Saturday, 15 July 2017

The man who may have secretly fathered 200 children


Lotte and Yonathan Heij. ‘Yonathan was watching the television, saying: “These could be our brothers and sisters.”’

The man who may have secretly fathered 200 children

When Esther-Louise Heij’s son asked if she could trace his genetic father, she began a battle to find out whether she was deceived by her late doctor, Jan Karbaat, who is suspected of fathering up to 200 of his patients’ children

Twenty five years ago, when she was 35, Esther-Louise Heij made two decisions that would shape the rest of her life. The first decision went entirely to plan: it gave her the children she longed for. But the second decision would play out in a bizarre twist she could never have imagined, and would plunge her family into a sea of heartache that continues to this day.

Both decisions were brave to make a quarter of a century ago, and are testament to Heij’s judgment as well as her tenacity. First, she decided that although she was single, and had recently ended a 12-year relationship, she would forge ahead with her plans to become a mother by opting for IVFwith donor sperm.

Advertisement

Second, and no less unusual at the time, she would make sure that her children would be able to trace their genetic father.

“Back then, the accepted wisdom was that donor children didn’t need to know,” she says. “But I felt it was their right to know. Where we come from, who our parents are – these things are important in anyone’s life, and I wanted them for my children.”

She heard about a clinic near Rotterdam whose director sounded forward-thinking, went along for a consultation, and was impressed.

“The doctor seemed very good at what he did,” she says. “He was a pioneer in his attitudes. He talked me through what it would be like to raise children on my own; he seemed very serious and professional.”

And he was supportive, too, of her hope that any children she had would be able to know their father. “He assured me that would be possible. He was an important doctor in a white coat. I trusted him; it never crossed my mind that I couldn’t.”

The doctor, Jan Karbaat, told Heij that he would find a donor whose physical attributes fitted into her family. “He asked me for pictures of my relatives, so he could find a good match. And he said he would make sure the donor was a man who would be open to being traced later.”

The Heij family.
 The Heij family. Photograph: Joanna Moorhead

Heij and her children live in the southernmost tip of the Netherlands: their village, she tells me proudly, is on the only mountain in the country. “You won’t see scenery anywhere else in Holland like this,” she says, as we drive up the hill towards their house. Its hilltop position is fitting, because there have been many peaks and troughs to navigate for the Heij family.

Advertisement

During a long relationship with a partner, the one that lasted 12 years, she was pregnant twice; both times it ended in a stillbirth. Once she got the go-ahead for IVF from Karbaat, there would be nine unsuccessful attempts before she got a positive result. A daughter, Lotte, now 23, was born in 1994. Almost two years later, in 1995, Heij gave birth to a second child, Yonathan; Karbaat assured her the sperm was from the same donor.

Being a single mother of two was tough; but it was also the life she had wanted, and Heij has no complaints. The family moved around, supported by her work as a physiotherapist: living first in a village on an island in the north of Holland, then on an island in Norway.

She tried to be as open as possible with the children about their roots. “I told them: ‘A man gave his seed and that’s how you were born: if you want to know who he is you will get the chance to do that one day.’”

There were many children in the neighbourhood who didn’t live with both parents; but people asked questions that weren’t always easy to deal with, particularly for Yonathan. “They would say, ‘Where is your father?’ I made up a story about him being a man called Peter from Rotterdam, who was the captain of a ship, which explained why he was never around.”

Advertisement

One of the things that brought them back to Holland was Yonathan’s academic prowess: he was bright, and teachers at the small school in Norway felt they couldn’t challenge him sufficiently. Back in Holland, though, he flourished; Lotte, too.

When Lotte reached 16, she turned out not to have a burning desire to contact their father. Two years later, Yonathan took a different view. “For a boy to grow up without a father figure is a big thing; a father is important, especially for a boy. I wanted to know who he was: there were things I wanted to ask him. And I wanted to find out whether certain ways I behaved were connected with him – things that made me seem different from my mother and my sister, like that I’m much more laid back than they are.”

In 2011, Yonathan and his mother approached the organisations that should have been able to get the information she needed from Karbaat’s clinic. The news that came back was worrying: the files were in disarray, records had not been properly kept, and it was going to be difficult to find out who their donor was. What had originally seemed like an easy quest was going to be a much tougher haul; but they pressed on, making phone calls and filling in forms and requesting information.

Yonathan and Lotte speak to journalists prior to a court decision last month.
 Yonathan and Lotte speak to journalists prior to a court decision last month. Photograph: Remko de Waal/EPA

At the same time, though, they became aware of growing suspicions about Karbaat’s clinic. “Rumours were rife,” says Yonathan. There were stories starting to circulate that the sperm donors had been fellow doctors, medical students; but the biggest upset of all were rumours that Jan Karbaathimself had provided much of the sperm that had impregnated his patients.

Advertisement

“We were in shock – it was a feeling of total disbelief. Karbaat was a doctor, and to use his own sperm to get women pregnant would have been totally prohibited. It was difficult to process the enormity of what this meant. But right away I thought: ‘This man could be my father.’ I was scouring pictures of him, looking for physical similarities.”

Yonathan was thrown into emotional turmoil. He had previously written to Karbaat asking for information about his father, and the letters had been returned unopened. “I thought, is that how little he cares? He seemed so cold, so arrogant. And this man could be my father – it was all very hard to come to terms with.”

Then a documentary about the clinic, shown on Dutch TV, raised the disturbing possibility that as many as 200 children could have been fathered by the same sperm donor.

“Yonathan was watching the television, saying: ‘These could be our brothers and sisters,’” says Heij. “A lot of them were very intelligent, just like him; and we were looking at them thinking: ‘Do they look like Yonathan and Lotte?’”

The family was thrown into a quandary, and found themselves at the centre of a very public controversy: eventually, both children gave DNA samples to find out whether they were related to any of the others conceived at the clinic who were now seeking answers.

Groups of individuals were found who were related to each other, but there seemed to be no sibling match for Yonathan and Lotte. “It was disappointing,” says Yonathan. “I hoped I would find at least some siblings. But I still wanted to know who my father was. Some people were saying: ‘If your father was Karbaat, maybe it would be better not to know.’ After all, he’s turned out to be an unscrupulous man. But I said no, I still want to know – however bad he was, he must have had some good qualities. It was like part of my identity was missing. I knew I needed to find out the truth.”

Over the past 18 months, a group of families whose children were born via IVF at Karbaat’s clinic have started legal proceedings to allow them to do DNA tests using cells from Karbaat.

Karbaat opposed the move, but he died, aged 89, in April this year. Police seized personal objects from his home, including his toothbrush, and a ruling on whether the DNA taken can be released to the families is expected shortly. In the meantime, though, the Heij family’s own DNA tests have proved Yonathan and Lotte are definitely full siblings, and that their father is most likely to come from central Europe.

The Heij family.
 The Heij family. Photograph: Courtesy Esther-Louise Heij

The situation is changing all the time, says Yonathan: one of Karbaat’s acknowledged children has now been DNA-tested, and the results of that test suggest it’s less likely the Heij children are Karbaat’s, though by no means certain.

Advertisement

“Everything is up in the air now. I’m conscious that I may get a phone call tomorrow telling me who my father was, or I might have to wait 20 years,” he says. “It feels like waiting to find out whether you’ve won the lottery, but knowing you probably will.”

Indeed, according to Laura Bosch, of Defence for Children in Leiden – the legal organisation representing the Heijes and other families – that is precisely the point: technological advances, she says, have made ethical issues concerning paternity identification redundant.

“The existence of large DNA databases mean it’s getting easier and easier to trace a donor parent – it’s no longer feasible for anyone to say donors have the right to anonymity. I would argue that in any case the child’s right to information should prevail, and takes precedence over the donor’s right to anonymity, but the landscape is shifting.”

The health minister of the Netherlands, Edith Schippers, has asked men who donated sperm pre-2005, when the right to anonymity was lifted, to do “a second good deed” and come forward to make it easier for their children to trace them.

The emotional turmoil has taken its toll on 58-year-old Heij, who seems tired, and is tearful discussing all she’s been up against. But when it comes to Karbaat, she finds it impossible to condemn him out of hand. “He made me a mother,” she says simply. “He gave me these wonderful children. But he was also arrogant and narcissistic. He seems to have thought he was better than other donors, that he was doing women a favour to get them pregnant using his sperm.”

Advertisement

For Yonathan, meanwhile, the saga has led to what might seem a surprising decision. “I’ve decided to become a sperm donor myself,” he says.

As he explains it, it makes perfect sense. “I know that any children born as a result will be able to find me in the future. And I feel I will be able to help them, I will understand their situation in a way some donors can’t, because I’ve been through everything they’re going through. I will be able to relate.”

