Intolerance, Pettiness and Intellectual Bankruptcy finally leads to the eventual death of the Civil Society Reference Group (CSRG)

Reflections by Patrick Ochieng, Former Member of the Oversight Committee

Chinua Achebe (1985), in his book “The trouble with Nigeria” put it that the problem of Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership,” he concluded that these problems were created as a result of widening gaps that has existed between ideals and reality in the realm of social injustice in the country. Unlike Chinua’s Nigeria the trouble with Kenya is hard to recognize, even harder to name with such straightforwardness. Perhaps this is the reason debates about what the Kenyan problem could be is mired in controversy, angry rhetoric and historical amnesia. In this piece I set out to look at the problem with one of the pillars – the civil society – that completes the puzzle we call the state. Civil Society, frequently held out by many, as the panacea, to our problems of nationhood, is – in the Kenyan context, instead of producing vanguard leadership – today pale, divided, intolerant, petty and intellectually bankrupt.

The trouble with Civil Society, the reason I write this piece, is best understood when one looks at the antecedents that have led to the eventual death of the Civil Society Reference Group (CSRG). As I sat in the Oversight Committee (OC) of CSRG for two straight terms of office my conscience was always clear about the moral imperative for building a strong Coalition of civil society at a time when Civil Society umbrella bodies, networks and civic spaces that demand accountability of the state and private sector had all been killed, weakened or captured. Though marginal on the OC, my voice was often drowned by the majority – who hid their cowardice behind their cynicism – even though privately some would accept that my skepticism was in many instances well founded.

If the CSRG AGM – and this, in all the instances that I attended – was mistaken for a marketplace, the Oversight Committee was not any better. At the AGM a lot of time was wasted in an internal sort of mudslinging designed to prove A’s ideas are smarter than B’s; while at the OC the engagement in the Boardroom was marked with spectacular – recalcitrance, ego-trips, and a one-way discourse – in which the PC would do most of the talking and the other members do the listening. In the end CSRG became a place where members were embroiled in some sort of eternal strife. For several weeks since CSRG held its AGM at which a new OC and a PC was elected I have struggled with myself on whether I should maintain studious silence over my experience in the CSRG leadership due to the dictates of collective responsibility or speak out.

I have chosen to examine our tenure and share my experience for two reasons; one, I am keen to shed some light on how our institutions suffer from personal rule, inertia and crippling blind spots until they are brought to their knees; but two, it may interest posterity to know that civil society has lost its ballast to what analysts have called ‘pervasive and retrogressive divisions’, ‘competition for visibility and scarce resources’, ‘personality cult within organizations’ as well as resentment that pits CSOs that deal with everyday issues but lack connections and funding with their big counterparts who posture as the ones driving the agenda.[i] The former PC Suba Churchill is one of my long term friends, we have history that dates back to the 90s, at one stage we lived together and therefore we share a lot. I will be failing if I do not share these personal reflections with a man I have known all my adult life as fearless, resolute, radical and upright. An email from a potential donor on the throes of negotiating a grant with CSRG awakens me rudely sometime in mid- 2021 sending me to a frenzy. Since I have not sought permission from the author I will keep the missive confidential.

”Dear Patrick,

Greetings from XXX Foundation Office. It has been a while since our last contact, but I hope that you are well.  I have been on a work leave from XXX for couple of years, but we met once around 2018 in Nairobi with Suba and you two and the work of CSRG really impressed me and my colleague. You might know that CSRG has approached XXX with a grant proposal in April and in fact I have been really excited to bring this proposal to our Board meeting this month. However, I have been forced to send (an) email today to Suba to ask directly from him the facts behind the after BBI-judgement (statement) of CSRG published a week ago. As I have been informed that you are still a Board member of CSRG responsible of Co-Convener Membership Development, I thought of asking also your reflections on the dimensions that I lift in (that) email to Suba (the process for this statement to get issued, and what discussions in CSRG network have been had on its position on BBI and the ruling and how have you been taking the concerns voiced out among your members into consideration?).  At this point it would be just really important to get as many sides on the process to build a picture and facts around the issue. Kind thanks already beforehand for your response. And I naturally hope that Suba will also be able to discuss on the matter soon.

