If you feel a news story does not measure up to expected journalistic standards, bring it to the Journalism Dry Cleaner. Through our collective wisdom, we will strip it of all offensive dirt.




Thursday, 13 May 2010


Two decades into its dalliance with the constitution making process, Kenya's attempts at crafting an agreeable supreme law yet again enters another crucial stage.

But, as opined by renowned orator PLO Lumumba, Kenyans appear to have perfected the art of  'not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.'

As such,  it might well turn out that this historic moment goes begging again, with no previous lessons seemingly advising the latest attempt to midwife a new constitutional dispensation.

Why, for crying out loud, should a document that should ideally give Kenyans the best possible prospects in life bring out the worst in them? And why must this noble process be allowed to degenerate into a clash or contest between this and that camp or interest group?

Democracy dictates that Kenyans have a say on how they ought to relate to each other or with the state, and how the state should in return govern them. But it's always as if dictatorial forces take delight in formenting hard line stances in the name of democracy.

The 2005 constitutional referendum resulted in the country being polarized at the exact moment that it should have used the constitution making process to unite

It's either a con in the making or constitution making

If the current proposed Constitution is supposed to have stemmed from the harmonization of two drafts from the 2005 period, why isn't the country looking forward to the coming referendum in harmony?

These pressing questions aside, comes another shocker. That some copies of the the document being distributed to Kenyans at the current civic education stage, have been tampered with, with the Attorney General Amos Wako pointing an accusing finger at the National Security Intelligence Service.

Even the government printer cannot now be trusted to publish copies of the proposed Constitution as instructed by the State Law Office. But isn't this the same office that was being accused of interfering with the contents of the draft constitution in 2005, before it was subjected to a referendum?

There is clearly no point in teaching an old dog new tricks, when the old ones it has mastered are still relevant in new circumstances.

No comments: