A few months ago, I was subjected to a most uneducated verbal attack by a distinguished professor of the State University of New York. The irony hardly stops there.
First of all, Prof Makau Mutua lately picks Daniel arap Moi’s coin. Lest anyone forget, this ‘reformer’ spent decades labouring to portray the former President as a sub-human monster out to destroy the country and everyone in it.
The glee of the professor’s tweet as he announced that he was relocating his ‘talent’ to a media organisation principally owned by Moi did not reflect any hesitation, or discomfort with the incongruity. Prof Makau is not one to be hindered by inconsistency or integrity. After the last election, which his ‘crystal ball’ had assured him would go the Opposition’s way, he declared to the world that his freedom of conscience forbade him to recognise the new government.
Last week, however, he was offering unsolicited advice to the government, recommending that I be eliminated on the same grounds that Mr Miguna Miguna was chucked by Raila Odinga. Why was he giving this advice? His principal ground was that if I don’t go soon, I will start opening closets in government that had best stay firmly shut.
As I recall it, Miguna Miguna ran afoul of Raila Odinga when he expressed discomfort with the way ODM leadership had lost the reformist momentum and adopted the excesses of kleptocratic despots
Miguna was anxious about the political risks this entailed and cautioned everyone to keep their eye on the ball. We all know the unedifying denouement of this tragedy: in the end, Odinga was calling Miguna a lunatic, and the latter returned the compliment, calling Odinga a thieving tyrant. It was very much a Miguna versus Odinga confrontation.
By invoking the Miguna-Raila saga, Prof Makau suggests that I am pitted against the Jubilee Alliance and, in particular, the Presidency. What are his grounds? He cites an article I authored a few months ago in which I stated that under the Jubilee administration, the well-known networks of obstructive and corrupt civil servants would be laid to waste.
I was not stating anything new. In fact, I was reiterating a strong message that had been and continues to be made from the highest level. May I add that as I write, the wheels have begun to turn.
I was in no wise undermining or contradicting the government or the Presidency. The distinction in the two cases is so vast, and comparison with Miguna’s travails so inept as to herald severe cognitive shortfalls.
Now, when my article was published, two shocking things happened. First, a multitude of civil servants contacted me through all manner of media to thank me and express their support. A disturbingly large number of them also cautioned me to be careful since the networks I was antagonising had no qualms at exacting the ultimate revenge.
If I am not mistaken, this is the same network Prof Mutua loved to describe in the past as ‘deep State’, yet now finds himself able and ready to defend with vociferous menaces. He claims that when it comes to discourse on governance and corruption, one needs clearance to participate.
Preferably, Prof Mutua suggests that one needs the consent of this malignant network to canvass the Jubilee Alliance’s pledge of a clean government. As earlier shown, Prof Mutua is big on fundamental rights and constitutional freedoms. But he has no qualms announcing that I enjoy none.