|
LISTEN TO THIS THE AFRICANA VOICE ARTICLE NOW
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Kenya Kwanza Deputy President nominee Rigathi Gachagua came off the gates, guns blazing in the Deputy Presidential Debate held Tuesday night.
Gachagua was loud, angry, and almost belligerent, a debating technique used to give the audience an illusion of confidence and self-righteousness while at the same time masking areas of weakness.
On the other hand, Martha Karua, the Azimio la Umoja nominee, was calm and confident. She did not attempt to make wild allegations against Gachagua and his flagbearer Deputy President William Ruto, or use zingers to score cheap points. But she chose to be deliberative and factual, a style that has won her admiration all over the country.
It became apparent that Gachagua wanted to avoid talking about corruption and sought instead to use the euphemism, state capture, to shape the narrative.
In a hilarious moment, Gachagua dug into his suit jacket pocket, pulled out a note, and read the definition of state capture. Never before has a Kenyan debate candidate used a “mwakenya” (cheat sheet) to help his case.
It appears Gachagua had two missions:
- Redefine the debate from discussing corruption and make it about state capture.
- Paint himself and Ruto as victims of President Uhuru Kenyatta.
It was a brilliant strategy, and it almost worked, but Karua, fondly known as the Iron Lady, stood in the way, calmly countering Gachagua’s statements with factual rebuttals.
The Iron lady remained calm while Gachagua railed against President Kenyatta, blaming state capture for his and Kenya’s woes.
Those unfamiliar with current Kenyan electoral politics would have thought Gachagua was debating Kenyatta. He attacked him numerous times; it’s almost as if he had forgotten that Karua was his debating opponent and not Kenyatta.
The Kenya Kwanza number two described state capture as a situation where government officials use their positions to enrich themselves at the expense of common citizens.
In defining state capture, Gachagua described exactly the crime he is currently facing in court.
Over the years, Gachagua and his flagbearer have faced accusations of corruption. Earlier this year, Gachagua was dragged to court in handcuffs to face corruption charges, so it’s understandable why he’d want to stay away from the word.
Gachagua is currently facing accusations he used his connections to defraud the government of Ksh 7.3 billion in business dealings that took place between 2013 and 2020.
Ruto, on the other hand, has been accused of corruption on numerous occasions, even before his falling out with Kenyatta. In 2004 he was arraigned in court for defrauding the Kenya Pipeline Company of more than Ksh 274 million, leading to his suspension from the cabinet.
And in a grotesque example of corruption against a citizen and abuse of power, a court ordered Ruto to surrender more than 100 acres of land he had grabbed from a post-election violence victim Adrian Muteshi.
Muteshi sued Ruto in 2010, accusing him of illegally taking his land after he fled the area following the 2007 post-election violence that rocked the nation. The court also ordered Ruto to pay Muteshi Ksh 5 million for trespassing on his land in Uasin Gishu.
The above examples show that Gachagua’s state capture argument is just a way to deflect from discussing corruption. It’s clear that Kenyatta had nothing to do with Ruto’s corruption cases.
By his definition, Gachagua and his boss are the faces of the corruption he and Kenya Kwanza call state capture.
“Those who don’t understand principle cannot comprehend resigning.It is dishonest to earn a salary without serving. – Martha Karua
When her turn to speak on the issue came, Karua made it clear that state capture was just one component in the fight against corruption.
To put it in context, focusing on state capture and not corruption as a wholesome vice plaguing Kenya is like closing the windows of a bank and leaving the doors and safe wide open.
In this instance, the difference between Karua and Gachagua became apparent. Gachagua and Kenya Kwanza want to focus on the narrow fight they call state capture to defend themselves. In contrast, Azimio and Karua wish to focus on dealing with corruption, a vice which, according to the auditor general report, robs Kenyans of more than Ksh 700 billion annually.
At one point, Gachagua accused the Azimio ticket of benefitting from state machinery. The accusation is ironic because it seems to ignore the fact that the Deputy President continues to draw a salary and enjoy state privileges despite not performing his job. Gachagua is a direct beneficiary of the perks since he was named running mate at the tax-payer-funded Deputy President’s residence.
Karua pointed out that Ruto should have resigned instead of sabotaging the government. She questioned Ruto’s principles and said she resigned when she disagreed with the late President Mwai Kibaki’s government, and she never publicly bad-mouthed Kibaki as Ruto often does toward Kenyatta.
“Those who don’t understand principle cannot comprehend resigning,” Karua said of Ruto. “It is dishonest to earn a salary without serving.”
Karua said Ruto could not have both ways, taking credit for the Jubilee government’s achievements and blaming its failure on Kenyatta and Odinga.
She noted that Ruto’s claims he was not in the government were bogus because he still attends cabinet meetings.
It’s true that both I and my captain are projects, but projects of the people.– Martha Karua.
Despite being accused in a case involving billions of shillings in offenses allegedly committed between 2013 and 2020, Gachagua attempted to paint Karua as equally corrupt, citing an allegation that a British company bribed her.
Karua easily rebuffed the accusation, telling Kenyans the case never involved her finances and at no time did she return a favor to the company in exchange for the funds. Perhaps the weakest point in Gachagua’s accusation is neither Karua nor Odinga has ever been arraigned in court over corruption charges.
Further, Karua said she has no desire to become a billionaire and that her mission was to serve Kenyans.‘
“I’m not thirsty for land, I’m not thirsty for worldly goods. I’m happy to have a house in Nairobi and a house in my father’s land; Gichugu Constituency, Kirinyaga County,” Karua said.
Gachagua sustained his attacks on Kenyatta, calling him Azimio chairman in a puzzling strategy that left Odinga unscathed.
After ignoring most of the attacks, trying to paint the Azimio ticket as Kenyatta’s puppets, Karua had enough and dropped the bomb on Gachagua.
“It’s true that both I and my captain are projects, but projects of the people,” Karua said.
She later punched back harder when Gachagua alleged Kenyatta was controlling the Azimio ticket from behind the scenes. She pointed out that Gachagua was using the debate platform to settle personal grudges.
“Kenyatta has not assigned me any role in public or in private. The only person who has assigned me a role is Raila Amolo Odinga,” Karua said. “Kenya Kwanza’s beef with the President should not make them use this platform to fight the President.”
It’s apparent that Kenya Kwanza is unhappy that Kenyatta threw his weight behind Odinga. At the onset of the handshake relationship, many thought Kenyatta was toying with Odinga, and when the time came, he’ll drop him and revert to the usual tribal alliances.
But Ruto’s supporters panicked when Kenyatta stayed true to the agreement and endorsed Odinga over Ruto. Some in the Mt. Kenya region who have sworn enmity with Odinga took it out on Kenyatta, trashing his legacy and painting him as a failure.
Karua spelled out the Azimio plan; she gave Kenyans an idea of where they’ll recover the money to fund their priorities, which included closing corruption loopholes and using budgeted funds for their intended purposes.
With Gachagua failing to quantify how much money accounts for state capture, it’s difficult to see how Kenya Kwanza can claim to have an effective plan to combat its version of corruption or even get involved in fighting corruption, the single most destructive vice plaguing Kenya.
In contrast, Karua was clear about her focus on ending corruption, a vice the Azimio ticket has vowed to declare a threat to national security.
If the debate was about who was louder and angrier, then Gachugua won.
But the debate was about governance, sober leadership, and the future of Kenya. Karua was knowledgeable, calm, honest, and fair throughout the debate. She easily came out victorious.
View the full debate below:
LEAVE A COMMENT
You must be logged in to post a comment.