On Karbaat, his feelings are mixed. “He was a clever man but it’s dangerous to allow someone to work with no brakes; he had a lot of power, and a big ego. He wasn’t honest with my mother or with other patients – he didn’t tell the whole truth. I feel he had good intentions but his methods were wrong – he didn’t do things the way they should have been done, and some of the things he should never have done at all.”

Brexit followed by Corbyn in No 10 would put UK flat on its back – Blair

The Former Labour prime minister issues warning in lengthy article published by his own political institute

Tony Blair has warned that the combination of Brexit followed by a Jeremy Corbyn government would soon leave Britain “flat on our back”, arguing that a deeply divided country needs a fundamental rethink of its political ideas.

In another demonstration of his partial return to domestic politics, the former prime minister praised Corbyn’s performance in the general election, but argued that greater scrutiny of the Labour leader’s policies could derail the next campaign. In a lengthy article released by his own political institute, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, Blair said an “unchanged Corbyn programme” introduced at the same time as Brexit would prove disastrous for the country.

“If a rightwing populist punch in the form of Brexit was followed by a leftwing populist punch in the form of unreconstructed hard-left economics, Britain would hit the canvas, flat on our back and be out for a long count,” he wrote.

Blair warned the party he led for 13 years that, however unexpectedly good the party’s showing in the 8 June election, it could not automatically expect victory soon. “The Labour party should be cautious in thinking ‘one more heave’ will deliver victory next time,” Blair said. “The Corbyn campaign was a positive factor in the election result; but the determining factor was the Tory campaign.

“The Corbyn enthusiasm, especially amongst the young, is real, but I would hesitate before saying that all those who voted Labour voted to make him prime minister, or that they supported the body of the programme rather than its tone. I think they thought that the likelihood was that the Tories would be the government, but were determined to neuter the mandate.”

In the next election, Labour’s economic policies “will come under vastly greater scrutiny”, Blair warned. However, he conceded he “did not foresee” the Labour gains made in the election, and hailed Corbyn’s role in this. 

Advertisement

“I pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn’s temperament in the campaign, to the campaign’s mobilisation of younger voters, and to the enthusiasm it generated,” he said. “His supporters shouldn’t exaggerate it; but his critics, including me, shouldn’t understate it. He tapped into something real and powerful, as Bernie Sanders has in the USA and left groups have done all over Europe.”

Much of the article concerned Blair’s continued opposition to Brexit, which he has previously called on remain-minded voters to seek to overturn.

He said the British people should be made aware of the possibility of Europe meeting the UK “half way” on a range of issues, predicting that Europe “will comprise an inner and outer circle” in the coming years.

The former prime minister claimed that if the UK didn’t abandon the single market, European leaders would be willing to relax their stance on freedom of movement – one of the central principles of single market membership – and let Britain have control.

Blair said political changes on the continent, including the election of Emmanuel Macron in France, have made an alternative to a hard Brexit more likely. Macron’s victory “changes the political dynamics of Europe”.

“Reform is now on Europe’s agenda,” he said. “The European leaders, certainly from my discussions, are willing to consider changes to accommodate Britain, including around freedom of movement.”

Advertisement

Along with the comments, Blair’s institute has released polling conducted on its behalf which shows, among other findings, that the majority of Britons are split on whether they would like a so-called soft or hard Brexit. “The British people’s attitude to Europe is ambivalent,” Blair said. “They do think Brexit means Brexit and, for now, there is no groundswell for a second referendum.

“But they want a strong relationship with Europe. A majority oppose hard Brexit. The opposition to free movement of people, once you break it down, is much more nuanced.”

Overall, he concludes, the UK “is deeply divided – between young and old, metropolitan and outside the cities, better off and worse off”.

Thursday, 13 July 2017

Why Jubilee, Nasa have focused campaigns on 5 zones

By NATION TEAM

THURSDAY JULY 13 2017

President Uhuru Kenyatta addresses residents of Mbita after opening the Mbita bridge in Homa Bay County on July 12, 2017. PHOTO | DPPS

President Uhuru Kenyatta addresses residents of Mbita after opening the Mbita Causeway in Homa Bay County on July 12, 2017. PHOTO | DPPS 

The Jubilee Party and opposition’s National Super Alliance have held more rallies in five regions than in any other part of the country, convinced the areas could hold the key to a victory in the August 8 General Election.