Kind regards,

Diana (not her real name)”

In my response which took me a while because of the reasons I alluded to earlier, I made no frills but also remembered that CSRG was more than just a network. CSRG was the largest coalition of CSOs after the NGO Council that was brought to its knees by the Late Orie Rogo Manduli obviously with some egging from the state.

“Dear Diana,

Hope this email finds you well.

I promised to respond substantively to your email below but did not do so as I had promised. My apologies for that. Yes I have memories of our 2018 encounter and the invigorating conversations about our work and the state of civil society then. I am aware that we put in a request for support as CSRG and want to thank you most sincerely for giving consideration to CSRG a growing CSO umbrella whose ecosystem approach to the work of civic space has added immense value to the sector.

Let me offer my reflections on the statement issued by Suba following the BBI judgment. First, it is important to note that as CSRG we have NOT taken a position on BBI, its process or the outcome of the Court ruling that would if we did have the benefit of formal meetings of both the Oversight Committee and endorsement of the Annual General Assembly or a Special general assembly convened for that purpose if the necessity to do so was realized. This is because a matter of such magnitude and on which there is so much polarity would require some considered conversation to process some consensus, no wonder a section of the membership has reacted with unparalleled apprehension.

I personally wrote to Suba in the light of the antecedents that the statement provoked requesting that an OC meeting is convened to deliberate on the best way to deal with the concerns from members and the hoopla that followed the statement. The Secretariat pulled down the statement from the media pages of CSRG and assured members that there were internal conversations that would generate a consensus that would be shared to clarify our position. That said let me tell you a little about BBI before making some conclusions.  The manner and style with which the BBI initiative was birthed in 2018 surprised all Kenyans. The two leaders formed a task force to consult citizens and after a process, many denote as exclusive, a report with recommendations whose consequences on the architecture of our economy, institutions, and governance are far-reaching was presented to the initiators. Countrywide dissemination of the report provoked identity politics pitting most Kenyans on the pro- or anti -BBI continuums. Civil society generally remained ambivalent at best and at worst indifferent but in some instances unaware/uncertain whether it should take a position or not. Whether taking a position was important and necessary, or whether ignoring BBI was useful dominated conversations in some formations of civil society. Given the character of civil society many had pointed out what was right or wrong with the process and its outcome, even when many never took sides in favour or against it or even expressing genuine reservations.

As to whether Kenya needed an honest, inclusive and structured national dialogue process to solve our political crisis and problematic elections there was sufficient consensus. That BBI was such a process was a view by only a section of Kenyans, but that the process was not open, predictable, inclusive and structured was a palpable fact so that when its outcome wasn’t unifying it shouldn’t have surprised anyone. We as OC had given the PC Suba limited mandate to dole out press releases to canvass considered positions to the public on matters of public interest. But for such a controversial issue good judgment would have restrained him to comment liberally on the technical aspects of BBI but consider the political aspects a little more carefully.

As part of a Consortium implementing a democracy project funded by USAID through FHI we had objected to the calls to us by FHI to have us disseminate the BBI report to Kenyans, because we argued, we did not agree with the process. Asked how we would relate to BBI we convinced the FHI to extend a small grant to us to undertake a public interest scenarios study using BBI as the organising question. We CSRG, PEN, Ujamaa Center, and CREADIS have completed that study and it is a contradiction in terms when we are reported to canvas unequivocal support for BBI when on the other hand we have generated best and worst-case scenarios to help civil society and Kenyans navigate the futures that may arise out of the BBI.

In the scenarios, a best-case suggests an engagement to introduce citizens issues if these are missing, demystifying the content for citizens to understand it and in the worst-case discrediting the outcome to urge for the implementation of the Constitution as Linda Katiba and others are saying. Suba is a strong leader with very strong views. He believes, verily that the process of BBI is beyond salvage, he also believes that taking an absolutist or purist position such as Tekeleza Katiba or Do Not touch My Constitution without concomitant citizen power and agency is self-defeatist. But he misses the fact that the masses due to ignorance or other factors may be sold out completely to the binaries of pro or anti BBI political forces who both do not care about things that matter to citizens and that appearing to support one side only pushes civil society to be seen as part of the succession gravy train. If we had sufficient internal dialogue we would have canvassed the political opportunity that is BBI without irking any member. We would have underscored the view that good politics should always precede any attempts to alter the Constitution.

