By Nadja Kostka

Raila Odinga, leader of the opposition party, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), has protested that he was robbed of victory, describing the elections as “marred by a lack of transparency in the processing and tallying of presidential results, which raises concerns about the accuracy of the final results” (BBC).

The Associated Press notes that in the run up to the elections “allegations of corruption - including voter intimidation and violence - was a dominant issue, with both Kibaki and Odinga vowing to end the graft that has scared off foreign investment and cost taxpayers millions of dollars."

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, chief of the European Union Observer Commision, commented that the election fell short of the UN Charter on Civil and Political Rights which Kenya is signatory to, The Nation reports. The BBC notes that both Kibaki and Odinga’s parties accuse one another of result rigging at polling stations and constituency offices.

AFP reports that talks in the first week of January, led by the African Union and Ghanaian President John Kufuor, “ended in failure”, and Odinga “is refusing to recognise Kibaki's re-election or to sit down with him until he admits to fraud." According to Time, Odinga rejected an invitation from Kibaki to meet as “public relations gimmickry."

Reuters reports that the ODM party is filing a complaint with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, charging Mr. Kibaki with “crimes against humanity.” Meanwhile, the government “has taken out full-page adverts in newspapers accusing Western powers, the international media and rights groups of fanning unrest by questioning the election result” (Reuters).

Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan arrived in Nairobi on 22 January to lead a new push for a resolution to the crisis. An EU source told Reuters that if nothing positive emerges from Annan’s mission, the EU would "seriously review" its relations with Kenya, including the issue of sanctions.

To read Transparency International's press release on the situation, please click here.

By Mike Sidwell

The investigation has centred on “a [US] $7.1 billion deal [in 1999] for the government to buy ships, submarines, helicopters, jets and other arms,” reports the Associated Press. According to Bloomberg, “Zuma, 65, is accused of trying to secure bribes from two South African units of Thales SA, Europe’s largest military electronics maker, in exchange for protecting them from a probe into arms purchases by the state. He is also alleged to have used his political influence to help an advisor win contracts in exchange for money.” Zuma and Thint Holdings SA and Thint PTY Ltd (the two subsidiaries of Thales in question) “face a total of 18 charges” (Bloomberg).

The FT reports that “many of Mr Zuma’s supporters in the party’s grassroots and radical fringes have long alleged that he is the victim of a political conspiracy orchestrated by his old friend turned political enemy Mr Mbeki, and have threatened to protest and demonstrate if charged.” Zuma’s lawyer, Michael Hulley, has commented that the timing of the serving of the indictment lends “credence to the long-held view that the Scorpions [the investigating unit] were influenced and their prosecution informed by political considerations” (South African Broadcasting Corporation). The NPA spokesperson, Tlali Tlali, has rejected the allegations stating: “Our only allegiance is to the constitution of the country, which compels us to prosecute serious matters such as the present one, without fear, favour or prejudice” (Sunday Independent).

Pierre de Vos, a constitutional law professor at the University of the Western Cape, believes that if convicted, Zuma will “be sentenced to a 15-year minimum [jail term]…He will be caught up in court cases for the next two or three years. It will make it very difficult for him to have authority and govern the country” (Bloomberg). According to the FT, Zuma has made it clear that he will not run if convicted. In this event, Kgalema Motlanthe, the new deputy president of the ANC, is the most likely replacement for Zuma, according to the South African Business Day.

The trial has potentially far reaching effects. Reuters highlights the concerns that the charges “look set to deepen political uncertainty in Africa’s biggest economy and fuel tensions between the ANC rank-and-file backing Zuma and Mbeki’s government.”

By Mike Sidwell

The future of the PTF had been uncertain. The New York Times reported in December: “The effort to scuttle the panel is not a budget matter so much as a political one, and it represents the continuing suspicion developing countries have about international intervention in their affairs.” In contrast, Imtiaz Hussain, a Pakistani diplomat, said that many in the developing world, “resent that the United Nations can find funds for initiatives pushed by wealthy countries but not anti-poverty projects favored by poor nations”, reports the Washington Post (WP). Other critics argue that although the PTF has uncovered corruption, “it has also tarnished the reputation of some honest officials who simply bent U.N. rules to quickly launch multibillion-dollar missions” (WP).

The PTF hit the headlines in December when the WP published an article detailing a report by the task force, which identified “multiple instances of fraud, corruption, waste and mismanagement at U.N. headquarters and peacekeeping missions, including ten significant instances of fraud and corruption with aggregate value in excess of [US] $610 million.” In addition, the report notes a “collapse of ethical culture and extensive corruption in procurement in the [Congo] Mission which has existed for years,” according to Reuters. Inga-Britt Ahlenius, who, as head of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, is responsible for the PTF, told Reuters, “We can say that we found mismanagement and fraud and corruption to an extent we didn’t really expect.”

UN spokesperson Michele Montas is quoted in AFP acknowledging that: “We are well aware that there have been problems in procurement…This is why we are moving full steam ahead with procurement reform in order to have a system that is much tighter and transparent, leaving less room for abuse.” According to Reuters, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has told reporters that he wants the UN “to be as transparent as possible in its management and procurement activities.”