The Coast, former Western province, Narok and Kajiado counties, Kisii and Baringo have emerged as the areas where the election could be lost or won if the frequency with which both political sides have held rallies there is anything to go by.

President Uhuru Kenyatta and his main challenger Raila Odinga have both visited western Kenya six and five times respectively in just one month, signifying how crucial the voting bloc could be to both sides.

SIX TIMES

In the month of June alone, Mr Odinga has followed in President Kenyatta’s footsteps, visiting each of the region’s five counties, hoping to consolidate the base that has over time been unable to unite behind the elusive Luhya unity.

President Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto have cumulatively campaigned in the Coast three times from the end of May, seeking to get a slice of votes in an area that overwhelming cast its lot with Mr Odinga in 2013.

Narok and Kajiado counties have also become  a play ground for the vote seeking machines, with Jubilee visiting the former five times and the latter twice.

BARINGO COUNTY

Jubilee and Nasa have similarly visited  Nyamira and Kisii counties twice and thrice respectively. The two rivals have campaigned twice in Baringo County.

On Wednesday, Jubilee Party vice-chairman David Murathe said the President and his deputy have been targeting areas that were opposition strongholds in 2013 but have since showed signs of warming up to the government. 

He named the areas as western Kenya, Coast and Kisii counties.

“It is the potential for harvesting votes, particularly in former hostile areas, which we can now convert into swing areas.

You can see what we are doing in western Kenya, Coast and Kisii areas,” he said on the telephone.

Regarding Narok County, he said the party had eliminated the obstacle which cost them votes in the last elections.

SPLITTING VOTES

“Narok is now okay because our challenge last time was splitting votes between TNA and URP. Now we are one party,” he said.

Nasa’s national campaign committee executive director Kibisu Kabatesi explained that the number of rallies in a region were determined  by information received from campaign team coordinators across the country.

“We draw the campaign schedule based on the analysis we have made based on information from our team on the ground,” he  said.

The Nairobi office, he explained, operates on a 24-hour basis and always communicates with the regional leaders.

ATTEND RALLY

Before the principals attend a rally in any place, they meet with area leaders to fine-tune the relevant message for the voters.

In his vote hunting forays in western Kenya, President Kenyatta visited Bungoma on June 11, Busia (June 14), Kakamega (June 17), and Vihiga on June 23, while Mr Odinga toured the same counties on June 23, 25 and 24 respectively.

“In 2013, you slipped from our fingers and voted for the other side. This time in 2017, we will not let you vote differently from us. We are not going to let you stay in the cold,” Deputy President William Ruto has consistently told western voters.

755,525 VOTES

In 2013, Mr Odinga garnered 755,525 votes from the region followed by Mr Mudavadi with 353,864, both accounting for 92.6 per cent of the 1,197,632 valid votes cast. Mr Kenyatta got 66,185.

Nasa presidential candidate Raila Odinga addressing a crowd at Kabarnet town in Baringo County during a campaign rally on July 12, 2017. PHOTO | CHEBOITE KIGEN | NATION MEDIA GROUP

Nasa presidential candidate Raila Odinga addressing a crowd at Kabarnet town in Baringo County during a campaign rally on July 12, 2017. PHOTO | CHEBOITE KIGEN | NATION MEDIA GROUP

President Kenyatta is clearly looking  for critical top-up support, while Mr Odinga hopes to completely lock him out of the 1.9 million votes.

Since then, Jubilee has been using the reopening of Webuye’s Pan paper, now operating under the name Rai Paper and the rejuvenation of the sugar industry to reach out to the electorate.

Besides visiting the region on many occasions, Jubilee has been banking on the support of Bungoma Governor Ken Lusaka, Mumias East MP Benjamin Washiali and more recently Budalang’i MP Ababu Namwamba. 

The arch-rivals are also in a bruising battle for the Maasai vote, particularly in Narok and Kajiado counties.

KAJIADO

In 2013, President Kenyatta won in Kajiado County by a slim margin (138,851 against Mr Odinga’s 117,856), but lost to Mr Odinga in Narok (109,413 against 118, 623), despite his Jubilee coalition winning the governor, senator and all MPs seats in the vast, wealthy county.

In Baringo, a traditional Jubilee zone that voted 138, 488 for Mr Kenyatta against Mr Odinga’s 14,824, the ODM leader has been making inroads touring the area on May 25 and yesterday, when he campaigned in Kabarnet and Eldama Ravine.

