Wazee na Wamama,
For your information may I register that most of us within the precincts of the Gotab Gaa forum are friends I fact good friends to Hon. Ruto and have a continued good will of the Kenyan nation at heart.
The central question still remains: Do we in as Kenyans/Kalenjins and friends of Kenya condone the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture (public leader) for using his office to benefits himself and his cronies at the expense of the common good? This question is a moral on in nature; it goes down deep into what are our values as a people. Remember, what is being put to test here are the fabric of who we are.
The answer to these central question if we will ever come to agree, then determines the parameters that these forum would employ to make claim of the acceptable from unacceptable conduct. Whether Ruto steps down is inconsequential, for he might be operating in a very different ethical paradigm, if my assertion is true then that is a paradigm that the common person needs to shun. And the damning of such can in a small way be done here in this forum. For those calling for Kiraitu inquiry i would presume that same guidelines should be followed a discussed below .
Process to resolving the dilemma
So that the issue can be put to rest, There is a dire need within the Kenyan civil and governments systems a need for a systematic and a predictable way of conducting business.
With the matter at hand a I am giving a snippet of a suggestion that, first it is critical for the stake holders to separate the person from the problem. When one claims that there is a potential of being blinded, or being driven solely by the tribal card, such is a manifestation that there lack of clear boundaries on what is being examined. Important therefore is that we define the problem, for it then makes it easy for us to subscribe to some degree of objectivity and may be reason more fairly.
The question therefore is do we have a problem based on the conduct of the Minister? Based on the news articles it has been reported that the Minister of Agriculture used his office to benefits himself and his close associates. Across the debate there seems to be a consensus thus far. Which affirms that there is sufficient amount of data to make claim that yes, we have problem?
The third step is to consult with the rules and regulations in place to guide us to resolve the problem. Several sources are available. The one that comes to mind is the oath office that the Minister took. The oath clearly mentions the dos expected from his public service. He took the oath of office which mandated him not to conduct himself otherwise. And the Laws of the land do agree with this view.
Fourth step is what is best practice when you a public leader goes against their oath? World over except Kenya, the best practice is, he step aside for investigations to be carried which will either exonerate him or otherwise.
Some have made claim that that the Minister is clean. Please share the criteria that you followed to arrive to that claim. The ramification of such a claim without a sound moral basis is in essence we are setting a terrible precedence. I call it terrible precedence because we will be creating a society where the mighty and wealth have a right to trample over the weak and poor. Which negates the very reason why we are advancing for a democratic society via through this forum?