Corrupt Deals by Rogue Finance Minister Threatens Kenya’s Young Grand Coalition Government

The creation of a grand coalition government marked the beginning of a very sensitive period of national healing and reconciliation for Kenyans. The coalition is yet to firmly set its foot on the ground but grand corruption threatens its very stability. This is the third time the Kenyan Finance minister is making international headlines by committing the country to questionable deals that are “too sweet to be passed on”.

Safaricom IPO
In the run up to the general elections in December last year, many questions were raised regarding the manner in which Mr. Amos Kimunya, Kenya’s finance minister, was rushing the listing of Safaricom through an initial public offer (IPO) to raise Kshs. 5O Billion. Mr. Kimunya may have had good intentions but the timing and the manner in which he was “pushing the deal” were very inappropriate. Asked why such a rush to offload government assets held in trust for the Kenyan people - a few days to the general elections, he answered “…people should keep off the NSE as it was not a fish market”. The issues clouding the IPO are yet to be fully resolved, but it was held anyway and Mr. Kimunya is still at the helm the finance ministry.

Kenya - DelaRue Saga
Less than a month into the first quarter of the 2008/9 financial year, other concerns have emerged regarding the introduction of new generation bank notes. According the Chairman of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Dr. Bonny Khalwale, the finance minister unilaterally cancelled the tender that would have saved the country three times the cost of printing money. Again Mr. Kimunya toyed with the idea of buying a stake in DelaRue the money printing firm so that “he could save the country some money”. Had it not been for leaks surrounding this deal, he would have committed the country into buying a stake in DelaRue unilaterally. Apparently Mr. Kimunya changed the terms of engagement with DelaRue, went ahead to lie to parliament and the people of Kenya about the matters arising out of the DelaRue saga until when the press highlighted issue. He went on the defensive and called the press reports "rumors"....Continues Below

***********************************************************************
OTHER RELATED POSTS:

1. Aides to Rogue Kenyan Finance Minister in Shady deal Paraded in Shame (List Includes Kenya’s Central Bank Governor)

2. Corrupt Deals by Rogue Finance Minister Threatens Kenya’s Young Grand Coalition Government

3. Britain, Tony Blair and Mugabe are to blame for Zimbabwe’s woes.
4. How to get rid of Robert Mugabe
***********************************************************************

Secret Sale of the Grand Regency Hotel
Earlier in the month the same minister lied to parliament about ownership of the grand regency hotel. He claimed that the Government of Kenya was still the rightful owner of hotel (on behalf of the Kenyan People). This was until Lands Minister James Orengo broke the news that the Hotel had already been sold to some unknown individuals. The clearance of the sale was done by the lands ministry through some other equally rogue officials involved in the deal. In a press conference, the minister owned up that indeed the hotel had been sold to the Libyan government at a cost of Kshs. 2.9 billion. Many say that the Hotel was greatly undervalued. According to Senior Counsel Mutula Kilonzo, the hotel could have fetched more than Kshs. 2.9 billion. In 1994, Mutula says, he was part of a team of lawyers who oversaw the exchange of the hotel ownership at a cost of Kshs. 4 billion. 14 years later, Mr. Kimunya has pushed the cost of the Hotel down to Kshs. 2.9 billion. Other “unconfirmed” press reports indicate that Libya actually paid 4.5 Billion for the current hotel sale but the finance minister can only disclose the whereabouts of just Kshs. 2.9 Billion. The difference, Kshs.1.6 Billion still lies somewhere in the equation. There was no public tendering for the sale, the valuation (if it was ever carried out) was rushed and indeed very wrong, the finance minister acted unilaterally yet again.

One bad potato can quickly spoil the rest of the sack if not separated. With new mandates, it was expected that the coalition would direct Kenyans away from past ills of grand corruption which have cost the country its very development. Kenya’s economy should be ranking close or past Singapore’s since the two countries were growing at almost the same rate some 40 years ago. Rogue elements in past governments who ruled with absolute impunity have trapped the country in never ending debt cycle. Poverty is at an all time high. Kenyans cannot afford basic needs due to spiraling inflation. All this was caused by thoughtless unilateral acts by individuals entrusted with managing public property but instead chose to engage in “too sweet to be passed on” kind of deals, such as the Grand Regency Hotel sale. At this age and time, the country cannot afford to waste any more development years through grand corruption.

If allegations against Mr. Amos Kimunya are true, he should not just resign; he should be arraigned in court for gambling with the country’s economy. He is taking Kenyans for fools. He lied to parliament, he lied to Kenyans and he is still at the helm of the finance ministry. He unilaterally controls the printing of a country’s currency, grand spending and selling of countries assets that the government holds in trust for the Kenyan people. Government assets are not personal property. The credibility of Kenya’s grand coalition lies in how it will handle this particular case.