The Jubilee duo pitched tent in the area on Sunday and declared it a Jubilee zone with the endorsement of Senator Gideon Moi, a man at loggerheads with DP Ruto.

HECTIC DAY

At the Coast, Mr Ruto has been to the region twice since the start of the official campaign period.

Mr Odinga and his Nasa team have been there twice, the latest being last weekend when the opposition flagbearer was briefly taken ill after a hectic day of campaigning.

President Kenyatta was in the region during the launch of the standard gauge railway on June 1, which was preceded by a two-day stay.

In 2013, there were 1,171,240 voters in the six counties that make up the coast region. 

SLIM ADVANTAGE

That number has since grown to 1,713,151, an increase of  more than half a million voters.

In 2013, the region leaned heavily towards Mr Odinga, with the exception of Lamu, where he had a slim advantage over President Kenyatta.

Mr Odinga had 69.77 per cent of the vote in Mombasa, 80.74 per cent in Kwale, 83.74 per cent in Kilifi, 61.41 per cent in Tana River, 51.98 per cent in Lamu and 81.56 per cent in Taita-Taveta.

President Kenyatta  and Mr Ruto headed to the coast on a working tour after winning the election in what would become an annual routine at the end of each year. 

Their frequent visits to the region have resulted in several run-ins with Mombasa Governor Ali Hassan Joho, a staunch Nasa supporter and insider.

RAILA ODINGA

In the Gusii region, which has in the past mostly voted for Mr Odinga, President Kenyatta has dangled political carrots to the voters, recently dishing out Sh800 million to resettle the integrated internally displaced people after the 2007/08 post-election violence.

The President made a two-day tour of Kisii and Nyamira Counties on June 7, while Mr Odinga has visited the region thrice.

In the 2013 elections, Mr Odinga got 236,831 votes in Kisii, while President Kenyatta  garnered 95,596 of the 412,945 votes cast. In Nyamira, Uhuru got 54,071 as Raila harvested 121,590 votes.

 Kisii County currently has the highest number of voters in Nyanza, standing at  546,580 followed by Kisumu County at 539,210, Homa Bay 476,875, Siaya 457,953, Migori 388,633 and Nyamira 278,853

The former Nyanza region now has six counties — Kisumu, Siaya, Homa Bay, Migori, Kisii and Nyamira —  which have a combined 2,688,104 voters up from  1,942,138 in 2013.

 Reported by John Ngirachu, Patrick Lang’at and Samwel Owino

Wednesday, 12 July 2017

Here is a checklist of multi-billion properties owned by the late BIWOTT


Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Biwott used State House links to create business empire


By JOHN KAMAU

WEDNESDAY JULY 12 2017

Former Minister Nicholas Biwott. The politician died on July, 11, 2017 aged 77. PHOTO | EVANS HABIL | NATION MEDIA GROUP 


There were powerful men in the Nyayo regime; and then there was Nicholas Biwott.

Mr Biwott, who died on Tuesday aged 77, was part of a political and commercial network that in the 1980s and 90s bestrode the national political landscape like a colossus, creating fear and peddling influence.

By using his State House and international connections, Mr Biwott transformed himself from a simple MP for Keiyo South to a billionaire with an enviable business empire touching almost every sector of the Kenyan economy. 

He owned an airline, a bank, an oil company, a construction firm and Nairobi’s Yaya Towers, among others.

TOTAL MAN

In his hey day Mr Biwott, who once described himself as a ‘Total Man’, faced a myriad of corruption allegations but he still gained a reputation for generosity — contributing hundreds of thousands of shillings every week in Harambees. 

The diminutive politician once worked as a personal assistant to Jewish Mossad spy in Kenya Bruce Mckenzie, the only white Cabinet minister in Jomo Kenyatta’s government until 1969, when he resigned.

Regarded as an intelligent man, Mr Biwott started his career as a junior information officer in Eldoret under Mr Kendagor Bett, the Alliance High School alumnus whose newsletter Kalenjinwould help rally the community behind the Kenya African Democratic Union (Kadu), whose Rift Valley kingpin was Daniel arap Moi. It was during this period that Mr Moi met Mr Biwott.

PHILANTHROPIST

On Tuesday, Mr Moi described him as an “astute businessman … a philanthropist … and a dependable friend” — tracing their friendship to the 1950s.  

But unknown to many, Mr Biwott was a student at Tambach Intermediate School when Mr Moi was its principal.

After Tambach, he joined Kapsabet Government African School, leaving in 1958.