We in the OC believe we can center citizens and their real needs in this process; vehement/vigorous opposition just like fanatic/blind following of BBI does not offer useful scholarship. I recognize that our communications structures and frameworks obviously need a thorough appraisal to enable us to do correct analysis or diagnosis before going public on such sensitive issues. May be to this end the XXX partnership which we verily need could be a useful leap if it considered support to this area.

Finally, let me also say that owing to the BBI environment that was already too toxic thanks to the chest-thumping, it was in bad taste for Lucy Githaiga of Diakonia a member and funder to handle this matter in a very abrasive fashion. Pragmatism and dialogue are important pillars of CSRG’s approach and I am sure you will receive minutes of our deliberations in the OC in which we agreed that CSRG’s name will not be lent to any comment on BBI. I am sorry for making this very extensive, I hope that some answers are provided here well beyond what you asked for. I do this because I think this matter put us in the eye of a storm that we could have avoided. I am hopeful this will enable you to arrive at the best decision that is mutually beneficial to all the parties concerned.

Patrick Ochieng”

I delve in to this in extensive detail, not because I want you to abandon this article, but because the exchange with this potential donor was CSRG’s worst storm and it was perhaps the institution’s last, a view only two of us on the OC agreed with. I believed, the PC on this issue made a weak judgement, but coming as it did after a series of controversies, missteps, tactical mistakes and inertia that had dogged CSRG since its inception in 2019 it was easy to dismiss and ignore me.

What did the controversial statement say? Titled “Civil Society Statement on the BBI Report and State of the Nation Address” and dated 15^th November 2020, the statement opens with a puzzling opening paragraph, “Recommendations in the BBI Report are good and progressive, only requiring slight improvements…” The statement goes on to aver that “WE the undersigned organizations, speaking under the aegis of the umbrella Civil Society Reference Group (CSRG), would like to point out that coming as it did at a time Kenya faced one of the most serious threats to our existence, and efforts to cobble one united nation out of the more than 43 ethnic nationalities, the Handshake and its Building Bridges Initiative provided, and continues to provide a legitimate and practical pathway to pursue a course of political action and dialogue that no single social, economic or political interest should trivialize.” He adds that: “It is for these reasons that we urge Kenyans of goodwill not to squander this opportunity as some seem to want us to do, and engage in soul-searching reflection of the contemporary state of our affairs with the logic and sound reason our current circumstances and national aspirations call for.”

The statement continues:

“After all, our history as a people convincingly points to numerous instances when we have always posed for a while in the period immediately leading to the next elections to assess the state of our democratic practice and advancement, engaged in similar national conversations and dialogue as a basis for building onto and consolidating our democratic gains.”

“Put differently”, the statement continues, “we agree with most of the recommendations as put forth in the validated BBI Report, including those touching on:

1. The reconstitution of the IEBC in a manner that gives current commissioners an opportunity to continue serving if found qualified, competent and enjoying public trust and confidence;
2. The establishment of the Office of Public Participation Policy, Law and Rapporteur to ensure that governments at the national and county levels, mainstream meaningful and thorough public engagement in governance and development processes as a national value and principle of governance;
3. The progressive proposal to enhance greater accountability in the Judiciary that should be debated further and soberly.
4. The policy and recommended mechanisms to ensure the realization of Economic and Social rights as contemplated in Article 43 of the Constitution;
5. Policies and action points on Nationhood and Inclusivity; on National Ethos and Responsible Citizenship; and on Ethics and Integrity and wish to remind county governors and county assembly members that Kenyans will support the BBI only if it seeks to strengthen the fight against corruption and not to condone the vice; Governors must desist from substituting their personal interests after serving their two terms with national interests.
6. The progressive proposals to achieve the two thirds gender principle through multi-member constituencies.

