UHURU/ RUTO ….. There is no way a country can be ruled from The Hague- MAKAU MUTUA says

I have been utterly flummoxed by recent comments by the Jubilee presidential candidate Uhuru Kenyatta, and his running mate William Ruto. The pair has boldly stated that it will govern Kenya from The Hague. I was shocked by the lack of public cry.

Oh hum – people just shrugged. Are you freaking kidding me? Is Kenya a nation of such naives? I know a politician will say anything – lie, cheat, and even kill – to get elected, or retain power.

There’s nothing new there, but is the average voter so gullible as to swallow a poison pill eyes wide open?

Methinks there’s a national psychosis that needs diagnosis. I have four reasons no one can govern from The Hague.

First, let me break down the calendar of the International Criminal Court to you. The court isn’t in Kibera or Milimani. The ICC is at The Hague – a world away. Travel by itself there takes a day. The court’s calendar is unforgiving.

Years to prosecute

Charges for crimes against humanity take years – I mean donkey years – to prosecute. Then add in more donkey years for an appellate process. It will easily take five years – a presidential term – or more before an ICC case concludes.

But there’s one nasty factoid – the accused must – that’s must, not should, or ought to – appear in person. This requires residence at The Hague. Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto had better buy a house at The Hague.

To this daunting fact Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto have said – no problem. That’s because they reckon their cases won’t run concurrently. This is nothing but a bald faced untruth told to a gullible electorate.

There’s no merit, or an iota, of truth to such an untruth. Neither Mr Kenyatta, nor Mr Ruto, set the court’s calendar. So it boggles the mind how they know – in advance – that their cases won’t run together.

Days apart

Their argument wouldn’t hold water even if their cases were only days apart. Let’s say Mr Kenyatta’s is heard on Monday and Tuesday, and Mr Ruto on Wednesday and Thursday every week. Will they each travel to Kenya every week to alternate in State House?

Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto can’t alternate as President and “acting” President. They will, in effect, be sequestered at The Hague once their cases begin.

You can take this to the bank – you probably won’t see either of them again for perhaps five years, or more, once they board the KLM flight to The Hague before April 10.

I take no delight in stating these facts, but facts are stubborn things. That’s why leaders seeking top seats shouldn’t be so cavalier with such a grave matter just to be elected.

The implications of the President and the Deputy President standing trial for crimes against humanity at The Hague are very grave.

Second, Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto have suggested that Kenya isn’t a banana republic, and can be ruled from The Hague. That logic is upside down. Only a banana republic can be ruled by remote by an absentee president.

Let me illustrate. Whenever there’s a national tragedy – like a terrorist attack – the country must have the leader’s hand on the wheel.

That’s why leaders on foreign trips – no matter how critical – immediately cancel them and return home when there’s a crisis. Even President Barack Obama – who rules one of the most stable and sophisticated states – can’t be away for more than a week, or when there’s a crisis. Why would a fragile state like Kenya elect an absentee leader?

40 million people

Third, Mr Ruto has suggested that he can rule Kenya from The Hague through the Internet. I don’t know what he’s talking about because human beings can’t even run their homes through the Internet, let alone a country of 40 million people.

Just try raising your children, and having a relationship with your spouse, on the Internet, and see what happens.

This is either empty braggadocio or desperation. But perhaps it’s the regard with which some leaders hold Kenyans – as simpletons who can be run through the click of a mouse – like a drone – thousands of miles away.

Perhaps I should be elected President – and still remain dean at SUNY Buffalo Law School – and see how Kenya fares under my watch.

Fourth, I have written before that there are dire consequences for electing leaders facing charges for heinous crimes at the ICC. I keep on hearing the argument that nobody should tell Kenyans how to vote. Others say that they will vote for The Hague duo just to spite America and Europe. That’s unwise.

It’s like a child threatening to jump over the cliff if it doesn’t get a cookie. It’s self-defeating logic.

We’ve seen what happens when countries elect, or are ruled, by pariahs. That’s loading a gun and shooting it at your head. The US and Europe have a right to choose partner states.

Methinks the US or Europe can’t justify dealing with an ICC suspect president.

Finally, let’s take a deep breath. Kenyans have been repeatedly warned by fellow Kenyans – like me – about the adverse effects of electing ICC suspects. Beyond that I think people should vote for whomever they choose.

It’s not true that only outsiders – meaning the West – have cautioned against certain choices. That’s a red herring. There have been columns galore on this question.

But I know money and the tribe have strong pulls. Will they triumph over logic and self-interest? Kenyans must never say we never told them – we did. The choice is theirs.

Prof Makau Mutua