‘Fixing’ claims spark mistrust in Jubilee amid show of unity

President Uhuru Kenyatta (Left) and his deputy William Ruto.

BY OSCAR OBONYO

Kenya: The simmering row in Jubilee Alliance over claims President Uhuru Kenyatta retained advisors who ‘fixed’ his deputy at The Hague has unmasked fresh friction points between the two main coalition partners.

The tension between Uhuru’s The National Alliance (TNA) and Mr William Ruto’s United Republican Party (URP) could be aggravated by the United Nations Security Council’s rejection of plea for deferral of Uhuru’s case.

While the two coalition leaders put up a strong face of unity and harmony, going by enquiries within the two camps, the groundswell in the alliance is real and growing. 

The International Criminal Court’s cases — which have thrust the Jubilee pair into the dock — has particularly opened up old wounds of 2007 post-election ruckus, when Uhuru and Ruto were in opposing camps of Party of National Unity (PNU) and Orange Democratic Movement (ODM).

Deputy Leader of Majority in the Senate Charles Keter’s sustained demand that high-ranking officials in Kenyatta’s administration, who allegedly ‘fixed’ the DP at the ICC be fired, lit the a political fireball.

His remarks prompted angry reaction from National Assembly Leader of Majority, Aden Duale, who implied the Kericho Senator may have been under influence.   

Keter, however, holds his ground: “What I said I will maintain anytime, anywhere, any day. Those who say I was not sober, should prove otherwise.” 

Against the backdrop of the latest drama, the President and his deputy called for ceasefire on the verbal war and even shared a podium in Elgeyo Marakwet and Baringo counties on Friday.  

But nonetheless, The Standard On Sunday established three key sources of friction between the Jubilee leaders. They include hiring of senior government staff, duties and resource allocation to the Office of DP and the ICC question.

Senate Majority Leader Kithure Kindiki attributes the problem to possible pressure on the DP by members of his URP – a consequence of a pre-election coalition arrangement with Uhuru’s TNA, where each partners seeks autonomy in terms of power sharing.

The genesis of the friction stems from the fact that the DP’s handlers were outmaneuvered when they were let into having the deputy’s office to be literally ‘swallowed’ by and not just an important component of the presidency as spelt out by the Constitution.

Personal influence

As it is, the DP office relies on State House’s budget and takes its programmes and projects from the President. This, according to our source, whose identity we cannot disclose because of ramification inside government, is precisely what befell Ruto.

This was after his technical team, engaged in negotiations with Kenyatta’s a couple days after coming into power, and believing the DP’s office would bear more clout if it were lumped up in every way with the Presidency.

But in the process, Ruto lost vital tools of power and influence such as oversight over Efficiency Monitoring Unit, State Corporation Investments Unit and the Public Service Reform programme, which he initially eyed.

Instead Ruto’s technical team, led by Chief of Staff, Marianne Kittany, opted for the arrangement “of being part of the presidency”. Curiously, Ruto and Kenyatta found this model attractive. The DP did not want his office relegated to a lower level and reportedly wanted to be viewed as part of the presidency, for personal influence and operations.

The President’s handlers, on the other hand, supported the model for different reasons. They reportedly wanted DP to be part of the wider Office of the President, hence keep the holder on a short leash.

What the Ruto team did not realise then, according to sources, is that by agreeing to such an arrangement, they had automatically ceded independence and autonomy.

However, Baringo North MP William Cheptumo, who confesses knowledge of the goings-on, explains there was nothing sinister about this arrangement.

“The two constitutional offices are one and constitute the presidency. However, they are also two distinct offices of President and Deputy President. So the only challenge here is just the management of resources,” he argued.  

But the reality is the DP’s office, for instance, has no budget, no accounting officer and not even a Principal Secretary.

The import of this is that for every shilling Ruto and his staffers require, they must seek State House approval. This reality has not gone down well with members of Ruto-led URP, who feel their man is constrained.  

Describing the development as a just a hiccup, Cheptumo is convinced the President and his deputy are capable of overcoming the current crisis. “If they managed to put together a Cabinet despite their varying interests”, argues the lawyer, “then they can agree on allocating the necessary resources to the DP’s office”.

Prof Kindiki concurs: “While these are legitimate concerns, they are purely administrative and not political in nature. I do not think they are weighty enough to wreck our boat, as they can be addressed.”

During the formation of the Cabinet, Ruto reportedly opposed appointment of former ministers in Kibaki administration — Mrs Charity Ngilu and Mr Najib Balala — to their government. Ruto was also uncomfortable with Uhuru’s decision to retain two powerful Office of the President staff inherited from Mr Mwai Kibaki; Mr Francis Kimemia and Mr Mutea Iringo. 

The exercise stretched longer than expected and Ruto at one point publicly declared that politicians would not form part of the Cabinet. But the President reportedly forced his way, sowing the first seed of discord in the alliance.

“Given a leeway, Ruto is strong politician capable of running over coalition partners and it is preferable Uhuru ensures his deputy is contained. This is a deliberate move to ensure he is not politically empowered by denying him money,” argues Prof Amukowa Anangwe, a political scientist and former minister.

Intelligence briefs

Former Ntonyiri MP Maoka Maore concurs by pointing out that in 2007/2008 the country’s political leadership was in the mode of ‘fixing’ one another.

He believes since Uhuru and Ruto were on opposite ends, it was ultimately the business of their backers to ‘fix’ the opponent.

“Unless Keter is suffering from selective amnesia, he should not feign surprise over this ‘fixing’ matter. Jubilee told us after the presidential elections to accept and move on, but now I ask that we forgive and move on,” Maore went on.

Keter and fellow Jubilee politicians also anchored their 2013 presidential campaigns in Rift Valley and Central Kenya on account that key presidential challenger, former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, was the one who ‘fixed’ Ruto and Uhuru in the ICC cases.

Some Ruto allies believe Uhuru been insensitive to their man by retaining Office of the President’s operatives and denying him Intelligence briefs that would help in his case.