The statement ends with a paragraph decrying the refusal by the government to operationalize the PBO Act 2013 for more than seven years and the posturing of Uhuru’s administration that denigrates, delegitimizes and ignores the contributions of civil society in complementing government efforts in the attainment of its agenda. The PC signs off for and on behalf of CSRG. In a swift rejoinder two days later, a member of CSRG (whose name I withhold) and who represented another donor partner based in Kenya wrote to the PC and the CSRG team an email whose content I reproduce below:

“Good afternoon Suba and team,

 I trust we are all keeping safe as can be as we continue our important work.

I am writing to register a matter of high concern and of complaint. This is with reference to the attached statement from the Reference Group on the BBI report and call for the commencement of the PBO Act. The BBI process as we know is of high national interest and higher political charge. It is also proving to be a divisive process for the nation – pitting both the political class and the public in for or against stances. In our view, it is not an issue of public interest that some members of the Reference Group can take and release a public position on, without adequate consultation with its membership. More so, because the statement takes a clear and distinct position that overall, the BBI report is good and progressive; save for slight improvements. These are not necessarily the sentiments of majority of members. While we support the freedom of members to take any position they consider in the best interest of the country; – to institutionally commit members to a consequential position on the BBI without consulting them is unethical and does not keep with the spirit of the membership.

It would have been prudent at the very least, if not for a full consultation – to distribute the statement in advance of release for input, comments and most importantly – consent. Members must be aware when they are institutionally being committed to such consequential positions under the aegis of the umbrella of the Reference Group. In such circumstances, we must certainly be afforded the opportunity to give feedback and to fully associate, partly associate or distance from positions communicated by CSRG.

I do note that the attached statement makes reference to listed organisations, however does not cite them – therefore a reasonable assumption for readers is that this is a holistic membership position, which it is not. As YYY Foundation (name withheld for confidentiality), we do not have an institutional position on the BBI process and report. However, our people centered values mean that even before any engagement on the merit or otherwise of the proposals in the report; we believe in people centered priorities during this pandemic. This includes all vulnerable Kenyans, health workers and health procurement, corruption, and the current economic hardships affecting the nation; amongst many others. This is a matter that would have been vigorously raised for the statement had we been given the opportunity to engage prior to release of the statement.

On the matter of the PBO Act commencement, while the attempt to use a matter of current national interest to bring to the fore the grave delay in the commencement of the Act is clear; it must be done in a level manner, and affording the membership its right of say. As an immediate way forward, my strong suggestion is to begin with ensuring the statement in circulation cites the exact organisations that endorsed the statement at the time of release. I welcome your proposals for any other way forward on the matters raised. Let me also take the opportunity to mention that on a personal note, given my years of engagement with the Ref Group – I have understood our DNA to be more centered around along the lines of a Khaminwa type response (attached)[ii] than what I read in our statement. That is on a very personal perspective and understanding of who we are; and what we stand for. Otherwise, I thank you in advance for your consideration of the matters raised above.”

If Grace (not her real name) above was livid, a second email from Lucy Githaiga of Diakonia whom I choose to name was more forthright.

“Dear Colleagues,

I trust that you are keeping well. I hope you have all seen the statement that was released by Suba on the just concluded High Court ruling on the proposed constitutional amendments. As we are all aware, we in Civil Society hold different opinions on this matter. There are those who support the High Court ruling and there are those who do not support the ruling. CSRG is a membership organization and I am sure we have organizations here that support BBI and we have others that do not support BBI.