But while Mr Moi has a high opinion of Mr Biwott — his former Minister for Energy — the US government didn’t think much of him and in some of the Wikileaks cables, former US ambassador Michael Ranneberger revealed Mr Biwott had been banned from travelling to the US due to allegations of corruption and a link to the still-unresolved murder of Foreign minister Robert Ouko.

SCHOLARSHIP

The rise of Nicholas Biwott and how he ended up in Australia on a government scholarship is credited to the intervention of Mr Kenneth Matiba, the Makerere University graduate who was in charge of scholarships at the Ministry of Education.

As Mr Matiba recounted later, Mr Moi approached him and said he had a “bright, young man”, who turned out to be Biwott. 

Mr Matiba says in his book Aiming High  that he gave Mr Biwott a scholarship.

In 1993, Mr Biwott told Parliament that Mr Matiba was lying.

“When Mr Matiba was touring Banana, he said he gave me a scholarship.

MASTERS DEGREE

He himself was only a student looking for a part-time job at the Ministry of Education. He said that Moi introduced me to him, something he never did …”

Mr Biwott studied for a Bachelors degree at the University of Melbourne between 1962 and 1964 and during his  second sojourn to Australia in 1966, he returned home with a Masters  degree in economics and a wife, Hannie — a Dutch of Jewish origin. 

It was after his return that Mr Biwott immersed himself into the Jewish circles in Nairobi, earning the confidence of Mr Mackenzie, the politician whose commercial interests in Kenya included shareholding in pivotal companies such as Cooper Motors Corporation (CMC), Wilken Air, and Wilken Telecommunications, which had won the tender to build Kenya’s first satellite earth station in Kenya.

PERSONAL ASSISTANT

Before 1971, Mr Biwott was Mr Mackenzie’s personal assistant and later became Mr Moi’s until 1974 when he tried his luck in politics but was defeated by Mr Stanley Kurgat. 

According to Charles Hornsby, the author of Kenya: A History Since Independence, Mr Biwott “had been intimately involved in Moi’s rise”.

More than anything, it was his discreet nature that endeared him to Mr Moi, who appointed him a senior assistant secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture before transferring him to his docket, the Ministry of Home Affairs, on the recommendation of Mr Duncan Ndegwa, the first African governor of the Central Bank. 

Moi was then looking for a person he could trust and Biwott fitted the bill.

BILLIONAIRE

The entry into the big league for Biwott would come in 1979, when Moi persuaded Mr Kurgat to give up the Keiyo South seat for him. 

He was then elected unopposed and retained the seat for 28 years. It is within that period that he became a billionaire.

Immediately he entered Parliament, Biwott was appointed Minister of State in the Office of the President alongside GG Kariuki – and the two became the most powerful politicians besides Charles Njonjo.

It was here that his big break came and Parliament was told that he earned kickbacks from the construction of Turkwel Hydro-Power Project and the Kisumu Molasses plant.

DEFEND HIMSELF

Every time he was mentioned in bad light, Mr Biwott would rise in Parliament and defend himself.

“Nicholas Biwott is the cleanest man in the Republic,” he once told Parliament after Kikuyu MP Paul Muite asked for investigations into the Turkwel project. 

“We will find out when time comes,” Muite replied.

With the help of Jewish and French friends, Mr Biwott set up a huge business empire as he also helped their companies win lucrative tenders in Kenya.

OIL IMPORTATION

He invested in construction, property development, and the oil importation business and was a shareholder in HZ Company, which monopolised road contracts in Kenya. His other company, Lima Ltd, would later on try to seize part of Karura Forest, triggering a bitter war with environmentalist Wangari Maathai. Lima had been given 16 acres of the forest and was selling them at Sh60 million each.

His other companies included Air Kenya, Yaya Centre, and a huge stake at the oil company Kenol-Kobil where he has been divesting.

His son in law, Per Nils Jacobsson, who had been a director in the company since 2007 resigned four years ago.

Saturday, 8 July 2017

Joseph Nkaissery death: The timeline


SATURDAY JULY 8 2017
Interior Cabinet Secretary Joseph Nkaissery

Interior Cabinet Secretary Joseph Nkaissery (third from left) during a prayer event at Uhuru Park on July 7, 2017. PHOTO | COURTESY  

By STELLA CHERONO
More by this Author

As the country mourns the sudden death of Interior Cabinet Secretary Joseph Nkaissery, the Nation has traced some of his last moments.

