What would have happened if Uhuru stormed DCI HQ during Matiang’i grilling; Experts explain.
On tuesday, Former interior cabinet secretary, Fred Matiang’i avail himself before the directorate of criminal investigations, he was grilled for about 6 hours.
Rumors have it former President Uhuru Kenyatta threatened to stormed into the DCI headquarters if Matiang’i is not released with immediate effect.
Political experts have come out to explain what would have happened if the former president, Really took the step.
According to a political analyst, Martin Nduati, Uhuru Kenyatta making an appearance there, would have been political and economic suicide for Kenya, both locally and internationally.
He stated,”The act would have caused a lot of tension because Uhuru still has a lot of supporters. If both Raila and Uhuru mobilised their supporters to storm DCI, that would cause a lot of tension.”
“The country is at a cross-road which is why there is very little foreign direct investment into the country. The Shilling is in free-fall, we are experiencing serious drought and shortage of fuel in some petrol stations. Anything that tries to cause instability, including Uhuru’s protest visit to DCI would have led to a worse economic state,” he added.
On his part, lawyer Njiru stated that Uhuru joining Raila at the DCI head quarters would have,would have made international bodies question why , the current government is on revenge mission.
Njiru stated,”It would have been tantamount to confirming that the current regime is on a revenge mission. It would also have confirmed that Matiang’i’s case is merely political persecution.”
“The international community would have felt like those who served in the previous administration are under siege by the current government,” he added.
Njiru further opined that it was wrong for the DCI to limit the number of lawyers to three, during his grilling.
He stated,”The Law does not prescribe the number of lawyers that a suspect may be accorded at any level of a trial.”
“Matiang’i is being charged with conspiracy to commit a felony under Section 317 of the Penal Code, yet the DCI errored in their contextualisation of the charge,” he added.