I find it very difficult to accept that Suba can send out a statement on behalf of CSRG with full knowledge of the dynamics on this matter. This is the second time that Suba is releasing a statement on important national matters without the consultation of the Members. Diakonia has raised this objection in the past and we do not wish to be associated with such a statement. As a matter of fact, our back donor was already calling us to find out more about this statement yet I cannot  provide any information because we were not consulted as members.  I would like to suggest that Suba should be called out on this behaviour and conduct of putting everyone in a basket of his personal view about the BBI. I suggest that Suba goes ahead to list the members that are in support of his statement and those members should append their signatures. We cannot allow this level of impunity on the part of the Convenor and Diakonia takes great exception to this statement.  Some of our partners are part of the Linda Katiba platform and we would like that Diakonia is not dragged into this statement by CSRG. We respect the internal democracy of our partners and at all times we do not prevent you from issuing the statements that you wish to issue, but if we are members of a network, and if we support that network, and because we want to promote democracy at all levels, then it is in our interest to see that this democracy is exercised in an organization like CSRG because CSRG is part an implementing partner of a Democracy Program and so internal Democracy is important for this CSO network. And for that reason it is very critical that members are consulted on weighty matters that are of a national importance so that those who wish to be associated with a statement can freely do so and those who do not maintain their right to not be associated with whatever statement.

Since the statement alludes to the majority of the members being in support of this statement, please let those members be listed in the statement and let them sign off the statement. Members cannot be bundled into accepting this position even when some do not agree with the statement. I think a network’s leadership must know that it derives its mandate from the members and consulting those members is paramount otherwise we run the risk of running CSRG as a dictatorship. I find it interesting that this statement was not even circulated to the members and we are getting it from other sources which speaks volumes….

Warmly,

 Lucy”

I reproduce these correspondences to exhibit the level of apprehension this statement caused. The email by Lucy was however copied to more than 70 recipients and it is the reason I have taken the liberty to quote it quite liberally other than the fact that I found its language quite abrasive given the diplomatic circle from which it came. As a member of the OC I obviously received many telephone calls privately about this matter over and above the direct emails from partners and comrades in the sector. I decided in the wake of these concerns to reach out to the PC in an email which I copied to other members of the OC:

“Suba,

Greetings! I trust this email finds you well. Allow me to address you on the matter above with utmost humility. Since Sunday after your PRESS release that canvassed issues on BBI there has been an unprecedented public debate and condemnation that puts CSRG and our leadership in the eye of a storm.

An email by Lucy Githaiga one of our main donor partners to a long list that includes KCDF and other prominent partners and members complicates this matter and it is the reason I have chosen to write this short message. We are in a sticky wicket already (I hope am wrong) but we can wriggle out if we summon our consciences but also every humility to do what is good for the diversity of our membership. 

Can we, for example, suspend the Sunday briefs for sometime to do some reflections about this outcome first? Can we for example meet virtually and craft a considered position for public consumption that clarifies our commitment to ideals of consultation, participation and democratic decision making? Can we first off assuage membership and the restive groups that we are reflecting internally to provide a candid and considered position to the concerns being raised? I say so with every ounce of love that I can summon and wish this overture to remain strictly internal. We should project the ideals of a sensing and learning organsation that all can wish to depend on no matter their political persuasion.

These are my quick thoughts comrades and friends. I have received phone calls from diverse parties like I suspect some of you may have, but I assured whoever called me that we are seized of the matter. What worries me most is how Lucy (who by the way has surprised me but with whom I have no personal contact) is prosecuting this issue in ways that I think is insensitive but which we can’t confront unless we adopt some creative internal strategy that looks at the issue inside out and back to front without any blinkers or emotion or blame game

Thanks for reading through and fraternal greetings to all.

Ochieng P”

If we were in a sticky wicket as I feared the abrasive email from Diakonia made matters even worse. The OC agreed to a meeting to deliberate on this issue but it is sad to note that the majority took cue from the PC and used every energy they could summon to trivialize the issues that were being raised by the few of us who did. Those who had raised issues as I posit above were quickly grouped along the binaries of detractors who did not support CSRG and its current leadership and wished it to fail versus allies of the Chair. When I raised the possibility that we may lose some of the goodwill from our donor partners, the PC retorted that things were not as dire or gloomy as I was painting them, and to my surprise every member of the OC nodded in agreement as they all ridiculed me for my supposed ‘naivety’. In fact the PC affirmed that all through the exchanges, he was enjoying himself to quote his exact words. Responses from us on this issue were quite defensive, long but also windy in belaboring the point about how right we were and how wrong everybody else was.

