Kwamchetsi Makhoka
Exactly a year since Mr Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta resigned as Finance minister, he has placed his name on the ballot to be the fourth President of Kenya.
Mr Kenyatta left his post because judges at the International Criminal Court had confirmed crimes against humanity charges facing him.
They included murder, rape, persecution and deportation committed in the aftermath of the 2007 elections.
Despite millions of Kenyans begging Mr Kenyatta to stay on, his personal honour would not allow him. Staying on would require him to decide on how much money would be spent on resettling people displaced by the violence.
His desire to obviate a possible conflict of interest would not allow him to sit on the advisory board for the witness protection agency.
Granted, the Commission of Inquiry into the Post-Election Violence had recommended that all persons holding public office and public servants charged with criminal offences related to the post-poll chaos be suspended from duty until the matter is fully adjudicated upon.
Further, the commission, chaired by Justice Philip Waki, recommended that upon conviction on any post-election violence offences, a person shall be barred from holding public office or contesting any electoral position. That commission, obviously, wanted to turn Kenya into Mars.
It was with a heavy heart that Mr Kenyatta agreed to remain in government as Deputy Prime Minister, to carry on the prayerful work of seeking reconciliation between communities at public rallies in an attempt to heal the country from the schisms of the last election.
The fruit of his conciliatory labour is evident in the fact that when President Uhuru Kenyatta takes the oath of office, Mr William Samoei Ruto— another suspect facing crimes against humanity charges — will be by his side, as Deputy President.
In those prayer rallies, millions of Kenyans spoke without equivocation, saying that only Mr Kenyatta could ensure justice for the post-election violence.
Only he and Mr Ruto could guarantee the resettlement of the displaced. Only they could underwrite the safety of the 80 witnesses the Prosecutor of the ICC had lined up to testify in the two Kenya cases.
After a full year in the kitchen of government as Deputy Prime Minister, it is clear that Mr Kenyatta would never harm the hair on a single victim or witness’ head.
If Mr Kenyatta has not done anything to harm witnesses at the ICC, threaten victims or otherwise undermine the case against him, it follows that seeking the presidency would be the surest way to ensure justice for the 2007 post-election violence.
All those people who have been fabricating lies against Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto, about how they allegedly took millions of shillings to gang leaders in prison, or offered Sh50,000 for each head of an ethnic enemy, can sleep easy.
Having Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto in the presidency while defending the ICC cases against them would keep them so busy that they would not notice if one spat on them.
Until now, Kenya has fully cooperated with the ICC— handing over witnesses and documents, freezing suspects’ assets as requested and being of good behaviour.
The election of two of the four suspects would open a new chapter of mutual cooperation and assistance between Kenya and the ICC.
That is why Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto insist that once they have the support of seven million Kenyan voters on March 4, they will be in a better position to cooperate better with the ICC.
Had that not been the case, they would have gone around with posters in the persuasive style of Charles Taylor’s presidential campaign in Liberia: “He killed my pa; he killed my ma; but I’ll vote for him.”
But no, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto are campaigning on platform of national renewal and cooperation with the ICC. And they are going to State House.
Kwamchetsi Makhoka