August, 2010 millions of Kenyans trooped to the polling stations to cast their vote for or against the Proposed Constitution. The next day 5th August the country woke up to a new Constitution! The old 1963 Lancaster Constitution to which Wananchi did not contribute was on the shelf of history! An overwhelming majority of Kenyans about 70% voted “Yes”
This obviously means that the majority of Christians voted “Yes.” So, where does this leave the Church leaders who, together with William Ruto led the “NO” Camp, although for totally different motives?
Were all our Church and moral leaders: Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and the rest of the Christian denominations in the country wrong in opposing Article 26 of the now new Constitution of Kenya due to its problematic clauses on abortion? Of course not. They were, if I may be allowed to say, 1000% right. Could we then say that the Christians who voted «Yes» were supporting abortion?
Absolutely not! For in African cultures a child is so important that the more children one has the better!
Another reason Church leaders advanced in their campaign against the Proposed Constitution was the inclusion of the Islamic Kadhi’s courts! But why were Christians not persuaded by this to vote out the Proposed Constitution? These courts had been in the old Constitution since independence and had never troubled anybody! They basically deal with Islamic family affairs. How then could Christians vote out a good Proposed Constitution because of this! And couldn’t we tolerate this and move forward as a country? Where is our religious tolerance?
One of the lessons we have to learn is that a Constitution of a country given then many different parties and forces involved can never be a matter of take it all! It is always an affair of give and take! Compromises are inevitable.
Many Christians voted “Yes”not because they had no respect for their religious leaders and not because they supported abortion; but because they could not afford losing such a golden chance to get a new Constitution which had evaded them for more than two decades because of an abortion close which could be amended later! In fact that Article 26(4) can still be amended, for the Constitution itself allows amendments! And the Proposed Constitution was clearly far better than the Lancaster Constitution. Had the Proposed Constitution been worse than or the same as the Lancaster one, wananchi could have voted it out.
But was it politically possible to amend the Proposed Constitution before the referendum vote? From the point of view of an ordinary man on the street maybe it was, but politically speaking, given the history of that document, it was absolutely impossible!
The Committee of Experts, on November 17, 2009, released the Proposed Constitution to the public and gave 30 days to evaluate the document. Whoever had proposals or amendments, was within those days, expected to forward them to their Member of Parliament. This was done and after several revisions, on February23, 2010 the Committee of Experts published the Proposed Constitution and presented it to Parliament. The amendments presented were many and some could not be incorporated in the Document as MPs failed to reach agreement on them! A total of 150 amendments were left out!
But fortunately on 1st April, 2010 parliament UNANIMOUSLY approved the Proposed Constitution! This was already a great achievement in the history of Kenya. In fact, at this very moment even before the referendum, the people of Kenya said “YES” to the Proposed Constitution. For the MPs who unanimously said “YES” to the Document represent all the Kenyan citizens! So already here it was clear that “YES” was to win.
This was a big political win and gain for both Kibaki and Raila. So, when Church Leaders suggested that the Proposed Constitution be amended before the referendum, only apolitically minded people could think that the two principals could contemplate such a move. Obviously, some MPs would have revived the issue of the 150 amendments which were not incorporated!
That Church Leaders as I have explained above, were absolutely right in opposing article 26, and that the Christians who voted yes did so not because they supported abortion, the question which comes to our minds then is: What exactly went wrong that the majority of the Christians did not follow the advice of their Leaders to vote “NO?”
After all that I have said, the answer is very simple. Church Leaders got “the socio-political analysis” of the situation wrong! And this led them to a wrong strategy of “direct confrontation” with the government which could not produce their desired goal of amending Article 26(4) and other contentious issues before the referendum!
Anglican Archbishop Dr. David Gitari had in my opinion a better socio-political analysis of the situation. He perceived that voting Yes or No both choices were problematic, but it was a lesser evil to vote Yes! And so he proposed the Christian moral principle of: When confronted with two evils, choose the lesser one, as the right way to go in that situation. I too believed that it was the right thing to do and I explained why in my article Time has run out, (cf.CISA, Issue No.046 Tuesday, May 18, 2010).
So I propose that Church Leaders in Kenya get better and well informed socio-political analyst to advise them in socio-political matters in the future. Otherwise, they will lose credibility and confidence of the people which is very dangerous for the Church. Their total silence during the 2007/8 ethnic violence also influenced the people in not taking seriously their advice to vote NO. That silence in such a critical situation wounded the Church very deeply and the wound has not yet healed!