Ultimately we could only agree that CSRG would not comment or lend its name to any view about BBI in future and that the Secretariat pulls down the statement from the CSRG media platforms. We however could not summon the courage to retract and apologize publicly for the unilateral position that the PC took. This robbed CSRG of any empathy and understanding that could be extended by the donors each of whom was at a different stage in their relationship with CSRG. One of the donors was considering a first grant, a second Sigrid Rousing Trust (SRT) was due to consider a renewal and commit for a further 3 years and the Fund for Global Human Rights (FGHR) that had funded CSRG for several years had a pending renewal of a collective protection project. Every little effort I made to engender trust and confidence among these donors was frittered each time a diatribe was penned by the PC or his enemies. Ultimately the three donors gave CSRG one condition, that they would consider the funding contracts subject to understanding the process of the BBI statement and upon the outcome of an impending General assembly at which a change of guard was imminent.

My worst fear was that a change of guard would produce dynamics within CSRG and perceptions of it that would either place it for better or for worse. Whatever character CSRG would assume post-election, the implications for membership, funding partners and the sector would either enhance its fortunes or scatter the network forever. For me and a few of us who chose a respectful accompaniment role we watched with dismay how leadership could sometimes be totally blinded by ego to see the big picture. For us who had been around longer we recall with nostalgia efforts that led to the formation of CSRG way back in 2009. Then the need to create an enabling environment for civil society became increasingly crucial to push back state repression and shrinking civic space. Consequently, a World Bank meeting convened at Naro Moru to review the NGO Coordination Act of 1990 brought together 20 CSOs who engaged Parliament in 2012-13 following which, Hon Sophia Abdi crafted a private members bill that was later passed by Parliament in 2013 that we now know as the PBO Act.

On the back of this victory the membership numbers shot up to more than 230 due to the overwhelming goodwill and the unity of purpose under the leadership of Kawive Wambua and later Ezra Mbogori as PCs. The spirit of unity was fortified further when the government proposed 52 odd amendments that would water down the progressive provisions of the Act before its commencement. It is also during these campaigns to push back on state assault on the Act that a section of membership also begun pushing the feeling that there was a powerful clique of mostly national and international NGOs that was controlling CSRG.

These divisions became manifest in the 2017 AGM when through the mobilization of grassroots organizations, a very acrimonious election took place that saw national NGOs ousted from the OC as CBOs and SHGs took over. It is in this election that with the exception of Davis Malombe of Kenya Human Rights Commission, Regina Opondo then of CRECO, Suba the PC and Thomas Kirongo of PEN the rest of us were from outside Nairobi. It was a true moment to broaden the base and get the widest diversity involved in CSRG but things started going South rather quickly, as OC meetings became noisy, personal and difficult.

In one such painful OC retreat, the National Coordinator Ms. Njeri Kabeberi was hounded out of an OC meeting in the most shocking manner when a member of the OC told her to “shut up you woman” a slur many could not countenance and it is such hostility that sent Paul Healey the International NGOs representative out of the OC. With most national entities shying away from CSRG new fault lines emerged within the OC pitting the PC and some members on the one side and Cidi Otieno, Tom Oketch and Thomas Kirongo on the other. These divisions which were carried to the elections of 2019 were largely petty, trivial and embarrassing. So acrimonious were the 2019 elections that delegates spent literally the entire night holed in factional meetings of the two camps strategizing how each group would outdo the other. The incumbent Suba had put together a strong team that with the support of majority members from Bungoma and Kakamega handed Oketch and his team a humiliating defeat.

Tom Oketch and Cidi Otieno on the floor of the election accepted defeat but went out a very bitter lot. Save for Suba, myself and Albashir the rest of the OC members were new and most came from self-help groups and CBOs. The first crisis in this OC was that of expectations; like many members of the previous group who felt CSRG should benefit them directly this second group had members who were clueless what the exact role of CSRG was. Effectively this meant that the PC straddled the CSRG landscape like a colossus. The bitterness of the Cidi group was carried over to this second group when they found allies in Wycliffe Luhatse, Sadiki Ridhiwani and Ben Kasisi all new members of the OC but who later had to be suspended for gross misconduct. This faction did everything to discredit the PC’s leadership at every turn, wrote letters to donors leveling all manner of accusations against the PC and valuable time was lost dealing with non-issues like in the first tenure.  Most of these altercations persisted due to lack of emotional intelligence on the part of most of the protagonists as each including the PC fought every battle that was cast their way.

