Is Mungiki now legitimate?

Yesterday's demo in Nairobi by the Mungiki sect, ostensibly in support of President Moi and political protégé Uhuru Kenyatta, only served to send the wrong signals to Kenyans.

Hitherto a convenient scapegoat for almost every national act of violence, this amorphous outfit has caused the Establishment so much trouble that it has banned it. It is thus a high level of cynicism for the authorities to allow such an organisation to take over Nairobi's streets.

On March 8, Police Commissioner Philemon Abong'o banned Mungiki and 17 other outfits, saying they were security threats. That followed an incident in Nairobi's Kariobangi area in which a gang slaughtered 23 people. This has been followed by many police vows to crack down on the sect. But we have seen no effort to do so.

The demo came in the wake of highly inflammatory demagoguery, and plain war-mongering by MPs Kihika Kimani and Steven Ndicho. On Saturday they promised to unleash mayhem - using Mungiki - on anyone heard "insulting" the President.

Ironically, neither Mr Kimani nor Mr Ndicho has ever been known to be particularly cosy with the mysterious sect. This introduces a second lesson Kenyans should learn from the demo.

The Government is obviously using double standards and selective application of the law when it comes to allowing politicians to hold meetings and say whatever they want and in whatever language.

Two examples will suffice. At the Saturday meeting, when the two MPs hurled vile epithets at opponents of their favourite politicians and advocated violence, it was obvious that they were breaking the law. Yet nothing has been done about it.

But when a day later Ugenya MP James Orengo tried to hold a meeting at Oyugis, Rachuonyo District, after fulfilling all the conditions, not only was it cancelled, he was also hurled into police cells.

Does yesterday's officially-sanctioned demo mean that Mungiki is now legitimate because its aims now coincide with those of the power centre? Does it mean that if a banned outfit reconstitutes itself for a "worthy" political cause, then it ceases to be illegal? Does it mean that, as such an organisation "protects" the President, it can do anything under the sun with arrogant impunity?

This is abuse of power. It is indefensible and a complete anachronism, especially in a sensitive election year. All violent language must be punished whether from Mr Oloo Aringo or Mr Stephen Ndicho. Otherwise, if the run-up to the elections degenerates into uncontrollable violence, the Government will be the culprit