Amnesty within the context of the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya: Is it a prescription for sustainable justice and peace?

Abstract

I have watched television and read newspapers with dismay. Just when I thought politicians had stopped their bad manners, they are at it again. This time they are arguing about amnesty for criminals. Some of them feel one criminal gang deserved amnesty because it is better than the other. They believe their children are better children and therefore should not be criminalized. I wonder why some politicians believe criminals from their communities are lesser wrong doers than those from other communities. This is simply not right! If amnesty is to be given, let it be across the board! Otherwise, let the rule of law prevail and if found guilty, justice should apply to all the Mungikis, the S abaot Land Defense group members and those who destroyed other people's lives during the post-election violence.' 1.1 Overview The above quotation captures the political interests that have emerged to define the amnesty debate within the context of the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya. Indeed, on the one hand, there is a group of politicians who have thrown their weight of support behind granting amnesty to the alleged perpetrators of the post-election violence, citing innocence, selectivity in effecting arrests and the alleged disproportionate targeting of some communities, amongst other reasons. However, at the other end of the spectrum of the debate, there is another group of politicians who are totally opposed to granting amnesty to the alleged "criminals", premising their arguments on the enforcement of the rule of law.