Here is the timeline:

  • Friday 8.30am: CS Nkaissery goes to the Kasarani Gymnasium, Nairobi, the venue of the IAAF World Under-18 Championships from Wednesday.

Here, he whipped section heads into action and issued ultimatums for job completion all over the place.

  • Friday 1pm: Nkaissery attends the National Prayer Rally at the Uhuru Park, together with President Uhuru Kenyatta, Third Way Alliance Presidential Candidates Ekuru Aukot and Michael Wainaina, an independent candidate.

  • Friday 3.20pm: The CS leaves Uhuru Park after the end of the prayer rally and heads to his office at Harambee House, Nairobi.

Here, he holds a security meeting and works for some hours before leaving.

  • Friday 8.30pm: President Kenyatta holds a talk with the CS over peace and security during the election period.

According to Mr Kenyatta, they also discussed the IAAF championships slated for Wednesday. The call ended at 9.30pm, according to the president.

  • Friday 10pm: Nkaissery arrives at his Hardy home in Karen, Nairobi, and heads to his private gym before retiring to bed.

  • Saturday 1am: The CS wakes up and complains of a sharp chest pain before collapsing in his house.

His driver and family members rush him to the Karen Hospital which is just a few Kilometres from his house.

  • Saturday 1.45am: Doctors at the Karen Hospital declare Rtd Maj General Nkaissery dead and notify his family.

The cause of death was still not clear by the time of publishing this article.

  • Saturday 3.45am: Chief of Staff and Head of the Public Service Joseph Kinyua shares a statement confirming the death of the Cabinet Secretary.

In the statement, Mr Kinyua says the CS died at Karen Hospital in Nairobi a few hours after being admitted for a check-up. He does not divulge the cause of the minister’s death.

  • Saturday 5am: The body of the CS is taken to the Lee Funeral Home for preservation.

Many leaders and family members later arrive to view his body on Saturday morning.

David Ndii’s position exposes hypocrisy of civil society


BY BITANGE NDEMO FRIDAY JULY 7 2017

Members of the civil society in Nairobi in December 2015. PHOTO | EVANS HABIL | NATION MEDIA GROUP 


The mask has slipped. For the best part of the last two decades, Kenya’s civil society has played a duplicitous yet surprisingly successful double-game.

They have pretended to be non-partisan and carried themselves as independent protectors of the “interests and will of citizens”. They have posed as non-partisan actors and pretended to be autonomous from the political parties – an unwritten requirement of civil society especially in countries where political parties often represent narrow ethnic and regional interests.

It took the intervention of a reader of the Nationon May 5, 2017, to raise the question with the public editor why the Nation was consistently publishing opinion articles by individuals who purported to be independent civil society actors and yet they were in fact card-carrying members of the Opposition and bitter opponents of the government.

GONE UNANSWERED

The unquestioned leader of this band of actors is David Ndii. It is a remarkable demonstration of the weakness of the Jubilee administration’s communication team that his one-sided rants and screeds, charitably described in some quarters as analysis, have gone unanswered for the better part of the last three years.

While Ndii’s endless doom and gloom message on the future of the Kenyan economy – defied by the wave of investment that continues to pour into the country – can be excused as partisan propaganda aimed at advancing the ambitions of the opposition he ardently and now openly supports, his more recent outbursts must not go unchallenged.

Picking up the theme of a notorious article he wrote calling for the breaking up of the Kenyan republic, Ndii has spent the past week promoting the key theme from that article: “Kenya Will Burn if Uhuru Wins Another Sham Election,” Ndii said on Twitter, quoting himself.

There are many ways to challenge this type of incitement. Ndii has been rightly attacked for his recklessness on many grounds.

Conscientious citizens, including many from his own side, have pointed out that wealthy members of the civil society that he belongs to are unlikely to “burn” in the event of a post-election crisis. Instead, it is the poor that are routinely used as the foot-soldiers to fulfill the ambitions of politicians and those that seek appointments in their administrations that stand to suffer.

The more fundamental point that needs to be addressed if Kenya’s politics is ever to enter the mature stage is simple: National politicians, particularly the major presidential candidates, need to internalise a culture of accepting that they can be defeated in a free-and-fair election and that the culture of repeatedly dismissing defeat as the product of “rigging” only stunts the nation’s journey to democratic maturity.

The notion that the 2013 election was a “sham”, for example, is only held by Ndii and other civil society oppositionists but is not supported by a single report of the tens of thousands of outside observers who were in Kenya for that election.

