Helt ute av sporet (Okumala ekigwo okulyaku kya okuziga)

Archive for the tag “IGAD”

IEBC Media Statement on False Whatsapp Conversation Being Spread on Social Media (24.09.2017)


Opinion: IGAD statement on Fresh Presidential Elections in Kenya is disappointing!

I know I have given Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) a lot of flack. Since their lacking work and also proven respect for the government members, instead of being direct and being critical to their work. Again, they have given a second statement on the Presidential Elections in Kenya. This after they commended it after the 8th August 2017 and was ready to give the powers to the incumbent. We will see in this statement where the IGAD stands, it doesn’t stand by the people or the rights of an honest free and fair election. But more keeping the institutions for the institutions sake. They are defending the IEBC, even after the Supreme Court ruling, which is following the law and codes to follow when concerning Electoral Law. This should be respected, but they fear the approach of reform and question the IEBC even further. Its like its a Multi-National Mouthpiece of the Jubilee Party. Look!

IGAD Statement today:

The Fresh Presidential Elections scheduled by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) for 26th October 2017, in line with the requirement by the Kenyan constitution that Fresh Presidential Elections be held within 60 days, provide another opportunity for the people of Kenya to show their commitment to their constitution. IGAD has every confidence that the will of the people will again be expressed clearly in the ballot, and that Kenyans will elect their leaders in the constitutionally mandated manner on the 26th October 2017. IGAD is however concerned by statements and actions from some quarters regarding the Fresh Presidential Elections. Statements and actions that undermine the people’s confidence in the ability of the IEBC to manage the fresh elections, as well as unrealistic demands that frustrate IEBC from conducting fresh elections, or indeed calls to boycott the Fresh Presidential Elections, put Kenya on a dangerous path. Whereas, as the Supreme Court determined, IEBC has to make certain critical administrative adjustments and correct certain errors that became evident on the 8th of August 2017. IGAD, based on its prior assessment, is confident that IEBC can execute its constitutional mandate to facilitate the expression by the Kenyan people of their sovereignty. IEBC must thus not be crippled from executing this mandate. Sabotaging IEBC or boycotting the elections will put Kenya in a constitutional crisis and likely on a path to Unconstitutional Change of Government” (…) “IGAD urges all actors in Kenya to reject those who would seek to interfere with the constitutional order by seeking to disrupt or prevent the court-mandated fresh election, thus putting in peril democratic change of government and ushering in a crisis from which unscrupulous actors can seek Undemocratic Change of Government” (IGAD, 2017).

I am disappointed by IGAD. IGAD has again shown their mentality and their reality, that fits the paradigm of the government that they work for and not trying to enforce a better state. They are loyal to their contractors and not loyal to the people. The IGAD proves again, that the state of affairs and loyalty to Kenyatta is more important that actually reform. The IEBC in Kenya needs reforms, it needs to change. The IEBC was ruled against in the Supreme Court, since their manufactured and doctored results could be proven. That they didn’t follow the codes and Electoral Laws. The Supreme Court followed the Constitution and didn’t create a crisis. On the other half, that was created by the IEBC, as they working closely to Jubilee and not validating the ballots and results. That is why the trust between IEBC and the people are at an all-time low. It isn’t the Supreme Court or the Constitution fault, it is the IEBC Secretariat for their decisions to not respect the people’s will.

The IEBC was not sabotaged, it was the IEBC who sabotaged and we’re holding the people hostage with the announced results for the incumbent. The statement proves he could be working in favor of Jubilee, not in favor of just results for Kenyans. Its weird, but not unexpected with the IGAD track-record. Kenyan opposition should and could boycott elections, as long as the IEBC is not reformed, if not is a second possible rigging scenario. Just moths after the other was hold. There been minor changes inside the IEBC Secretariat, but they are not transparent and not giving way for the challenges of possible rigging again. The computer generated Presidential Elections could easily appear in October 26th 2017. It might be a road into uncertainty, and the NASA Coalition knows this. Jubilee knows this too. Its not a clear answer, but the IEBC has to changed, if it will ever get trusted with doing their duty as civil servants. That is not the Supreme Court fault, they are just the messenger.

It would be undemocratic for the IEBC to announce anyone who was rigged into power. That should worry the IGAD, but its not doing so. They are more in-line of the process, instead of thinking of respecting the power of the ballots and announcement of the counted ballots. They are accepting an unconstitutional process, as long as someone is elected. The IGAD is a disappointing organization as they are clearly serving the elites of the nations who are members. Not considering the will of the people, as even them are defending the IEBC. It would be better if they we’re silent instead of releasing this statement today. Peace.