This is the right time to wage a fierce battle to have Article 26(4) amended. And if they can tolerate the existence of the Kadhi’s courts in the New Constitution, then they will also have the support of the Muslims to have it changed, because they too do not support abortion. But should they continue to insist on the removal of the Kadhi’s courts from the Constitution, then, they will lose the support of the Islamic community!
*Dominic Vincent Nkoyoyo is a Monk at the Monastery Val Notre-Dame, Canada.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not represent the opinions of CISA.
On 4th August, 2010 millions of Kenyans trooped to the polling stations to cast their vote for or against the Proposed Constitution. The next day 5th August the country woke up to a new Constitution! The old 1963 Lancaster Constitution to which Wananchi did not contribute was on the shelf of history! An overwhelming majority of Kenyans about 70% voted “Yes”
This obviously means that the majority of Christians voted “Yes.” So, where does this leave the Church leaders who, together with William Ruto led the “NO” Camp, although for totally different motives?
Were all our Church and moral leaders: Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and the rest of the Christian denominations in the country wrong in opposing Article 26 of the now new Constitution of Kenya due to its problematic clauses on abortion? Of course not. They were, if I may be allowed to say, 1000% right. Could we then say that the Christians who voted «Yes» were supporting abortion?
Absolutely not! For in African cultures a child is so important that the more children one has the better!
Another reason Church leaders advanced in their campaign against the Proposed Constitution was the inclusion of the Islamic Kadhi’s courts! But why were Christians not persuaded by this to vote out the Proposed Constitution? These courts had been in the old Constitution since independence and had never troubled anybody! They basically deal with Islamic family affairs. How then could Christians vote out a good Proposed Constitution because of this! And couldn’t we tolerate this and move forward as a country? Where is our religious tolerance?
One of the lessons we have to learn is that a Constitution of a country given then many different parties and forces involved can never be a matter of take it all! It is always an affair of give and take! Compromises are inevitable.
Many Christians voted “Yes”not because they had no respect for their religious leaders and not because they supported abortion; but because they could not afford losing such a golden chance to get a new Constitution which had evaded them for more than two decades because of an abortion close which could be amended later! In fact that Article 26(4) can still be amended, for the Constitution itself allows amendments! And the Proposed Constitution was clearly far better than the Lancaster Constitution. Had the Proposed Constitution been worse than or the same as the Lancaster one, wananchi could have voted it out.
But was it politically possible to amend the Proposed Constitution before the referendum vote? From the point of view of an ordinary man on the street maybe it was, but politically speaking, given the history of that document, it was absolutely impossible!
The Committee of Experts, on November 17, 2009, released the Proposed Constitution to the public and gave 30 days to evaluate the document. Whoever had proposals or amendments, was within those days, expected to forward them to their Member of Parliament. This was done and after several revisions, on February23, 2010 the Committee of Experts published the Proposed Constitution and presented it to Parliament. The amendments presented were many and some could not be incorporated in the Document as MPs failed to reach agreement on them! A total of 150 amendments were left out!
But fortunately on 1st April, 2010 parliament UNANIMOUSLY approved the Proposed Constitution! This was already a great achievement in the history of Kenya. In fact, at this very moment even before the referendum, the people of Kenya said “YES” to the Proposed Constitution. For the MPs who unanimously said “YES” to the Document represent all the Kenyan citizens! So already here it was clear that “YES” was to win.
This was a big political win and gain for both Kibaki and Raila. So, when Church Leaders suggested that the Proposed Constitution be amended before the referendum, only apolitically minded people could think that the two principals could contemplate such a move. Obviously, some MPs would have revived the issue of the 150 amendments which were not incorporated!
That Church Leaders as I have explained above, were absolutely right in opposing article 26, and that the Christians who voted yes did so not because they supported abortion, the question which comes to our minds then is: What exactly went wrong that the majority of the Christians did not follow the advice of their Leaders to vote “NO?”
After all that I have said, the answer is very simple. Church Leaders got “the socio-political analysis” of the situation wrong! And this led them to a wrong strategy of “direct confrontation” with the government which could not produce their desired goal of amending Article 26(4) and other contentious issues before the referendum!
