PALIARMENT WILL CONTINUE RATIFYING INTERNATIONAL TREATIES WITH OR WITHOUT A NEW CONSTITUTION.

Honorable William Ruto has leveled a continuous verbal barrage of criticisms against the United States for allegedly meddling in Kenya`s internal affairs. In his latest such barrage he alleged that the US is bribing legislators in the Yes Camp to hoodwink the Kenyan electorate into promulgating a constitution that will see Kenya automatically ratify dangerous international treaties some of which may allow the Kenyan President to be tried outside Kenya. Ruto was apparently referring to article (2) clause (6) in the proposed constitution which states that “any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of Kenya under this constitution.” His interpretation of this clause is mischievous as it is misleading.

It is of course a blatant untruth and it helps lend credence to the fact that Ruto has been devising intricate webs of intrigue and subterfuge in a sustained effort in order to thwart the forthcoming August plebiscite. His schemes and indeed those of the majority in the No camp have become infinitely more grandiose. That they have openly resorted to perpetuation of dazzling propaganda to sway the public from the truth is an open secret.

In discounting his latest lie it is important to note that the ratification of international treaties is a process that is well delineated in Kenya. Parliament, which exercises authority on behalf of the people of Kenya is duty bound to ratify any international treaty unless of course it is an executive agreement which has the force of law but unlike a treaty, it may not require parliamentary approval. This is because it is in the best interests of Kenyans to allow the president and the cabinet ministers some freedom of action in foreign affairs considering that they may be required to respond quickly to international challenges.

It is extremely important to understand that parliament will not stop ratifying international treaties just because the proposed constitution has not been promulgated nor does it mean that Kenya will henceforth pull out of international treaties it has previously domesticated. Unless of course Ruto has lost faith in parliament as an institution, in which case he has no moral authority serving as a parliamentarian.

It is also worth noting that the country will not shield individuals culpable of criminal acts just because the proposed constitution has not been promulgated. For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will continue to complement our national criminal procedures with or without the promulgation of a new constitution.

I am sure that Ruto is well aware of the fact that the Rome Statute gives the court jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of international committed after July 1, 2002, either by a citizen of a nation that accepts the statute, or by a person of any nationality on the territory of a nation that accepts the statute. This is why ICC has booked a date with Sudanese president Omar El Bashir even though Sudan has not domesticated the Rome Statute.

Most importantly, one wonders why Ruto is imputing improper motives against the Kenyan president. What does Ruto know about the president that the rest of the country does not know?

Suffice to say that it will do this country a lot of good if honorable William Ruto aspired not to interpret the proposed constitution with motives that are no more than desecrating upon our nationhood.

TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis.