Windy City Assassin wrote:
"
More importantly. A suspect charged with crimes against humanity would be securely locked up and in no position to even go through those motions."
Er, em, ... strictly speaking that is not true :-) One would think that a person who was locked up on such matters would not even think of it and neither would his supporters. But that was before the world ran into some folks from The Beloved Continent:
In 2011 the "Movement for the Liberation of Congo" declared Mr. Bemba as "the only viable candidate" in forthcoming presidential elections.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201107280838.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/24/jean-pierre-bemba-former-congo-vice-president-candidate_n_907969.htmlMr. Bemba accepted that "honour" and started to make preparations, the first, most obvious, and most requisite of those being to ask the ICC to let him go home and get on with it. The Trial Chamber was not amused and told him to sod off. But Mr. Bemba is nothing if not a determined fellow, and his lawyers have billable-hours to clock: next step, the Appeals Chamber.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1227935.pdf#search=bemba%20presidential%20candidateTo cut to the chase: it was agreed that Mr. Bemba could run for president or whatever, in wherever, and in whatever manner he chose but he had to do so from his cell---that even though he is merely an accused monster, innocent until proven guilty, letting him lose just wasn't going to happen. (Mr. Bemba's presidential efforts subsequently fizzled in the face of "logistic difficulties.)
Anyways, on to the matter at hand ....
Some of the arguments being made in this matter explains why African countries remain backward in self-governance: people think they are being clever and managing to fool others while the only people they manage to fool are themselves, e.g. in making comparisons with better-run places.
Where I live, hardly anybody would bother to look into whether the law allows this or that type of felon to run for public office. What the law actually says is largely irrelevant *in practice*, the reason being that a *charge* (by the relevant authorities) would be enough to kill candidacy. Note that that is "charge", not conviction, and bearing in mind "presumed innocent until proven guilty".
ASIDE: By the way, people who tend to get carried away with "presumed innocent until proven guilty" would do well to keep in mind that all those people who are held in remand, all over the world, sometimes for years, are all "presumed innocent until proven guilty", and they should then reflect on why that is so. END OF ASIDE.
Back to the matter ...
In Kenya, at some point it was agreed that there were too many dirty, rotten scoundrels getting into public office. To deal with that, and considering that options were thin, it was deemed necessary to come up with some regulating rules on "integrity". Those were then promptly ignored, and it was business as usual----back to the usual criteria of "from our village", "our man", "we too need to eat", ...
In the end, it is still Kenyans who are getting a sharp stick up the ... [forgot what I wanted to write there]. If Kenyans want to change Kenya for the better, then it behoves those seem capable of thinking to actually do some thinking. "Clever" but fundamentally misguided comparisons with other countries does not help Kenya or Kenyans, nor does "clever" fiddling with things like "integrity rules" whose intent is quite clear.
What people really need to think about is the *real situation* in Kenya and how that can be changed. To the extent that one wishes to make comparisons with other countries, one should at least keep in mind (a) the extent to which the law applies to even the mighty in those countries and (b) the practical realities, regardless of the law, when one is even merely accused of breaking the law. Deep, fundamental, and honest thinking about what "integrity" means in the context of public office. Forget about the USA, France, Australia, ... Jupiter---places where the majority of Kenyans are not to be found and of which Kenya is not a "sub-territory"----and reflect on the real essence and intention of the "integrity clause" in Kenya and why it was in the first place considered necessary. For Kenyans in Kenya. If, subsequently, the results of such thinking can be converted into concrete action, there would be some progress in dealing with the rot that in Kenya is considered governance.
Topic: International media descend on Hague (Read 6791 times)