That's true but has nothing to do with the politicians or Uhuru. IEBC's and judicial independence are guaranteed by the constitution. They should simply ignore/resist to be pushed around. They have themselves to blame if they don't.
To my mind, these are the "critical" words:
"I want to tell those in the courts that because we have respected you for a long time we are not fools. We cannot accept the courts to be used by those not interested in the elections to frustrate IEBC," said the President.
In many well-run places, these would be considered
very alarming words. First, what evidence is there that "the courts [are being] used ...". Second, what are the criteria for "used" and "frustrated"? The courts are right or wrong on the law and facts, or they are not. If the latter, then there is still a higher court; have the "non-fool", "frustrated" lot reached that point? Third, there is the (nominal?) independence of the IEBC.
It is one thing to state a disagreement or dislike of court rulings, but this seems to be an attempt to send a crude message to the Supreme Court, and in a place like Kenya it could even well work. But what is alarming is the
"not accept"---that the "leader" of a country should so boldly and publicly state that he will accept legal rulings only to a certain point, on the basis of unspecified and unknown criteria. And what form will his "non-acceptance" take?
I also consider it somewhat unfair to ask that the IEBC "should simply ignore/resist to be pushed around. They have themselves to blame if they don't". This is Kenya. How real is it to expect that people can easily ignore crude "warning", especially when these go above them and to the courts on who they might rely on for "protection".
The words go well beyond the legal fisticuffs about tenders ad what-not.
Not since Moi have I heard words that made so concerned about the future of Kenya. Beyond the obvious, immediate effect, imagine a "trickle-down" effect in which people refuse to accept legal rulings on the basis of "used", "frustrated", and whatever other vague criterion that they can dream up.
If we are to avoid a slide back to some of what we have already "tasted", or a total descent to the "African Standard"---rebel army and all---then it is crucial to nurture the independence of and respect for the judiciary ... and the erosion
always starts at the top. We have made some progress, but we are still not there. Power is still in play in the judiciary: think of cases like Okemo and Gichuru, wanted since-when in Jersey or wherever, Barasa and others still "wanted" at the ICC, etc. The sheeple, being sheeple, might be slow, but eventually, they too will decide that they are not "fools", that they will not be "used", that they are "frustrated" ... why should only the rich and
powerful be in a position to "appreciate" those?