Leaders formerly for the prosecution of PEV perpetrators at the International Court of Justice in Hague, are now back peddling and suddenly realizing the importance of preserving sovereignty...as though they just discovered the concept, since it never bothered them a while back when they favored the Hague option.
But let us first examine this thing we call PEV, the Post Election Violence. ODM (for the most part), believes or portends to believe that it was as a direct reaction to the rigging of elections and as such the primary culprit should be Mwai Kibaki and anyone who engaged in the alleged electoral fraud.
The problem with this argument is that the International Court of Justice is not concerned with prosecuting electoral malpractice but crimes against humanity. So whatever the motivation of the perpetrators was, that is immaterial to the court. Furthermore, just because those who participated in the violence feel that their actions were justified, that alone should not be a reason for them to object to a trial...after all, the court is the proper venue for them to come up with a defence and if it is as compelling as they seem to believe, then they should have nothing to worry about.
The second problem with this argument is the arbiralliness of it. Let us assume that some people did in fact commit acts of violence as a reaction to stolen elections. That would mean that during the PEV period, there would have to have been two kinds of crimes: the justifiable (as a reaction to rigged polls) and the regular crime which would have happened whether elections were stolen or not, since crime occurs all the time.
Now, let us say that one rape case which took place at a shopping center in Molo was committed by a mob protesting the stolen election and another one which took place in Naivasha was as a result of a regular pervert doing what he does. Who is to determine that one of the two crimes was a justifiable political statement and the other a random act of lawlessness? Doesn't that also mean that we free anyone arrested of committing a violent crime between December 29th, 2007 and March 1st, 2008 (or thereabout)?
The third problem: justice, in a case where there is a clear victim, is never about the accused but the victim. What the courts are going to concern themselves with is the actual people who lost their lives. So if ODM is arguing that their goons were motivated by the rigging of elections, they better be ready to prove that that peasant woman burned at a church in Kiambaa participated in the rigging. Likewise, if Uhuru or any other Central Province politician participated in retaliatory attacks and retaliation happens to be their defense, they better be prepared to show that the innocent people murdered in Naivasha had directly participated in the killings in Rift Valley.
Which leads us to this question: shouldn't the first person to be summoned by whichever court takes this matter be Raila Odinaga? Here's the rationale and please stick with me; a hit-and-run accident occurs, there is a dead body lying across the street and all but one witnesses give their varying accounts of what happened. One witness, witness R, however, claims that no accident took place at all...not wait, if any accident took place, the dead person must have brought it to himself because he is a relative of a known car thief. Now, whether or not witness R has anything to do with the crime, wouldn't you as a prosecutor want to have a few more words with him about the incident?
That is the position which Raila Odinga is in. The whole world but himself and the hacks, acknowledges that crimes against humanity were committed in Kenya. Why should he not be the first one to the Hague so that he can shed a little more light on his seemingly untenable position?
Elections were muddled up and that is regrettable, elections might have even been rigged and that is unforgivable but a worse affront against our country took place after the election controversy which made any theft of votes look like pick-pocketing. When the country exploded, only one person had the power to come close to ameliorating the situation, that person was Raila Odinga. He had the power to directly address those who were killing in his name and tell them that their true enemy was not their neighbors but the occupant of the state house and his cronies-in-thievery. The violence would have subsided, Raila would have earned international repute and approached the iconic status of Mandela.
But he chose to tacitly and sometimes implicitly support what was going on. And for that reason, even when Barack Obama mentions the heroes of the PEV tragedy, Raila is not among them and neither is any of those who believed that they were opposing the rigging of elections. The only people he reserved compliments for were those ordinary people who opposed the violence which Raila still believes was justified.