MPs’ travel to Netherlands must be on personal account

From the outset, President Uhuru Kenyatta made it clear that the case facing him at the International Criminal Court at The Hague was a personal challenge from which he would not cringe.

According to the President’s conscience, he is innocent and willing to prove that innocence.

He has never been overly emotional about it, yet politicians not related to the case in any way have been over-emotional, challenging the court, daring and demanding that it terminates the case against Mr Kenyatta “for lack of evidence”.

One can therefore be forgiven for thinking the Kenyan legislators were the appointed judge and jury at the ICC.

They have simply refused to let the court do its work and are eager to jump the gun.

In their excitement to “weep more than the bereaved”, the MPs could actually be doing Mr Kenyatta’s case more harm than good. The decision to go to The Hague or ignore summons is a personal decision that Mr Kenyatta must be allowed to make.

The President’s cool demeanour has managed to slow down those in Jubilee who had threatened all manner of things, including stripping naked, mobilising youths to block the road to the airport and blocking the runway at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.

It is good that the President seems keen on ignoring them.

Days to Mr Kenyatta’s appointed date with the International Criminal Court for the Status Conference, and before he declares his position, legislators from both sides of the political divide have inundated The Netherlands embassy with requests for visas.

They are falling all over themselves to show loyalty and be with the President in his trying moment. No doubt, at some point everyone needs a shoulder to lean on.

But the staggering number of MPs and other Kenyan VIPs applying to travel to The Hague when only a handful will get into the court is degenerating into a farce.

For despite the cardinal objective of according the accused fairness, respect and dignity, one wonders if any of those falling over themselves to be seen on the President’s side has spared a thought for the victims of the 2007/08 post-election violence. For while Kenyatta may be innocent, the actions of these top leaders might be construed to mean they (the legislators) are impervious to the case of the victims.

If these were ordinary Kenyans, it would not have mattered much, but they are legislators. Their first loyalty is to the electorate, not the President to whom they owe no favours.

 

Important Bills crucial to the economic well-being and development of the country are pending before the House. To our leaders, these are not as pressing matters as showing loyalty to the President.

The public is also not assuaged by suspect assurance that those accompanying the President will use their own money to fund the trip.

First, Kenyans have no means of ascertaining this, especially when the Legislature is fawning over the Executive.

Their role should be to nose around for any suspect spending and to hold the Executive to account.

Secondly, the Kenyan envoy in the Netherlands is on record saying she had made adequate arrangements to ensure the comfort of the travelling party. At whose cost, if not the taxpayer, were those arrangements made?