Anglican Archbishop Dr. David Gitari had in my opinion a better socio-political analysis of the situation. He perceived that voting Yes or No both choices were problematic, but it was a lesser evil to vote Yes! And so he proposed the Christian moral principle of: When confronted with two evils, choose the lesser one, as the right way to go in that situation. I too believed that it was the right thing to do and I explained why in my article Time has run out, (cf.CISA, Issue No.046 Tuesday, May 18, 2010).
So I propose that Church Leaders in Kenya get better and well informed socio-political analyst to advise them in socio-political matters in the future. Otherwise, they will lose credibility and confidence of the people which is very dangerous for the Church. Their total silence during the 2007/8 ethnic violence also influenced the people in not taking seriously their advice to vote NO. That silence in such a critical situation wounded the Church very deeply and the wound has not yet healed!
This is the right time to wage a fierce battle to have Article 26(4) amended. And if they can tolerate the existence of the Kadhi’s courts in the New Constitution, then they will also have the support of the Muslims to have it changed, because they too do not support abortion. But should they continue to insist on the removal of the Kadhi’s courts from the Constitution, then, they will lose the support of the Islamic community!
*Dominic Vincent Nkoyoyo is a Monk at the Monastery Val Notre-Dame, Canada.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not represent the opinions of CISA.
Monday, August 16, 2010
What now, after the Referendum?
CISA Editor,
The Proposed Constitution will become Kenya’s new constitution on 27th August, with the massive endorsement of the people. The result of the referendum puts beyond doubt the wishes of Kenyans to bring about fundamental social and political changes – a new birth, no less. They are now anxious that the promises of constitution, for which they have struggled for so long and so painfully, should be implemented speedily. Fortunately, the new constitution itself sets both a framework and a firm time-table for its implementation and with some sanctions for failure to meet the legislative programme.
What is crucial is that we do not sidetrack the implementation in all this talk of forget and forgive, we are all Kenyans, let us build bridges, let us deal with ‘contentious issues’. If we are serious about reform, we have to ignore these siren calls. It is not that we are against reconciliation; the question is on what terms. It is true that we are all Kenyans but we are also a society in which a few exploit many, we are preached to about morality by pastors of dubious morality, there are growing class differences and animosities, there is discrimination against minorities, the elite are determined to sabotage the reform agenda of the constitution.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than the dilemma that Kenyans feel they are faced with on what to do with the NO leaders. They are unlikely to have the numbers or ability to obstruct the implementation; but what moral or other responsibilities do we owe them? We should of course not victimise them for their stand. They would have full rights to take part in the debates on new legislation and measures for implementation. Many points of detail need to be determined in which they will have a role. But the argument for reconciliation through further negotiations on ‘contentious issues’ is not sustainable. It is only through implementation that we can convince the doubters what a good constitution it really is.
Kenya is not the first country where there have been opposing sides in referendum. The whole point of a referendum is to see which side has greater support, and to bring the debate to closure. Secondly, we must respect the integrity of the process. Our process has been long drawn out, with ample opportunities to negotiate differences. When we reach agreement in accordance with the process, those who lose repudiate it and set out to sabotage it. Democracy requires that the decision by an overwhelming majority of Kenyans should be respected. Nor does the decision impose any great hardship on or discrimination against the NO people.
Another fundamental problem in the reconciliation approach is the difficulty of identifying what are the differences that need to be re-negotiated. It is clear that many those who voted NO did not understand the Proposed Draft (and would in all probability have voted YES if they had). They were fed unimaginable falsehoods: That foreign children will be dumped on us, peasants with small holdings will lose their land, President Kibaki would be tried in the ICC, land on which miraa is grown will be confiscated, men will marry men, abortion on request will be available, community land will be taken away and given to the Land Commission, Kenya will be subjected to Islamic rule, it would be possible to detain people without trial, teenage girls will be provided with contraceptives, God will punish those who vote YES. Since none of this is true, there is nothing to negotiate. It merely remains to tell the NO voters the truth.
There are other moral objections to re-negotiation (apart from the injustice it would do to those who voted on the draft as a package). Most important is the highly reprehensible conduct of most leaders of the NO campaign. They knew full well that what they were telling the people were lies, playing upon the trust that people, mostly unable to understand the Proposed Constitution, placed on pastors and senior politicians. They, including leaders of Churches, violated their sacred obligations to their ‘sheep’, as they call the faithful, and misled them in a most despicable to protect their own interests, against those of their sheep.