In hindsight I think no organization can survive capture of any kind. The OC but more specifically the PC appears to have held CSRG captive having wrested it from what was considered a stranglehold real or imagined by national and international players earlier. The PC could have inadvertently seen this platform as a plank to upgrade his influence and power and thus completely failed to provide unifying leadership.  Those who did not agree with the PC on the OC fought to oust him but largely also for similar reasons, to take over and purge anyone they don’t agree with but hide this behind the label of pro or anti-CSRG continuum.

Given the diversity of membership conflict was inevitable. The disjuncture between national and local CBOs/Self-Help Groups was largely self-inflicted. Many CBO/SHG members from Bungoma, Kakamega and Trans-nzoia were recruited by aspiring PCs to tilt the vote balance in favour of the PC on the narrative that international and national NGOs had captured a platform that should serve the best interests of grassroots organizations. This was after some members felt that a National Coordinator was recruited by a small clique and imposed on the rest. These disgruntled members started a campaign that saw them recruit grassroots members and promise them that once elected they would use CSRG to serve the interest of these new members in areas such as fundraising, profiling and generally pitching for the CBOs. Having used them as attack dogs to win elections, the CBOs ultimately did not find their place on the OC as power was still centered on the PC and a small inner circle. With dashed expectations the attack dogs started attacking their benefactors.

The OC started interfering with the management as the squabbles within it spilled to the secretariat and the two fiscal hosts that gave custody to CSRG funds. I find it tragic that independent voices watched from a distance as the vitriol played out in public, on WhatsApp groups and in CS circles; for any keen observer, it was difficult to see how CSRG could survive the weight of its own senselessness. Like many umbrella platforms that sank due to their own inertia CSRG follows the NGO Council, Elimu Yetu Coalition, the National Civil Society Congress, Peacenet, SODNET and many more before them. I am told that after the Cidi elections, five OC members have since resigned because they cannot work with the PC. The two fiscal hosts Defenders Coalition and PEN have withdrawn their hosting and cancelled the MOUs between them and CSRG effectively crippling CSRG as donations can hardly be channeled to CSRG in the absence of legal personality.

It is sad that due to intolerance, pettiness and intellectual bankruptcy membership chose the disastrous route of voting with their feet in their mouths. That with four contestants, Cidi Otieno, Kawive Wambua, Richard Omanyala and Betty Sharon the voting pattern was characteristically bandwagon, decidedly anti-Suba and predictably choreographed. Cidi won with a landslide courtesy of the Luhya voting bloc a factor Suba used to his advantage and which turned against him when Cidi capitalized on the expulsion of Ben Kasisi to stir resentment against Suba and his preferred candidate. Kawive who was a formidable opponent was rejected because members were busy settling scores. Omanyala the candidate Suba eventually backed could have had a chance if the OC of which he was a member produced only one candidate and the PC and the rest of the members stood together behind him. The best possibility would have been Christine Kalikanda the Deputy PC but she was smart to abandon her bid for lack of collective support from the OC in general but the PC in particular. With Cidi at the helm and members such as Tom Oketch only one thing remained to be seen, when and not how the CSRG would finally fall under its own weight. The resignations and the loss of funders is just the beginning of the end. In this article I choose not to delve in what we should do, that is for all right thinking members of the civil society and funders to reflect on. Ask yourself what your role has been in sandbagging the CSRG idea – we all stand guilty!

[i] Excerpts from a 2014 Political Economy Analysis of the Civil Society sector in Kenya

[ii] Lawyer John Khaminwa had issued a one-page statement on November 14, 2020 advising the BBI duo to drop the plans to amend the Constitution and divert the resources to other deserving programs