How to get rid of Robert Mugabe

The Economist (Print Edition)



IT IS hard to believe that the horrors inflicted by Zimbabwe’s ruler on his own people could get worse. But even in the past week they have. The burning to death of a six-year-old boy because his father is an opposition politician, and the butchering of the young wife of the capital’s new opposition mayor, are part of a growing wave of violence that has persuaded Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, to withdraw from the presidential run-off that was due on June 27th. He rightly felt that, by standing in the election, he was risking the lives of too many thousands of his supporters.

Yet Robert Mugabe’s crimes are finally coming home to roost. He will claim to be re-elected president, by default. But he has lost one of the big things that have kept him in power to date: the grudging support of Africa. His brutality and fraudulence have become so plain for all to see that neighbours who once defended him are changing their tune. Just as he is poised to declare himself the winner, almost the entire continent—not to mention the rest of the world—has come to believe that he cannot be allowed to stay in office (see article).

He is, as a result, weaker; but he and his thugs are determined to hang on. He has the tyrant’s delusion that “only God”, as he puts it, can displace him. So Western and African countries, especially Zimbabwe’s neighbours, must act in concert to get rid of the ogre that has shamed an entire continent.

How to finish him off
The first and easiest act is to refuse to recognise any administration led by Mr Mugabe. The European Union, the United States and much of the rich world will ostracise him. Now is the time for Africa, especially the influential regional club of 14 countries known as the Southern African Development Community (SADC), to follow suit. A swelling chorus of other African leaders has condemned the election as unfair. Even South Africa, whose spineless president, Thabo Mbeki, is still refusing to criticise Mr Mugabe outright, has begun to turn against him. Its likely next president, Jacob Zuma, is increasingly exasperated. Its trade unions have called for a blockade of Zimbabwe, symbolic at first but perhaps a harbinger of pressure to come. Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s beacon of decency, in London this week to celebrate his 90th birthday, spoke out against the “tragic failure of leadership in our neighbouring Zimbabwe”.

South Africa remains the key. Its leaders have long had the power to bring Mr Mugabe to his knees, just as their white predecessors squeezed the life out of Rhodesia’s white-supremacist leader, Ian Smith, three decades ago, letting Mr Mugabe take over when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. Mr Mbeki will argue that economic strangulation would hurt the hapless Zimbabwean masses more than the pampered elite around Mr Mugabe. In the short run, he is right. Humanitarian aid must continue to flow into Zimbabwe, though Mr Mugabe has made it hard—often impossible—for charitable outfits to ensure that their largesse goes directly to the right poor people. But South Africa, along with other countries in the SADC, should certainly join in imposing the targeted sanctions already enforced by the EU, the Americans and other governments against Mr Mugabe and 130-odd of his closest comrades, who are banned from visiting the penalising countries and have had their assets there frozen. Depriving Mr Mugabe’s cronies of trips to a decent country that works could have a salutary effect.

The African Union (AU), which embraces all 53 of Africa’s countries, should also be far more robustly involved. Unlike the SADC, which is often paralysed by its search for consensus, the AU’s rules provide for decisions, specifically including the imposition of sanctions on errant members, to be taken by a two-thirds majority. The union is holding its annual summit next week, in Egypt. It should call on its members not to recognise Mr Mugabe as president or his party as the government.

The United Nations, too, must be ready to help. South Africa has been disgracefully blocking discussion of Zimbabwe in the 15-strong Security Council, of which it is a current member (see article). But this week it was shamed into signing a unanimous statement deploring the Zimbabwean government’s violence. There have been calls for the UN to send peacekeepers and to oversee fresh elections: a nice idea that will not come to pass any time soon. At present, no such resolution in the Security Council would get the necessary support, especially from Russia and China (not to mention South Africa). Moreover, while the loss of life in such blighted places as Sudan’s Darfur province and Somalia is still many times higher than in Zimbabwe, the UN has proved unable to send anything like an adequate force to those places; getting the Security Council, and in particular China, to take action over Darfur was like pulling teeth. Yet there is every reason to start campaigning for the UN to take up the cause of Zimbabwe too. It should certainly help to manage a fresh election.