Finally, it would be dangerous if ‘contentious’ issues were re-opened for negotiation – the Church aimed to introduce religion into politics and state. If they had succeeded, it would have destroyed chances of national integration and opened the prospects of civil war. They denigrated Muslims and their culture which in other circumstances would have led to acute tensions, but for the wisdom and extreme restraint on the part of Muslim leaders. Few multi-religious and multi-cultural states have escaped horrible fighting and oppression when religion is introduced into the structures of state.
Kenyans must remember that our propensity to forgive and forget is the cause of massive impunities and our present situation from which the constitution aims to take us away.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not represent the opinions of CISA.
The Proposed Constitution will become Kenya’s new constitution on 27th August, with the massive endorsement of the people. The result of the referendum puts beyond doubt the wishes of Kenyans to bring about fundamental social and political changes – a new birth, no less. They are now anxious that the promises of constitution, for which they have struggled for so long and so painfully, should be implemented speedily. Fortunately, the new constitution itself sets both a framework and a firm time-table for its implementation and with some sanctions for failure to meet the legislative programme.
What is crucial is that we do not sidetrack the implementation in all this talk of forget and forgive, we are all Kenyans, let us build bridges, let us deal with ‘contentious issues’. If we are serious about reform, we have to ignore these siren calls. It is not that we are against reconciliation; the question is on what terms. It is true that we are all Kenyans but we are also a society in which a few exploit many, we are preached to about morality by pastors of dubious morality, there are growing class differences and animosities, there is discrimination against minorities, the elite are determined to sabotage the reform agenda of the constitution.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than the dilemma that Kenyans feel they are faced with on what to do with the NO leaders. They are unlikely to have the numbers or ability to obstruct the implementation; but what moral or other responsibilities do we owe them? We should of course not victimise them for their stand. They would have full rights to take part in the debates on new legislation and measures for implementation. Many points of detail need to be determined in which they will have a role. But the argument for reconciliation through further negotiations on ‘contentious issues’ is not sustainable. It is only through implementation that we can convince the doubters what a good constitution it really is.
Kenya is not the first country where there have been opposing sides in referendum. The whole point of a referendum is to see which side has greater support, and to bring the debate to closure. Secondly, we must respect the integrity of the process. Our process has been long drawn out, with ample opportunities to negotiate differences. When we reach agreement in accordance with the process, those who lose repudiate it and set out to sabotage it. Democracy requires that the decision by an overwhelming majority of Kenyans should be respected. Nor does the decision impose any great hardship on or discrimination against the NO people.
Another fundamental problem in the reconciliation approach is the difficulty of identifying what are the differences that need to be re-negotiated. It is clear that many those who voted NO did not understand the Proposed Draft (and would in all probability have voted YES if they had). They were fed unimaginable falsehoods: That foreign children will be dumped on us, peasants with small holdings will lose their land, President Kibaki would be tried in the ICC, land on which miraa is grown will be confiscated, men will marry men, abortion on request will be available, community land will be taken away and given to the Land Commission, Kenya will be subjected to Islamic rule, it would be possible to detain people without trial, teenage girls will be provided with contraceptives, God will punish those who vote YES. Since none of this is true, there is nothing to negotiate. It merely remains to tell the NO voters the truth.
There are other moral objections to re-negotiation (apart from the injustice it would do to those who voted on the draft as a package). Most important is the highly reprehensible conduct of most leaders of the NO campaign. They knew full well that what they were telling the people were lies, playing upon the trust that people, mostly unable to understand the Proposed Constitution, placed on pastors and senior politicians. They, including leaders of Churches, violated their sacred obligations to their ‘sheep’, as they call the faithful, and misled them in a most despicable to protect their own interests, against those of their sheep.
Finally, it would be dangerous if ‘contentious’ issues were re-opened for negotiation – the Church aimed to introduce religion into politics and state. If they had succeeded, it would have destroyed chances of national integration and opened the prospects of civil war. They denigrated Muslims and their culture which in other circumstances would have led to acute tensions, but for the wisdom and extreme restraint on the part of Muslim leaders. Few multi-religious and multi-cultural states have escaped horrible fighting and oppression when religion is introduced into the structures of state.
Kenyans must remember that our propensity to forgive and forget is the cause of massive impunities and our present situation from which the constitution aims to take us away.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not represent the opinions of CISA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)