A Commentary by Pete Ondeng and Peter Waiyaki The public discourse on whether or not the Kadhi Courts should be included in the constitution has been wrongly interpreted by many to be a Christian vs Muslim affair. The often uninformed rhetoric by hard liners on both sides of the argument adds an unnecessary and potentially explosive element to the already charged political atmosphere. The issue here is not about religion, but about the constitution. The move to change the current constitution springs from an acknowledgement by most people that there are wrongs in the document that need to be made right. There are some basic rights, for instance, that the original constitution did not address, and which need to be enshrined in the new document. Similarly, there were some provisions that were included by those who negotiated the Lancaster House document that no longer hold water and need to be scrapped. The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) retreat in Naivasha, which was expected by m...
Comments