Why Uhuru Supporters Should Reject The Security Bills In 1960s-1977 the Jomo Kenyatta regime passed about 14 Amendments of key laws whose impact was similar to the ones signed by President Uhuru last week. Just like this Jubilee security bill, some of the laws were passed with frightening speed yet there was no situation warranting such emergency speed. The laws concentrated so much power on the Executive the same way these Jubilee/Uhuruto laws portends. Jomo Kenyatta regime was warned that those laws were an affront to the liberties of Kenyans but the regime could hear none of this using the then monopoly of power that manifests today in the tyranny of numbers. These laws eventually came to haunt Kenyattas core support many years later. To-date, millions of them reel in pains due to these laws that were celebrated in the 1960s/70s. The battle to undo those laws in the 1980s-2000s led to mass ejection of close to 3million of Kenyattas supporters from their homes. They today live in abject poverty with a vast majority of them unsure where to live next. I am concerned that the Security laws that Uhuru hurriedly signed into law last week may come to haunt his supporters at some point. First, they already have increased animosity against them. Uhuru should have rejected these laws so as to reconcile the nation. There was absolutely no emergency scenario to rush them through. Secondly, many of those amendments have nothing to do with the national security but controlling the society. When Uhuru is gone, and the battle to reverse them continues, the ordinary person may have to pay a heavy price. Third, such laws normally requires a limited time of application with provision for renewal/revisiting after 1 year or so. That is what the President should have advised. He would also have declined to sign them on the basis of the method they were passed- fists fight, disorderliness, chaotic scenes, etc. That process lacked any dignity and hence the laws have a coating of indignity upon them. To dignify them, the President should have declined to sign them.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 22:03:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015