According to Miguna, he met with the PM and agreed to return to work for him under conditions that he says were not reflected in the formal communication lifting his suspension and asking him to return to work.
Miguna has since rejected the offer to return, which the PM’s office accepted.
This has been in some way a lesson in the evolving new Kenyan politics where for the first time in our country’s history, someone has gone to court to challenge the sacking at the presidential and now PM level.
In the days past, people were sacked but quietly went away leaking their self-inflicted wounds, if that’s what caused the sacking or on to scheming their come-back or survival strategy, if for any other reasons.
Not Miguna; he was not even sacked but even before that legal process we know as due process could complete internally, Miguna was in court, crumbled papers in hand detailing how he had been wronged.
To be sure, even though the suspension of Miguna was proper under the law and personnel policy guidelines at the PM’s office, the manner in which it was done was less than textbook and one hopes those responsible have come to the same conclusion.
Miguna takes the view nothing has been learned because, he alleges, the same staff has shafted him twice over the same matter, this time around because he claims he had a meeting with the PM in which he agreed to return to work under certain conditions only to receive a welcome back letter from a staff telling something other than what he believes was agreed to in good faith.
My take on this is, Miguna fell into a trap laid by his combatants at the PM’s office, even though I doubt the PM was into it more than being the passive conduit for the scheme for even Miguna himself says the meeting he says he had with the PM was in good faith.
If there is one thing that clearly emerges from even that meeting and subsequent events alone, it is this:
Miguna did agree to return to the PM’s office for whatever reasons or under whatever conditions but the fact that Miguna agreed to return work for the man he has been trashing lately says more about him than the man himself who strictly speaking has had no dog in this fight between Miguna and other staff at the PM’s office which unsurprisingly came to a boil with his suspension.
As is often the case, rarely can one survive an onslaught from fellow staff determined to have him ejected no matter how close or loyal to the Boss.
Indeed, a strong case can be made Miguna survived as long as he did in that office, knowing what people say about his brashness and in your face approach to things not because of his own unparalleled ability to do so but simply because the PM allowed him to; the PM could have had him booted a long time ago, according to insiders sharing this information to yours truly.
The same source tells me people were surprised the PM hired Miguna in the first place but I defend both for the decision because Miguna, hate him or like him, is a brilliant man whose mind and ideas could be harnessed for good management of legal affairs therefore the PM’s appointing him for the position he did, was quite appropriate and sound.
Notice I did not say “political affairs” where our good friend has a lesson or two he needs to brush up on, if he never learned it in the first place.
I note above Miguna walked into a trap laid by his friends at the PM’s office with the PM serving only as an innocent conduit.
Having been trapped on one leg, Miguna has managed to extract himself free of the trap and is now out there limping on one leg.
Miguna was doomed either way; had he returned to work for the PM, many, if not all would have dismissed him as an opportunist who would say or do anything to advance his selfish interests.
Never mind he would have been given a box square office as far away from the PM as possible and good luck if the PM would have even given him a minute of his time to hear what he had to say, even offering an apology.
But, knowing the PM, he would have in time forgotten about it and if Miguna had adjusted to live to fight another day, he might even have had a chance to fight back to some relevance within the PM’s team.
Having rejected the offer to return, however, a few eyes are on him to see what he does next.
If carries through with what he says he wants to, namely, “spilling the beans” on Raila and the PM’s office for that matter, his trajectory in terms of his personal, professional and political career will be to one direction.
Wiser counsel would be to go in the direction of reassessing, reevaluating and re-emerging on the political scene as a battle tested soldier ready to fight the good fight for his people and country.
Going the other direction, namely, the “spilling” direction, however, has many pitfalls one can see.
There is no question Miguna has damaged his reputation by both what he said and did immediately after he was suspended and more recently, his meeting he says happened between he and the PM he has been trashing apparently to negotiate terms for his return to the PM’s office—the very PM and office he has been trashing without even as batting an eye.
Yet, some say he should now take this opportunity to “spill the beans” and even he has indicated he is willing to go this direction, regardless of whether he would do so on principal, as Githongo did or out of bitterness for being suspended and now no longer working for the PM.
Those who say this say do so predicated on the notion the end justifies the means but they fail to see another aspect of this notion and that is, only when the end is desirable to all is the means justified.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Miguna ha “beans to spill,” –which I maintain he doesn’t–when he spills such imaginary beans, he will be met with three audiences:
One is the one already salivating for such spilling and this principally comprises of all Raila haters and his opponents. This group will believe hook, line and sinker anything negative anyone says about Raila so count them being on line even as early as midnight to buy such book written by Miguna, if any or having their eyes glued to TV to hear him “spill” such imaginary beans or reading their eyes to pain and exhaustion about the same imaginary beans.
The second audience, is comprised of some of Raila critics, genuine objective Kenyans and reformists who would like to sift through to determine if there is any truth in the “spilled” imaginary beans but would likely conclude otherwise, namely, there is nothing there there, simply based on the unbelievability of what is to be alleged topped only with the fact there will not be any corroborating evidence required under the very notion of public accountability and rule of law the very objective Kenyans and reformers demand to be in place and adhered to.
It is important to note corroborating evidence is not required where the spilling is done by someone whose credibility cannot be questioned as was the case in Githongo and a fact that distinguishes him (Githongo) from Miguna and everyone else before him and after.
The third audience is everyone else, including Raila supporters and sympathizers who would not even bother as to hear what Miguna has to say other than the very passionate among them who would wouldn’t mind knowing what he says if anything to rebut him where necessary such as yours truly.
In the larger picture therefore, and really my point, what Miguna does or does not do will not make a difference in further worsening the hate or dislike of Raila among the first audience; these are those votes every politician must put on the column “Do Not Waste Your Time and Money”–so nothing for the PM or ODM to worry about there.
The second audience is a mixed group but, as I have said, the very nature under which Miguna would “spill” such imaginary beans renders him so much without credibility among them and everyone other than those in the first audience such that the only way to overcome it, is to table corroborating evidence, including incriminating himself, if he has to otherwise, whatever he says will be a wash among that group, except those already leaning towards bolting to the first group, in which case ODM can count the 16 of them a loss and move on.
Even you will agree there is nothing Miguna can say to cause anyone from the third group bolting to the first group. Nothing.
In sum, Miguna should forget about spilling beans that don’t exist and pursue a strategy where he can regain much of everything he is about to lose if he continues down the path he is and if I may add, even confused and confounded G7 or whatever latest outfit seeking to “stop” Raila is, they know recruiting Miguna to their camp only has but so much value not worth the effort.
Given the stellar record for brilliance in strategy and absence of shamelessness for this anti-Raila factions, it will not surprise me if any of them extended an offer to embrace Miguna as one of their own now.
Miguna would have to decide on one hand whether to go along and accept such an offer in breach of his values and principals he has heretofore managed to convince many he has or shove that aside and go the “I don’t give a damn; I have got to make some money out of this and screw principles, values, reforms, yadah, yadah, blah, blah.”
Many will do the same thing, few will not.
That’s the ultimate test of character and values, let alone loyalty.