IGAD – ‘STATEMENT BY THE IGAD EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ON FRESH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN KENYA’ (24.09.2017) link: https://www.igad.int/executive-secretary/1655-statement-by-the-igad-executive-secretary-on-fresh-presidential-elections-in-kenya

DPP Keriako Tobiko letter to DCI & EACC: “Re: Investigation into Allegation of Commission and/or other Criminal Defences in relation to Presidential Election held on 8th August 2017” (23.09.2017)

Jubilee Party Letter to DPP Tobiko: “Re: Unlawful Access to IEBC Servers” (22.09.2017)

KTK Advocates Letter to Dennis Itumbi of The Presidency: “Re: Defamation & Injurious Falsehoods; Intimidation & Harrasment; Hon. Justice Isaac Lenaola, MBS” (22.09.2017)

Kilukumi & CO Advocates letter to Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) – “Re: Registrar of the Supreme Court” (22.09.2017)

NASA Statement: “Uhuru Enjoying Proceeds of Crime” (22.09.2017)

Opinion: CSO’s Paper to IGAD HLRF is revealing!

There were many insights and deep stuff in the CSO Report to IGAD, which has been written and submitted to Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), has put their stakeholders, and their pride into trying to forge a peace, even after the peace agreement of 2015 has been shot into tatters recently. The IGAD are clearly on a mission to sustain their place and their negotiations with the parties in South Sudan. As the conflict and battles within becomes more dire, when the consequences of not doing it, is more life in danger and a more uncertain future for the republic. Clearly, all parties knows what at stake, as the IGAD have proven not to be to impartial, as well as the foreign intervention from Uganda, has been in favor of the SPLM-IG, clearly, there are many more obstacles to fix before the due date of the newly proposed peace mediation. That is why the paper from the CSO is revealing, especially, the part if IGAD fail, which I think it will do, as long as people are sidestepping the SPLM-IO and the newly created militias and opposition forces. Look at their take if the IGAD fails, which is such a dossier.

“IGAD faces a daunting task in securing a political settlement through the HLRF process. Not only must it contend with the fracturing of armed groups and the proliferation of new political formations, but divisions among IGAD member states themselves undermine the diplomatic leverage that mediators have at their disposal. From the very start of the conflict, it has been clear that the four frontline states of Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan and Uganda are essential to the solution of the conflict in South Sudan. Only they can offer the incentives and disincentives that are needed to bring the various factions together behind the terms of a political settlement. To date, the vested interests of some political elites in the region have prevented IGAD from mounting a united response. The next few months will show whether the situation in South Sudan has reached a point at which it poses such a serious threat to regional peace and stability that the region is forced to respond accordingly, or whether IGAD’s ability to respond will once again be undermined by narrowly defined state or personal interests” (CSO Paper, September 2017).

“If the HLRF process fails, the IGAD region must accept that it is unable to resolve the crisis in South Sudan and hand over responsibility for the mediation effort to the AU. The four frontline states can still engage in the context of an AU-led mediation, but they should not be able to dominate the process and use it as a forum to promote their own narrowly defined interests. The AU should start preparing itself now by developing a political strategy for a possible AU-led mediation effort. This strategy should go beyond any eminent personalities that may be appointed to lead the process to consider how the AU approach would differ from that of IGAD. In addition, IGAD and the AU should make clear to the warring parties that if they fail to agree on a political settlement in the context of the HLRF, IGAD and the AU will request that punitive measures be imposed on parties who undermine the process. Such punitive measures are long past due and are the only means to communicate to the leadership on all sides of the political divide that the African region will no longer allow the people of South Sudan and the region to be held hostage to their leaders’ pursuit of power” (CSO Paper, September 2017).

It is really telling how they are explaining in these passages, the reality of the daunting task ahead, as the SPLM/A and SPLM-IO are the key component to the crisis and stalemate, but this in effect has created many more enemies of both. The former SPLM/A and SPLM-IO who has become their own parties and their militias, are within all reason making the road-map for peace more hectic. As there isn’t just two leaders who wants to be supreme. But a dozens who wants to topple them both, by all means and with full force. This should not overshadow the need for diplomatic and negotiations between SPLM/A and SPLM-IO, neither stop the SPLM/A reunification project, even how flawed both has been.

The marginalized and silenced parts of the discussions, the rebellions against both parties, should be looked at if the IGAD HLRF Process is a honest one. If the IGAD approach should bear fruits, the SPLM-IO ghost is haunting the process and the dialogue. As well as all the former generals who has created their own outfits, who needs to included, unless they want to create a new fragile peace. That could blow up any second after the ink has run dry. Peace.




Communiqué of the 720th meeting of the PSC, at the ministerial level, on the situation in South Sudan (20.09.2017)

NASA Letter to IEBC: “Re: Election Date” (21.09.2017)

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: