����ֱ��

NAIROBI: After weeks of violent protests, a leading rights activist and former chief justice have emerged as presidential contenders — but can they succeed in the bare-knuckle world of Kenyan politics?
President William Ruto has seen his popularity plummet since coming to power in 2022 over continued economic stagnation, corruption, police brutality, and abductions targeting government critics.
Ruto has stood firm against waves of violent protests seeking to force his resignation in mid-2024 and again in recent months, in which hundreds have died or disappeared.
However, many are now seeking new faces who can challenge him in the next election, scheduled for 2027.
Firebrand human rights activist Boniface Mwangi announced his bid for the top seat on Wednesday, vowing not to work with “anyone who is contaminated.”
“We cannot achieve change by working with people who have been part of the problem,” Mwangi said as he announced his candidature.
He pitched himself as the antithesis of the typical politician — shunning bribes and the lavish cash hand-outs to voters that occur during Kenyan campaigns.
But the 42-year-old faces an uphill struggle. His previous attempt to run a clean campaign — running for a parliamentary seat in 2017 — ended in failure.
Another figure who has entered the fray is former Chief Justice David Maraga, who came out of retirement in June to announce his presidential bid.
In an interview, he said he had not previously considered a political career but was shocked into action by Ruto’s violent crackdown on protesters.
“What I saw horrified me,” he said. It is a “leadership that does not want to follow the law.”
Maraga, 74, made his name in 2017 when his bench of judges in the Supreme Court nullified the results of the presidential election over “irregularities and illegalities” — an unprecedented ruling in Africa.
“Maraga could be our Mohammed Yunus,” said Nelson Amenya, a columnist and whistleblower, on X, referring to the Bangladeshi civil society leader and statesman.
Maraga rejects claims that he lacks the charisma and physical presence required for politics “I am prepared to go into the murky environment,” he said.

“What good is a good reputation for me if ... I see my country going down and I see the youths being killed, being kidnapped?“
Ruto remains defiant, saying only he has a plan for the country, based on mobilizing international investment and reforming public services.

The opposition’s “only plan is that ‘Ruto must go’ — how will that help Kenyans and the country?” he said in a speech during the protests in June.
Ruto has also repeatedly proved his mastery of Kenyan politics — how to exploit its deep-rooted tribal divisions and mobilize voters with financial promises.
While the protests of 2024 and 2025 demonstrated a new generation of educated young Kenyans eager to move beyond that type of politics, analysts say there is still a long way to go.
“Culture does not change overnight,” political analyst Kaburu Kinoti said. No candidate “can appeal to the mass political market without segmenting it into ethnic blocs.”
Patrick Gathara, a political cartoonist, said candidates like Mwangi and Maraga will struggle to stay clean.
“I have no faith that they are not going to be corrupted by the system, because our system is actually built to corrupt people,” he said.
Gathara said the key to Kenya’s future cannot come from politicians but from continued pressure by citizens.
“Change never comes from within,” he said.

LONDON: UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has been accused of running a “cynical media campaign” against Palestine Action that breaches her duties over a court case challenging the group’s banning.

Lawyers representing Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori sent a letter to the government’s legal department making the accusation, The Guardian reported on Friday.

Ammori has been given permission for a judicial review of Cooper’s decision in early July to ban the group under the UK Terrorism Act.

In the letter, Ammori’s lawyers from the firm Birnberg Peirce argue that Cooper’s public statements, widely reported in the media, are at odds with her disclosures in the review case at the High Court.

“At the centre of your client’s media campaign is an attempt to persuade the public that Palestine Action was proscribed for reasons which she is unable to reveal publicly and which are centred on violence and injuries against people,” the lawyers said.

“These claims about the reason for Proscription Review Group’s recommendation for the proscription of Palestine Action are misleading in light of open (public) disclosure.”

In announcing Palestine Action’s proscription, Cooper had said publicly that the group was planning violent acts to further its cause.

But she refused to disclose the nature of these planned attacks or how authorities discovered them.

Ammori’s lawyers said: “It is clear from the open disclosure that the basis for the recommendation was serious damage to property caused by Palestine Action and not violence against people.

“Indeed the central advice to your client was that proscribing Palestine Action would advance ‘the deterrent message of stating clearly that serious damage to property to advance a cause, amounts to terrorism regardless of the cause.’”

Some of the evidence at the judicial review hearing was kept private from Ammori and her legal team.

But Birnberg Peirce’s lawyers have argued that Cooper’s references to secret information regarding Palestine Action must be heard in the review.

“Anything that your client feels able to share with the media should be in your client’s open case, even by way of gist,” they wrote.

Ammori’s lawyers also highlighted an opinion piece authored by Cooper in The Observer. In the piece, the home secretary referred to “disturbing information given to me that covered ideas and planning for future attacks (by Palestine Action).”

Yet this information was left out of open court in the judicial hearing, as were allegations made by Cooper and Prime Minister Keir Starmer that Palestine Action targeted Jewish businesses.

Those allegations relate to a Jewish business operated by a landlord of a subsidiary of Elbit, the Israeli arms company, a fact that Cooper was “well aware” of, the letter said.

It added: “This cynical media campaign reflects a fundamental lack of respect for court proceedings, and either indicates an attempt by your client to influence media coverage through assertions which she cannot evidence, or is reflective of a serious breach of her duty of candour in these proceedings.”

The letter continued: “The proper place for your client to advance her case is in court. Your client’s approach in relation to briefing the media with a wholly different basis for proscription is entirely improper and a breach of her duty to the court.

“If your client has evidence to support her assertions, this ought to have been disclosed. As she has not, she must cease her misleading campaign immediately.”