Why not send in the troops?
Some romantic spirits ask why Mr Mugabe cannot be ousted by force—by Western powers, if not the UN. It would be glorious if he were removed by any method at all. But it remains unthinkable for such an action to be taken without the co-operation—logistical, among other things—of the region’s leaders. Persuading them to collaborate in isolating Mr Mugabe is hard enough. Deploying an international force should not be ruled out in the future, especially if the violence spreads. But other methods, with Africans to the fore, must be tried first.

In any event, the rich world should spell out a generous and co-ordinated recovery plan to be acted on as soon as Mr Mugabe has gone and proper elections held that would presumably bring Mr Tsvangirai to power. Zimbabwe needs at least $10 billion to put it on the path to recovery. Yet it is a resource-rich country with a core of well-educated people, millions of whom have fled abroad and must be wooed back home. Mr Mugabe may cling to power for a while, but his grip is weaker. Zimbabwe needs help from the West. But most of all it needs its African neighbours to tell the tyrant unambiguously to go—and to snuff him out if he refuses. It can be done.

Britain, Tony Blair and Mugabe are to blame for Zimbabwe’s woes.

Polls have already opened in the presidential rerun in Zimbabwe, and Mugabe is headed for sure “landslide win” – he has no opponent. Many will vote for Mugabe not because they adore his leadership but rather because of what he has led them to believe; the west is out to turn Zimbabwe into another failed state like Iraq and Somalia through western puppets like one Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). They will vote for him because they have no other option – many Zimbabweans have known only one leader since independence. They will vote and do as he says because he is the only person fit to rule Zimbabwe. He is a war veteran with “unmatched qualities” anywhere in Zimbabwe. To call Zimbabwe "a failed State" is an understatement since the situation has spiraled out of control mainly because the world failed to act in time to stop Mugabe and his cronies from going too far. No words can exhaustively describe what Robert Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe. He has killed, maimed and raped his country. But what turned Mugabe into such a vicious dictator?


When Mugabe first ascended into power in 1980, he was the most popular president the world had ever witnessed. He exuded charm akin to the Democratic nominee Barrack Obama when he clinched the US Democratic primaries. Zimbabwe’s economy at the time was an envy of many countries due to its rapid growth. The country had great hope that no other developing country could march. ZANU-PF party was immensely popular, had no opponents (he destroyed them) until the 1990's when calls for democratizing Zimbabwe became so loud mainly from the commonwealth states.


To Mugabe, Democracy meant "Going back to colonial rule" - an ideology he did not subscribe to. It did not matter much until a few years later when Mugabe took a suicidal turn - he forcefully repossessed land from white Zimbabwean farmers (mainly from Britain) for redistribution to "black Africans". Britain could have let Mugabe rule for as long as he wanted had he not "robed" what they had fought so had to achieve during the colonial times. This “unpopular” decision gave birth to another equally “unpopular” movement (according to Mugabe) - MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Mugabe was not ready to allow "external pressure" to undermine the freedom and sovereignty he had helped Zimbabwe achieve from Britain. He will go to war if this ever happens.


Given the impressive economic growth of Zimbabwe during the 1980s, Mugabe didn’t care whether or not Britain supported him. He failed to reckon the power behind the commonwealth (read Britain). None of the members could go against the wishes of her majesty the Queen (Who is advised by the British Premier). How dare he takes land that is not his and hands it over to his friends?
This situation has put Mugabe between a rock and a hard place; there are growing calls for his ouster, which makes him even more determined to hold on to power - all African leaders are forcing him into "quite diplomatic" talks with the opposition. The UN, SADC and AU have all failed to stop him. He won’t let them.


In his time as British Premier, Tony Blair carefully crafted a western media circus that would later turn Mugabe into a villain. During the 1980's, Mugabe was a media darling. Zimbabwe was a true story that described the struggle Africa underwent at the mercies of the colonial regime. Mugabe was a hero of sorts – and he remained so for “far too long” without realizing that his country needed another hero(in) not him. Britain was ready to help in effecting this change. Then came Morgan Tsvangirai who Mugabe literally beat senseless in more than one occasion, not because he hated him so much, but because he was sleeping with the enemy at Uncle Bob's expense. He is one of the western puppets that Mugabe has sworn to destroy at all costs – he is succeeding because the world has let him.


Whoever thinks Mugabe is not aware of the consequences of his actions against innocent Zimbabweans must be very mistaken. Robert Mugabe knows exactly what he is doing. He knows that the present circumstances cannot allow him to be “a common man”. A common man is vulnerable to many unpleasant situations such as 80 per cent unemployment and the world’s highest inflation rate. He has to be president, because the justice system will send him to join former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein wherever he may be. He has killed many people and denied many their human rights. He has starved innocent women and children. To make the matters worse, Robert Mugabe has single handedly managed to destroy his country's economy turning many into economic refugees. He knows only too well that immediately he cedes power, the International Criminal Court will come calling to hang yet another dictator that the world does not need. It’s a fight for his life.

