For those who don’t know, Star columnist Miguna Miguna is a civil servant, paid by the tax payer’s money, and is not an Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) official or spokesperson. He is the Kenyan Prime Minister’s adviser on constitutional issues and coalition affairs. Full stop!
Many of Miguna’s detractors always respond to his writings in a way that depicts him as speaking for the ODM. For the record, ODM has its officials and a CEO, Janet Ongera, who speaks on its behalf. As far as I understand journalism, the opinions expressed in Miguna’s columns are solely his and not those of his employer or boss’ party.
In the Star newspaper of July 25th, one Abdirizak Arale hit back at Miguna for the article he had written the previous week, saying that the Chairman of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission, Isaack Hassan should not hog all the praise for the success of the body so far in the handling of elections in the country from the time it was created to date.
Whereas he accuses Miguna of writing in bad taste, Abdirizak himself makes many sweeping statements without any substantiation. He says for instance that Miguna’s article was motivated by “ODM’s disappointment on the handling of the list of councilors that Miguna’s party wanted deregistered and the fact that Isaack could not be manipulated by ODM to bend the law in its favour.”
As I pointed out earlier, that fact is wrong. Miguna is not and has never been an official of ODM. The fact that he advises the party leader, Raila Odinga, who also happens to be the Prime Minister, does not make him a spokesperson of the party. Abdirizak needs to get his facts right.
In the same vein, Abdirizak makes some statements that if left unchallenged, will not augur well for peaceful co-existence and harmony in this country. In his defence of Isaack, he makes a general statement that has no basis. He says that Miguna’s article is “a clear manifestation of the hatred that Miguna, ODM and its leadership has for Somali professionals in particular and professionals from the pastoralist communities in general.”
This is stretching the argument too far without any solid basis. How do comments made by Miguna represent the feelings of ODM and its leadership? Surely, Abdirizak needs to get serious. He is accusing Miguna of hatred yet he himself is exhibiting signs of intolerance. What Miguna did was to question Isaack on certain aspects of his life. Is there a crime in doing that?
That is freedom of expression and no one has any right to interfere with it. Abdirizak may not be comfortable or even like what Miguna says but he should let him talk and express himself. After all, Isaack is an official serving in the public domain and the public has a right to question him in the discharge of his duty.
I agree that Miguna may have gone too far and seemed to be attacking the person of Isaack but that does not amount to an attack on the Somali or pastoral communities. Abdirizak and others should desist from dragging the names of their communities and tribes into issues whenever they are being questioned or interrogated.
In his article, Abdirizak further says that “if ODM was to have its way, no single professional from pastoralist communities would hold any constitutional office in this country.” Please! Looking at the appointments for ministerial and assistant ministerial posts that were made from ODM into government, one sees that Abdirizak’s argument holds no water at all. Members of the pastoralist communities were well represented.
In the latest appointment for candidates to spearhead the selection of new commissioners to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, the Prime Minister nominated Dr. Ekuru Aukot, a member of the pastoralist communities.
We also have other examples from other areas of great public interest in this country which exposes Abdirizak’s opinions as having no solid foundation. In the recent by-election that was to take place in Kamukunji in Nairobi, ODM’s candidate was from the Somali community. So where does Abdirizak’s opinion come from?
I wonder why Abdirizak is taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of the pastoralist communities. Are they special in any way? Does it mean that any person from a pastoralist community who applies for any office in this land should not be questioned and interrogated about their past performance in public life?
Abdirizak accuses Miguna and ODM of nepotism and cronyism while in the same breath he vouches for professionals from the pastoralist communities. Why does he only speak of the interests of the professionals, who are as elitist as he is, instead of speaking for the general good of the pastoralist communities as a whole?
In actual fact, I think that Abdirizak is not speaking for the good of the common man in the pastoralist communities, but rather, he is speaking for a few elite in that sub-group of Kenyans. Basically, they want to hog and protect what they can in the name of speaking for their communities.
By attacking Miguna using wrong facts, many people, even those endowed intellectually, end up exposing their ignorance of facts in the public domain. And I suspect Miguna enjoys seeing them making fools of themselves in the eyes of the public.
It is absolutely wrong for one person to vilify another person using wrong facts, the way Abdizirak has tried to do with Miguna. He should not drag other people and other groups into an argument that is purely between two people. Unless Abdirizak is a broker speaking for vested interests, he should try to get his facts right to support his opinions. Otherwise, let him keep the peace.
Comentarios