By John Irungu | @gatambiaIrungu
Recent remarks by South African activist and leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters Party Julius Malema on the Kenyan election directed at Azimio la Umoja flagbearer Raila Odinga are preposterous and self-seeking for political capital and expediency.
Malema has been urging the Kenyan Presidential candidate to concede defeat in the just concluded election and whose results are currently in dispute at Kenya’s apex court after Raila Odinga filed a petition contesting Ruto’s declared win.
In his unsolicited advice to Raila Odinga, Malema’s call for Odinga to throw in the towel in his pursuit of justice in the vividly disputed electoral process is callous to the struggles of democratic and constitutional gains in Kenya. It is also insubordinate to the spirit of the pursuit of legal mechanisms in electoral disputes.
It’s true Raila Odinga has vied and lost several elections; however, what Julius Malema ought to quiz is Odinga’s allegations of electoral malpractice.
Malema seems oblivious to the documented and historic nullification of Kenya’s presidential elections in 2017. The Supreme Court nullified the election after Odinga raised evidence of illegalities and irregularities against the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission of Kenya (IEBC).
As a baseline, the 2017 nullified Presidential elections vindicate Mr. Odinga from allegations of clinging to power. After all, petitioning the Court in a Presidential contest is neither gratifying nor as easy as good morning. It is a herculean and excruciating task that comes with a cost in resources and time investment.
Such action is not for the faint-hearted. It’s for the resilient.
Mr. Odinga’s action symbolizes resilience for justice and belief in the rule of law in young democratic systems. His mark in Kenyan judicial jurisprudence in resolving Presidential petitions is nascent not only to the Kenyan electoral dispute but to the continent of Africa; this became explicit when the Supreme Court of Kenya nullified President Uhuru Kenyatta’s win in 2017.
A first for Africa.
It is not also not lost that Malema misses the big picture in Odinga’s pursuit of electoral justice. Odinga being a frontrunner Presidential candidate is not just a personal endeavor but a responsibility to almost half of the Kenyan population that endorsed him with their millions of votes.
As a democratic standard, Odinga owes millions of Kenyan voters who voted for him a legitimate win or concession if the process is fair and transparent. What Malema misses is the big picture in Odinga’s consistent struggle.
Malema should humble himself, understand and learn the electoral discourse in Kenya and while at it, acknowledge Odinga’s constitutional steps to contest the Presidential election in Court. Legally, the election process is not over until a President-elect is determined by the Supreme court or after a re-run.
While Odinga and his opponent Deputy President William Ruto, may be candidates, a win or loss belongs to their supporters and, by extension, the people of Kenya. Malema urging Mr. Odinga to prematurely concede defeat, is excavating absconding of the fairness and transparency of the electoral process, which subsequently would be a subversion of the will of the Kenyan People.
Comparatively, unlike South Africa, Kenya has a different democratic system. South Africa exercises a parliamentary system of democracy, where the President is appointed by a select few, seldom giving room for rigging and malpractice complexities. Kenya exercises the popular vote system, which may be convoluted in logistics and most likely lead to disputed results. Such is the case in Kenya and, recently, the United States, where the mail-in votes were a bone of contention among many democracies.
While acknowledging that there are no perfect electoral systems, democracy is always a work in progress, and that’s why judicial mechanisms are set to deal with aggrieved parties.
Malema’s call for Odinga to accept the results is also insincere and driven by personal vendetta or political expediency. By asserting that Kenyans should love their countries more than individuals (read Raila Odinga), Malema seems to overlook the legitimacy of the constitutional mechanisms to determine a contested win.
Further, his allegations seem to alienate factual and historical occurrences where Odinga’s win was clearly stolen. The most vivid example is the 2007/08 post-election violence, which almost led Kenya to an abyss.
That said, Malema should humble himself, understand and learn the electoral discourse in Kenya and while at it, acknowledge Odinga’s constitutional steps to contest the Presidential election in Court. Legally, the election process is not over until a President-elect is determined by the Supreme court or after a re-run.
Mr. Odinga, therefore, owes his supporters vindication if he convinces the Court of electoral malpractice. He also owes them closure if the Court upholds Ruto’s win. Before then, Julius Malema’s call for Odinga to concede defeat should be treated as premature with the ignorance it deserves.
Below is a video of Malema asking Azimio leader Raila Odinga to concede.