Hail Mugabe, long live Bob, you are a true African hero

by CHARLES ONYANGO-OBBO (Daily Nation)


Hearing it being told, Zimbabwe’s Big Man Robert Mugabe is an insane old man who should be locked up in a mental asylum, not running a country.

Writers, like this columnist, have been challenged to acknowledge the “good side” of Mugabe. So we did.

Recently I watched a documentary of the DR Congo’s thieving former dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko. The programme revealed that Mobutu liked to hit on his ministers’ and ambassadors’ wives, and would take them off to his room as they watched.

Mugabe started dating his present wife, Grace, who is 40 years his junior, when she was a secretary at State House, and his wife Sally was ailing. Grace Marufu, as she was then known, was married to Flight Lt Patrick Guririza.

When Mugabe decided to take Grace as his, he didn’t do as Uganda’s former dictator (and friend of Mobutu) Field Marshal Idi Amin did when he set eyes upon the beautiful Sarah Kyolaba. Idi was immediately smitten, but like a good general, he first inquired about the competition.

He was told Sarah had a boyfriend, a fashionable musician of the time. Idi sent his boys round to the fellow’s house a few nights later, and he was never seen again, leaving him to take Sarah as his youngest (she reportedly also became his favourite) wife without any rival lurking in the shadows.

Compared to Mobutu who grabbed many people’s wives, Mugabe stole only one. And compared to Amin, he didn’t kill Flt-Lt Guririza. He exiled him to China as a diplomat. So in those two regards, Mugabe is far better than Amin and Mobutu.

Now, for those who are too young to remember, in 1980 a young sergeant in the Liberian army called Samuel Doe seized power in a coup. He was, like many African military dictators of his time, an appalling ruler. Rebellion broke out in his country. One of the rebel leaders was another strange man, Prince Johnson.

As Doe’s forces succumbed to the rebels, the man was still hanging around in the presidential palace. The story goes that, sensing danger, Doe hurriedly arranged a helicopter for a last-minute escape. However, the presidential guard, realising that he was leaving them to be killed for his sins, detained him and said they were not going to be left to “die alone”.

So it was that in September 1990, the rebels captured Doe. They stripped him naked, tied his hands behind his back, and begun torturing him. In a video that was widely circulated at the time, and that didn’t do the image of Africa much good, Prince Johnson is shown ordering his men to chop off a bloodied Doe’s ear and stuff it in his mouth.

Having killed Doe, the rebels fought over his intimate bits, heart and liver which they ate raw in the belief that all his powers would be transferred to them.

Now, compare that to how Mugabe has treated opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. In the first round of the elections, Mugabe’s supporters and police beat up and intimidated the opposition and mugged them of some of their votes.

Still, they had sufficient decency left. They didn’t steal enough to deny Tsvangirai victory. They only rigged it to prevent him getting the more than 50 per cent required by law.

A few weeks earlier, Zanu-PF goons had set upon Tsvangirai and beaten him senseless, leaving him with huge gashes on the head, closed eyes, and a major limp. Still, he lived to win the first round. If it had been Liberia, Tsvangirai would have had his ears cut off, killed, and then the remnants eaten.

You have to give Mugabe his due.

You might say it’s partly because of sanctions against him, but unlike other presidents, Mugabe spends a lot of his time in Zimbabwe. In that way he’s definitely better than Cameroon’s strongman Paul Biya.

In the last few years, Biya has lived mostly in France although he remains president. He returns to Cameroon for brief periods (perhaps to collect money from the Central Bank). But for sure, whenever elections are up, he comes, rigs the poll, and goes back to France.

There are those who say that, in the process, Biya has become the first truly hi-tech African president — he rules by remote control. Without the options of Biya, Mugabe has built his palaces in the outskirts of Harare, not on the Riviera.

Finally, there is Mugabe’s friend, former Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam, who has lived in exile in Zimbabwe since he was deposed nearly 18 years ago. It’s estimated Mengistu killed at least 1.5 million people during his cruel rule.

On the other hand, when he was faced by the Matabeleland-based rebellion against his rule between 1982 and 1983, Mugabe unleashed the notorious Fifth Brigade to quash it. More than 20,000 people were killed.

It might well be that Mugabe harbours Mengistu to remind himself that he is “not as bad”. His regime killed “only” 20,000 people, as opposed to the former Ethiopian hard man who dispatched 1.5 million.