The Expensive Price to be Paid

President Kenyatta(right) during an ICC hearing a while back

 By Gathoni Mutahi

There have been various debates and talks by the media and the Kenyan people at large on whether the  President should attend the ICC proceedings at the Hague or not. African leaders on Saturday during an AU meeting in Addis Ababa resolved that President Kenyatta should not attend the trial against him at the International Criminal Court as from November 12, 2013.

The reasons that have been laid out for the sudden change of mind by the president and the African Union in general include; refusal by the ICC to cooperate with Kenya and AU in the request for referral, the difficulties and dynamics involved in running an African government without their leaders, and the alleged disregard and disrespect for the sovereignty of African states by the ICC. President Kenyatta went further ahead to state that his government's decisive election should be seen as a categorical rebuke by the people of Kenya of those who wished to interfere with their internal affairs and infringe their sovereignty. So in simple terms us voting in the duo seemed to have implied that we believed in their innocence and consequently rubbished the whole ICC process concerning their cases. Well, perhaps this could be the truth. By voting them in, if they really did win through a fair and free election we unknowingly or knowingly, depending on how you look at it, showed considerable doubt in their involvement in the dreadful 2007 PEV. But we must remember that during the campaign period before the March 2013 general election the president and his deputy did promise to honor the International Court and its mandate on their cases as they claimed they had nothing to hide and that their innocence would soon be proven. Suddenly, that seems to have changed. What the president a while ago termed as a personal challenge has now become an issue to be dicsussed by all African heads of state at extra-ordinary meetings. I personally don't see any reasons as to why the president should not attend his trial at the Hague. The Deputy President will be present in the country during President Kenyatta's absence so there will be no power vacuum unless the DP greatly doubts his ability as a leader to take charge of matters pertaining to the country. That's what a DP is there for anyway, to assist the President in ruling the nation.

 I see no red flag raised here if the President chooses to attend the trial. Kenyans(read the youth) are slowly breaking free of politicians who only want to use them to do malicious acts on their behalf so the two leaders shouldn't be worried of anything unconstitutional and destructive to the peace we are trying to rebuild, happening during the President's absence. The President and his Deputy should honor their commitments to the court proceedings and indeed prove that they have the best interests of the citizens and not just their own selfish agendas. In any case I doubt they'll be convicted judging by the look of things.

South African Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu had some time back criticized Kenya and Sudan for urging African nations to shun the ICC, saying such a move would make the “world a more dangerous place.” And I agree with him totally and according to Ugunja legislator, Opiyo Wandayi,“The AU resolution is an attempt to shield impunity on the continent as it is certainly not in the interest of the African people”

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)- Ayn Rand