Topical Debates: Kenya

Speech by Jo Swinson MP delivered to House of Commons on Thu 17th Jan 2008

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)

Some people have criticised the Leader of the House for her decisions on subjects for topical debate, but today her choice cannot be faulted. It is very welcome that the House has this opportunity to debate the crisis in Kenya. As we speak, thousands of Kenyans are protesting on the streets of Nairobi, in Kisumu and throughout the country. I am particularly delighted to follow the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who made an eloquent and powerful contribution and who has much experience in international development.

Let us be clear: the humanitarian and political crisis in Kenya has arisen because on 27 December, Mwai Kibaki stole the elections from the people of Kenya. More than 600 Kenyans have lost their lives and 250,000 have fled their homes as a direct result of an election that betrayed democracy and involved corruption at the highest levels, in the heart of the electoral commission of Kenya. The evidence is stark. In one constituency, recorded turnout was 115 per cent. In Molo, western Kenya, official results gave Kibaki 35,000 more votes than the total tallied by observers at the count. Delays in announcing results from Kibaki's stronghold allowed time to let officials know how many extra votes to add to the tally. There were no outside observers at the final stage of the ballot count. It is quite clear that the result was manipulated behind closed doors at the electoral commission.

Hilary Armstrong (North West Durham, Labour)

My understanding from the Commonwealth observer is that if a tally in the presidential election was more than 100 per cent. by the time it got from the constituency to Nairobi, it was discounted.

Add your comment

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome the right hon. Lady's intervention. There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence from media reports. One television channel showed an official leaving the count saying, "I can't do this anymore, because of what I am being asked to do." We have been told what the chair of the electoral commission said about making the announcement of results under duress. We need forensic examination, as far as is possible, to determine the scale of the deception, but I do not think it is in doubt that the actual election result was not the one declared.

We have known for some time that Mr. Kibaki has failed to tackle corruption as he pledged to do when he took power in 2002. That is just one in a long line of broken promises, such as the pledge to create the new constitution that Kenya so badly needs. Most seriously, more than a year ago Kibaki stacked the electoral commission with his own appointments and failed to consult Opposition parties. Surely that should have been the canary in the mine-a clear warning of what was to come. The crisis was predictable; in fact, it was predicted. I refer to the comments of my noble Friend Lord Steel of Aikwood in the other place on 31 January 2007:

"Does the Minister therefore agree with the outgoing chairman of the commission, who is quoted in the Kenyan press as saying that if it is constituted in a way that people are not happy with, they will not trust the result?"

The situation in Kenya shows how true that was. The Minister, Lord Triesman, responded in part by calling the lack of consultation

"a weakness which we will continue to bring to the attention of the Kenyan Government."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 2007; Vol. 689, c. 227.]

On 7 January this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked the Foreign Secretary what representations had been made to the Kenyan Government, but received no answer. I ask the Minister again now: what exactly did the Government do? What representations were made, and what actions did they take, at what levels, when Kibaki's rigging of the electoral commission pointed to forthcoming electoral chaos in Kenya?

I welcome the Government's clear statement that they do not recognise Kibaki as the Kenyan President. We must ensure that there is no doubt, either in Britain or the international community, that the December elections are not seen as legitimate. The international community must be united in its rejection of Kibaki as Kenyan President.

I understand that the UK Government have already put in place travel bans against certain members of the Kibaki Government. There is another lever that we can use: surely we could wield influence through the extension of such bans to all those who are blocking the political process, including, if necessary, Kibaki himself. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has considered that, and whether we have considered whether there are other members of the Government and the political class in Kenya to whom travel bans could be extended. We should work closely with our EU neighbours to widen the impact of such personal sanctions.

Of course, when applying sanctions, we have to be careful that they are targeted against corrupt members of the Government, and those blocking the democratic process. They should not harm poor Kenyans, who are already victims in the crisis. The free education and HIV health programmes must be safeguarded.

Elections are due in Angola, Malawi and Ghana in the next 18 months. There is a great danger that failing to deal rigorously with electoral corruption in Kenya will make similar problems more likely in those other African states. The political solution to the crisis in Kenya must involve fresh presidential elections.

Add your comment

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: the only lasting solution to the crisis is fresh elections and, as the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) says, they should be held relatively soon. Does she not agree that both the parties concerned should use this interim period to reach a joint agreement on the composition of the electoral commission of Kenya, so that whoever wins the election will buy into the commission's processes, and so that the elections can be seen as free and fair?

Add your comment

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is right: it will, of course, be key that everybody involved in the Kenyan political process buys into the electoral commission processes, and the body must be seen to be independent.

The idea of a Government of national unity is unlikely to work. Let us remember that Kibaki reneged on a memorandum of understanding between him and Raila Odinga back in 2002, so there is unlikely to be sufficient trust. The only realistic solution is for a transitional power-sharing Government to take office, and a timetable for new elections to be drawn up. It will take time for Kenyans who have been displaced to be resettled and reregistered to vote, and a lot of rebuilding work will have to be done across the discredited branches of government. The restoration of the electoral commission's independence is a vital step, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) says.

2002 brought a new sense of optimism to Kenya. That year's elections deserved the praise that they received for being the most free and fair in Kenyan history. Last December, voters again approached the polls with optimism, and recorded turnout was 70 per cent. However, the situation has quickly turned into a seminal crisis. Whether the violence is blamed on tribal tensions, a conflict between the haves and have-nots, or an intergenerational clash, we should not lose sight of the fact that the direct cause of the bloodshed was the manipulation of the presidential election result.

As we enter the second day of fresh protests in Kenya, the potential for further large-scale loss of life is very real. Pressure must be brought to bear on Kibaki so that Kenya can have a transitional Government and fresh elections. Failing to act now will push Kenya closer to the brink.