As has been widely reported, there were 1,834 international observers in Kenya who worked alongside 21,554 domestic observers and 6,327 local and international journalists to cover that election.

The outcome was unwelcome to most of the Western world. The West, which funds most of those observer groups, resolutely opposed the UhuRuto ticket. But they all endorsed the results because they saw that it reflected the will of the Kenyan people.

The most important safeguard installed in that election, for example, the donor-funded parallel vote tabulation system which involved independent tallying in centres across the country and was conducted by the Electoral Observer Group found that the outcome of the presidential race matched the outcome of their own research.

Still, there is no culture of conceding defeat in Kenya and the opposition, far more fleet-footed at propaganda than the government, has spent the last four years honing a sense of victimhood, including through easily debunked claims such as the view that two million people voted only for the presidential candidates in 2013.

Looking forward to the 2017 election, one of the foremost western scholars on Kenya, Charles Hornsby, a professor of African history and the author of Kenya: A History Since Independence,published in mid-June a detailed analysis of possible outcomes of the 2017 election.

Of course, making predictions in any election is not an easy game and projections should not be taken as immutable truth. But the point is that when you assess analysis by outside experts who do not have ethno-regional or partisan interests at stake, many of them consider Jubilee to be on solid ground in 2017, particularly when you consider regional distribution of registered voters.

In the case of Prof Hornsby, he makes the concession that Nasa have had a strong 2017. In particular, they managed to stay united despite many predictions of a breach in the coalition. However, Hornsby makes the point that they might have had a better chance if they had picked a candidate different from the line-up they chose in 2013.

LOGICAL CHOICE

“NASA’s choice of Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka as presidential and vice presidential candidate, respectively, was both logical and predictable, but also a conservative strategy that set the two alliances up for an exact reprise of 2013,” he writes. “On that basis, it is hard to see the result being materially different. For Nasa, the opportunity to improve on their 42% performance in 2013 lies with the incorporation of much of Mudavadi’s vote (4% nationwide, mostly in western Kenya) into Nasa. For Jubilee to improve on their 50% performance in 2013, it needs to leverage the power of incumbency, its deeper pockets, the resources it has allocated to specific communities and the positive messages (hard to sell as they are proving) about their delivery to Kenyans during 2013-17.”

MORE MPs

Incumbency means that Jubilee has managed to woo far more MPs and governors to back them than they did in 2013.

The most important element that Hornsby analyses is the vote register. He makes the point that “Kenyan election results are far from random; they follow regular patterns and rarely exhibit discontinuous changes, and it is possible to make educated guesses about what will happen based on previous experience”.

Based on a reading of the vote register and projecting outcomes from elections in the counties in the 2013 election, Prof Hornsby says: “Nationally, the combination of registration numbers, turnout and an ethnically and historically voting-based preference model still predicts a first round win for Uhuru and Ruto, by 53% to 46% (with a maximum of 1% of votes to other candidates)”.

He writes: “It suggests Kenyatta and Ruto will get roughly 8.5 million votes (of which more than five million will come from the Kalenjin and Kikuyu communities) while Odinga and Musyoka will poll 7.5 million, of which approximately three million will come from Luo and Kamba voters. This would be on a national turnout of 83%....”

EITHER WAY

You may not agree with this projection and that of other external observers, including TIMEmagazine, which published an analysis predicting a comfortable win for Jubilee.

Projections can be offered either way. The key point here is that the assertions by Ndii and other oppositionists that the only way in which they can lose the election is through rigging are not only wrong but fallacious. They are also dangerous.

Combined with consistent efforts to erect roadblocks in the path of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission’s preparations for the election and the endless efforts to undermine the credibility of the electoral body, these actions simply show that the country is being prepared for a crisis.

RECKLESS POLITICIANS

It is a dangerous game. But Kenya has the misfortune of having some of the most reckless politicians and civil society actors in Africa.

The revelation that a prominent racketeer is funding the opposition has embarrassed the ever-moralising civil society actors and shown them to be opportunists.

Kenyans should wake up to the reality that there are some actors who have rewritten the rules of democracy and concluded that a free and fair election is one in which their candidate triumphs and a “sham” election is one won by those they do not support; to hell with the decisions voters make at the ballot box.

Dr Bitange Ndemo is an associate professor at the University of Nairobi’s School of Business.

bndemo@bitangendemo.me