Sunday, July 14, 2013

The man behind Deputy President William Ruto’s land woes

Updated Saturday, July 13th 2013 at 09:24 GMT +3


By Protus Onyango and Isaiah Lucheli
The man behind the land case that haunted William Ruto for some years now says he has nothing against the Deputy President but insists the court ruling was a victory for the poor.
Adrian Gilbert Muteshi, 80, says he does not fear any reprisals from Ruto’s supporters and is planning a grand return to the 100-acre spread in Turbo, Uasin Gishu County, just a few kilometres from Ruto’s ruralhome. The former Personnel Manager with the defunct East African Airways had gone to courtaccusing Ruto of grabbing his land after he fled the 2008 post-election violence.
Although the case appeared to have been concluded when High Court Judge Rose Ougo last month ordered Ruto to pay Muteshi Sh5 million as compensation for unlawfully taking his land, some analysts say the Deputy President was not out of the woods yet as the ruling could be used to question his integrity.
Already, some civil society activists and politicians have challenged him to resign for illegally taking landbelonging to an Internally Displaced Person.
In an exclusive interview with The County Weekly a week after the court ruling, Muteshi said he was preparing to return to Turbo to farm his land.
He says he does not expect any further problems from Ruto or from neighbours since he has been handed back the land after a fair judicial process.
“I am a poor man. I struggled to buy the land and I will continue to farm it.  Although I had expected the judge to order Ruto to pay me more money for the anguish I have gone through, I am happy with the ruling,” he said.
He added: “The ruling was good for poor Kenyans who have been pursuing justice against the rich.”
Muteshi, a father of four, said the Turbo farm was his main source of income before the violence broke out after the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) rejected the re-election of President Mwai Kibaki in 2007.
At that time, Ruto, a Key member of ODM, joined former Prime Minister to protest the election results.
He said that when he returned to the farm later on, he found it had been taken by Ruto.
In her judgment Justice Ougo said Ruto was a trespasser as the evidence adduced in court clearly showed that Muteshi was the owner of the disputed land.
It will be the third time Ruto’s integrity is being put to the test.  In 2011, the former Eldoret North MP was acquitted by a Magistrate’s court after winning a Sh43 million land fraud case.
Ruto had been accused of fraudulently receiving the money from the Kenya Pipeline Company under the pretext that he would sell them a prime piece of landin Nairobi.
The case earned him suspension from the Cabinet in the then coalition government.
Ruto is currently facing crimes against humanity charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC), alongside President Kenyatta and radio journalist Joshua arap Sang.
Speaking to journalists after he was acquitted in theland fraud case in 2011, Ruto said: “Yet again this ruling has vindicated me and I am sure all the other cases ahead of me face the same fate because I am an innocent man.”
But analysts now say the Muteshi land case would continue to haunt Ruto given the proximity of theland from his home.
Wainaina Ndung’u, Executive Director of the International Center for Policy and Conflict, says Mr Ruto’s case should be seen in the context of his personal rights versus the constitutional rights.
“This ruling should be seen in the light that regardless of one’s position in society, their actions should measure up to the country’s constitutional values,” Ndung’u said.
He noted that Ruto’s case has a deeper perspective and should not be equated to the innocent-until-proven-guilty rule.
“Our Constitution outlines the grounds upon which a leader can be impeached. It is about the national values but not whether one is guilty or not,” Ndung’u said.
He added, “That is why Mumo Matemu and Nancy Baraza were found to be unfit to hold public office because they did not bring honour and dignity to the office.”
He added: “The ruling has reminded Kenyans that the Constitution is supreme and no one should violate it. But it is good that someone has the guts to stand up for injustice.”
Last year, Ruto said he had not known the land had been irregularly transferred before he bought it.
He later agreed to vacate the land, but denied any wrongdoing.
However, the two failed to agree on compensation, which Muteshi had demanded, forcing the matter to go to full trial.
In the written submissions, Dorothy Yator, the woman accused of having sold the land fraudulently to Ruto has said that she was innocent and had not been involved in the transactions that led to the transfer of the land from the IDP to Ruto.
But Justice Ougo dismissed Ruto’s defence and ordered that he and all his servants be evicted from the land under supervision by the Officer Commanding Turbo police station.
Ruto in his pleading alleged that he was the bona fide purchaser of the land. But the judge said there was no evidence adduced to show the existence of a sale agreement between him and Ms Yator, who has denied selling the land to him.
Said Justice Ougo:  “He ought to have rigorously defended this allegation in court but he chose not to.” The judge added that all the evidence tied together clearly shows that there were fraudulent activities in the manner in which Muteshi’s land was subdivided adding that they were not only irregular but also illegal.
The judge cited one Hosea Ruto who was an agent of the DP and assisted him in locating the owner of the disputed piece of land. She took issue with the way Hosea carried out his professional duty citing negligence on his part.
Witnesses in the case had accused Hosea of being ‘an engine of fraud’ and the main link between Ruto and the two officials from the Ministry of Lands that took part in the land transaction.
Ruto had earlier indicated he would appeal against the ruling but his legal advisers have advised it against it and urged him to pay Muteshi as ordered by the court.
The lawyers said that the appeal may not work in Ruto’s benefit because he was not involved in the fraudulent acquisition of the 100-acre farm and that he was as much a victim as the landowner.
According to the lawyers, no adverse finding was made against Ruto since the judge exonerated him from involvement in any fraudulent activity.

No comments:

Post a Comment