Lessons Learnt about Raila Odinga

SUMMARY: NASA leader had planned to swear in Raila Odinga if Uhuru Kenyatta is sworn in as president
Raila Odinga has however rejected calls to swear him in

The constitution of Kenya expressly guides on assumption of Office for President & Deputy President; the swearing in of the President-elect shall be in public before the Chief Justice, or, in the absence of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice.

The President-elect shall be sworn in on the first Tuesday following the fourteenth day after the date of the declaration of the result of the presidential election, if no petition has been filed under Article 140; or the seventh day following the date on which the court renders a decision declaring the election to be valid, if any petition has been filed under Article 140.

The President-elect assumes office by taking and subscribing the oath or affirmation of allegiance, and the oath or affirmation for the execution of the functions of office, as prescribed in the Third Schedule. This is found in Chapter 9 of the document- the executive. The public declaration by National Super Alliance (NASA) side that they will swear their leader Raila Amollo Odinga is not constitutional and is a recipe for chaos. Raila knows it too well and that's why he played it down. Here are five things we learn about the Opposition leader after he declined being sworn-in by NASA leaders.

1. Gentleman

They say that a gentleman is simply a patient wolf. In Raila’s scenario, methinks that Tuesday will be the end of all theatrics. Although he cited his global reputation, his swearing in plan diversion is a sign that he walks his talk. He's a strong believer of the constitution thus had to abide by it. A gentleman would be ashamed should his deeds not match his words.

2. Constitution's respect

In his longtime quest for power Raila has come out as a leader who treasures the constitutional order and acknowledges its supremacy. By being sworn in concurrently with President Kenyatta, Raila would come out as anti-constitution and above all as a chaos loving leader because such a move would cause confusion and political crisis which would/can tear the nation apart. He respects the Supreme law hence will employ constitutional avenues to advance his cause.

3. Peacemaker

By not getting involved and distancing himself from the unconstitutional event's discussion, Raila portrays himself as a peace loving leader. Whilst he suffers pressure from his inner circle, he had to 'disappoint' them and lead them towards a direction that will leave his name intact as far as breach of peace is concerned. Many a times in our history, leaders are misled by persons around them, mostly for those persons own gain.

4. Wise

It's an epitome of wisdom not to bow down to pressure from your allies. Any negative impact of his swearing in would have been attributed to him. This would negate all his contributions to the democratic nation that Kenya is today. It takes years to build reputation but it takes seconds to destroy it. Raila knows this pretty well and wouldn't fall for any move that would taint his image.

5. Coward

His supporters and haters will call his declination to be sworn in a cowardly move but as they say, "cowards live longer. After Tuesday 28th November 2017, Raila has an opportunity to be anything he wants including the president of this nation (2022) or even an international envoy.

ILLEGAL "LEGAL TENDER"?

Legal tender in any country with a working legal system, as its name suggests, is supposed to be legal. That said and done, I am saddened to put across the bamboozling fact that Kenya's legal tender or rather notes and coins are not so legal after all. Why, you ask? Well, herein under is my opinion as to why. Perhaps after going through this piece, the responsible bodies will make the necessary adjustments to ensure that we the people have a "legal" legal currency.
My point of departure comes way before the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya. The few people who were keen enough to notice the dates inscribed upon the notes and coins at that time would bear me witness that the dates used to change with the passing of time. As time went on you could notice the systematic change in dates for all the notes and coins that were used in the country and this is rightly evidenced by the appearance of new dates on new notes, and not to mention, the coins as well.
With the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution came new laws and this gave directives as to how the legal tender should look and new directives in general concerning various aspects of public finance.
This is where it gets interesting... since the promulgation if the New Constitution in Kenya, notes and coins have seemingly never been produced in the country. At least that's what the Central Bank has many pundits and laymen pondering over. It has become increasingly vivid in recent years the specific date of 16th July 2010 as being the last date of production of notes in Kenya and since the coins only bear the year, I could only assume that the date is mutually inclusive to them as well.
One would dare ask me, 'Why the sudden fuss over this issue of dates in the currency used in the country?'. The answer yo this, Article 231 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Yes! The supreme law of the land, which we the people Acknowledged, Adopted and Enacted to ourselves an to our future generations thus provides verbatim and seriatim: "...(4) Notes and coins issues by the Central Bank of Kenya may bear images that depict or symbolise Kenya or an aspect of Kenya but shall not bear the portrait of any individual." By Exercising our sovereign and inalienable right to determine the form of governance of our country and participating fully in making of the most progressive, transformative constitution in the world, we the people also included this very section into our supreme law. This section of the law, mind you, was not included in the constitution by mistake if that's what you're thinking. No. The constitution making process was a well thought out process, devoid of which we would not pride ourselves of a Constitution at this very moment.
Getting back to the legality of the currency in Kenya now, a quick look at the "legal tender" (emphasis added) reveals, as we all are aware, the portrait of the founding father of the nation. Well, some may say that this is an image that symbolizes or depicts the image of the country being that he was the first President of the Country and all. Well, those people are 100% correct. He symbolizes national unity as well. There is no problem with that. Then begs the question 'why the fuss?'. Simply put, and in quick response to the query, that alone is not enough. The constitution, in-as-much as it is read literally need also be read wholesomely. This having been rightly put, in considering the provisions of Article 231 (4) one has to read it to its entirety. This then brings us to the second part of the above quoted. The law is clear as to the inclusion or otherwise of an individual's portrait on the notes and coins issued by the CBK. The position is that the same is not permissible, just for the avoidance of doubt.
So then I beckon in the CBK through its Governor to please explain to the people why it is that 7 years after the promulgation of the constitution the portrait of the first President of Kenya is still depicted by the notes and coins issued through it. Secondly, are we still using the "legal tender" which was issued on 16 July 2010? And if we are, how does it happen then, that with every passing day newer notes and coins are seen and used in the country? It's my dilemma!

On that note, I do ask; is the CBK and it's Governor acting in accordance the the dictates of the constitution? If not, shouldn't he be facing the consequences envisioned by Chapter 6. Let's be frank here. This act of utter disregard of the Supreme Law of the Land is and should not be acceptable from anyone. Remember, nobody is above the law.

For more on this, check out the SDE's article on the great reveal by SC. Hon. Otiende Amolo