How far will Ruto go?

By Standard Team

Agriculture Minister William Ruto is not only the self-styled leader of ‘No’ campaign against the Proposed Constitution but also the only Cabinet member openly pulling in the opposite direction.

Questions are being asked if his presidential ambitions won’t go up in smoke if the document he has called ‘poison’ and attacked as introducing an imperial form of presidency sails through.

There are also questions on Ruto’s political survival thereafter. This especially so given his emergence as the politician in Kibaki’s administration with nine lives, just as late Paul Ngei who, in the Kenyatta administration, ordered a constitutional amendment to help him return to Parliament after a petition against him was allowed by courts.

This argument is propped up first, by the fact that Ruto was almost brought down by claims the Strategic Grain Reserve was emptied under his watch and the nation famished.

Agriculture Minister William Ruto with Keiyo South MP Jackson Kiptanui (left) at a church service in Keiyo, at the weekend. Ruto intensified his ‘No’ campaign. Photo: Peter Ochieng/Standard

There were even claims he wrote at least one letter asking for the SGR maize to be given to a specific person. So far, he is the only minister in the Tenth Parliament to have survived a censure Motion.

Two, Ruto also grappled with claims Government’s imported and subsidised fertiliser was being repackaged in non-GK bags and sold to farmers at commercial rates.

This too Ruto survived, largely because he was the ‘whistle-blower’ even though in perception terms, it could have harmed him.

Mau saga

Three, on the Mau Forest evictions, he clashed with the PM, reinvented himself as the self-styled political stallion of the Rift Valley, but nationally won perception he is not averse to appearing as a tribal king even if it undermines his national stature.

Apart from the test of a lifetime on the proposed law, Ruto opened himself up to further criticism by choosing to vote ‘No’, which for the time being appears to be a minority even compared to the undecided.

There are two other hurdles he will have to surmount.

First, Ruto is one of the few ministers with a running court case and has weathered calls to step aside until cleared. Despite being imbued with nine lives, his ambitions could expire their last if he is found guilty by a court of law, and even possibly jailed, for either way, he will for the time being have to kiss public office bye.

Two, Ruto’s name featured in the people who should be investigated for post-election violence by Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), which featured prominently on the Pre-Trial Chamber’s reading companion while clearing the way for ICC to move into Kenya.

Ocampo’s list

Though he has gone to court to try and have his name cleared, arguing KNCHR did not afford him an opportunity to be heard, Ruto must be concerned, just like as his supporters, what it would mean for his career were he to be among the prominent personalities in the so-called Moreno-Ocampo list.

The heavy price to pay if this comes to pass, might not just be the prospect of indictment and maybe even trial, but the stigma and political liability of being or having been an ICC suspect.

Either way, the process begins with one having to step aside from public office, and with Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo projecting trials, should he amass enough evidence against the Kenyan suspects. The nightmare will start early 2012, and no one dreaming to run in this election would wish to have his or her name on Moreno-Ocampo’s list.

One of the burning questions is whether Ruto would disembark from the platform of ‘No’ and seek to run Kenya on a document he fought against so hard?

But there are those who will argue by choosing ‘No’ and by default realigning himself with the Church, whose rejection is based on conditional abortion and Kadhis’ Courts clauses, he could emerge a political hero if it is defeated.

But even more urgent is the question of what would be the possible consequence of a ‘Yes’ win in the referendum, with the support of President Kibaki and Prime minister Raila Odinga, when Ruto tries to stand in their way?

After the 2005 referendum, which Government styled as its project, President Kibaki sacked five Cabinet members for voting against the proposed constitution. They were Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka, Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o, Mr Najib Balala and Raila, who are all in the current Cabinet, and Mr Ochillo Ayacko.

Luckily for Ruto, however, despite going against the grain, the President and PM are not marketing the Draft Constitution as a government project.

Secondly, because of the disagreements in the Cabinet or between Kibaki and Raila, the Cabinet has not met for at least three months. Unlike in the countdown to 2005’s referendum, therefore, the Cabinet has not taken a stand on the Draft and probably the members are just following the whims of the principals.

Thirdly, there are several Cabinet members closer to Kibaki like Deputy Prime minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Kalonzo who oscillated between ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ then finally chose the latter on condition it would be amended almost immediately after passage.

Future amendment

The President, though having stuck to ‘Yes’ said last week the Proposed Constitution was 95 per cent good, but that there are sections he is unhappy with Moreno-Ocampo will support it with the knowledge it will be amended in future. It is, therefore, quite unlikely Ruto faces danger of being sacked by Kibaki.

The problem, however, will be how Ruto will take his ‘lone ranger’ tactics of crusading against the constitution when his party and Raila has taken ‘Yes’ to be the official position.

It would not help matters that Ruto’s defiant ‘No’ fits into the pattern of frequent falling out with Raila over the last two years. It will also reignite the bitter aftertaste among their supporters of Ruto’s suspension by the PM over graft claims and subsequent quashing of the step-aside order by Kibaki on the same day.

Those who support the argument the referendum could, in fact make rather than break Ruto, point to the fact that though Ruto is against it largely because of clauses on Land, the new document can only be promulgated into law if it is supported by over 50 per cent of the registered voters who take part in the referendum.

This means the ‘Yes’ side will require every vote, to cross the half-mark threshold or we shall be back to the current constitution.

The Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) last week announced with less than three weeks to go, it had registered half of the 10 million voters it projects to rope into the new register it is rebuilding.

The IIEC expects to register another eight million, before the 2012 elections. It, therefore, means if 10 million register, ‘Yes’ must get over 2.5 million votes under the 50 per cent-plus-one rule set out in the Constitution of Kenya Review Act (2008).

That is where Ruto and the Church come in, for every vote counts. But still it also draws attention to the question what Ruto has for the ‘No’ and what the campaign has for him.