A right is an inherent civil liberation that accrues to a person for the mere fact of being a human being. They are inalienable and apply equally in a universalistic manner to all. Freedoms on the other hand are the preconditions for a dignified existence where people live independently without the state violating on the freedoms. They establish rules of relations between the state and the individual and among individuals.

Minority groups are sub-groups within a culture which are distinguishable from the dominant group in power by reason of differences in physical features, language, customs, as cultural patterns (including any one or combination of these factors). Such sub-groups are regarded (or regard themselves) as inherently different from the dominant power group; for this reason they withdraw from full participation in the life of the culture.

They refer to a group of people who appear to be inconsequential to most people for distinguishing themselves from the other people. The minority group may be ethnic, religious, linguistic and indigenous peoples. They include statistical or numerical size, power distribution (social or political), homogeneous physical or cultural traits, and differential treatment or status.


There is a wide consensus among sociologists that the term should not be regarded as a statistical concept. However there exists different schools of thoughts who try to define minorities.

v  The classical definition is that of L. Wirth who said, “We may define a minority as a group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. Minority status carries with it the exclusion from full participation in the life of the society.”

v  While Wirth placed the minority group in opposition to the majority group, A.M and C.B Rose, rejecting any purely numerical definition, give special emphasis to this opposition in their definition: “The mere fact of being generally hated and being hated because of religious, racial or national background is what defines a minority group.”

v  Unlike Wirth and Rose, R.A Schermeshorn gives a definition of minority group which does not require a conscious application of differential treatment of the minority group on the part of the dominant or minority group. Schermerhorn says, “Minorities are subgroups within a culture which are distinguished from the dominant by reason of differences in physiognomy, language, customs or cultural patterns(including any combination of these factors. Such sub-groups are regarded as inherently different and “Not belonging” to the dominant group; for this reason they are consciously or unconsciously excluded from full participation in the life of the culture.”


A minority is not necessarily a numerical minority, it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. Other minority groups include people with disabilities, “economic minorities”  that is, the working poor or unemployed, “age minorities” those who are younger or older than a typical working age and sexual minorities.

Examples of minority groups in Kenya are the Maasais, Ogieks, Sangwer, Ilchamus, Endrois and the El Molo.

Minorities are of two types, ethnic and racial.


An ethnic minority is a group which differs in some cultural respect from the dominant group. Some authorities use the term “nationality” in preference to “ethnic group.”

Examples are: The Irish of Boston, the Norwegians of Brooklyn, and the Greeks of New Haven

This is because the aforementioned are not distinguishable biologically from the minority of the population of those cities; but in so far as they are set apart it is by their language, religion, habits, or traditions.

Since religion is one phase of a people’s culture, groups of this type may be classified with ethnic minorities. Thus Hindus are a minority in Pakistan, Muslims in India, Protestants in Italy, and Roman Catholics in the United States. The Amish, a sect devoted to farming as a way of life and to the utmost simplicity in material goods, migrated from Europe to the United States generations ago.

Religious groups are frequently the objects of differential and discriminatory treatment. The Christians were a minority in ancient Rome. Baptists were expelled from colonial Massachusetts, Mormons had to free to Utah, and Quakers and Huguenots (French Protestants) have often found themselves playing the role of scapegoats.


The group is distinguishable only by its hereditary, physical characteristics, and these form the basis for such cohesion as the group possesses. Among the racial minorities are the Cape Colored of South Africa and the Anglo-Indians of India.

Certain groups however, such as the American Indians and the Japanese-Americans, have the characteristic of both racial and ethnic groups.

Many other groups in a society present problems similar to those of racial and ethnic groups. Women, the aged, intellectuals, teen-agers, and conscientious objectors are often the victims of differential treatment, are excluded from full social participation, and sometimes manifest the resentments and grievances common to minorities. Students of intergroup relations, however, usually exclude such groups from their discussions, and limit themselves to racial and ethnic groups.


a)      Political changes

Minorities are sometimes acquired by a nation in the process of its growth and expansion, or by the shifting of political boundaries.

In 1848, following the Mexican War, the United States annexed vast territories in the south west, along with the thousands of Spanish colonials who lived there, the offspring of the conquistadors and Mexican Indians who had settled that frontiers in the 16th century. Their descendants today, known as Spanish–Americans, or Hispanics, constitute the about half of the population of New Mexico and significant minorities in neighboring states, and are distinctly an underprivileged group.

This process of acquiring minority groups has been more characteristic of European nations than of the United States. Many of the racial and ethnic minorities of the U.S.S.R are a consequence of three centuries of conquest and expansion on the past of the [ex-] Russian Empire. The Hapsburg Empire, with its numerous minorities, was largely built by dynastic marriages and succession rights.

b)     Initial causes

Minority problems are treated as though they were a phenomenon only of modern times, having their origin in the rise of capitalism or in the expansion of Europe. No doubt they did reach a new magnitude when, in the 15th century, the people of Europe began to overflow their boundaries and set out to explore, convert, conquer, and colonize every corner of the earth.

Nevertheless, there are reasons for believing that pre-historic, preliterate peoples roamed widely over the earth and came into contact and conflict with strangers who differed from themselves both racially culturally. From archeology, folklore, linguistics, human biology, and cultural anthropology comes abundant evidence to prove that from earliest times there have been wars and invasions, groups conquered and dominated others, there was cultural interchange, biological interbreeding, prejudice, differential treatment, and all the other phenomena which today we associate with inter-group relations.

c)      Population movements

The cause of inter-group relations varies and the direction it takes depends to no small degree upon whether the new comers role is that of the conqueror, colonizer, refugee, immigrant, or slave.

The various types of population movements which give rise to problems of minority-majority relations may be classified as follows:

                                                                                                        i.            Invasion

This term often includes any hostile or war-like encroachment upon the domain of another, but we restrict it to those cases where a simple but virile people leave its home and overrun the territory of a more highly developed society. It is a mass movement, involving a large portion if not the whole, of the tribe. A particular destination is lacking, and there is certain irrationality in the process.

Examples of invasions which produced problems of minority-majority group relations would include the Gothic migration from Asia into the Roman Empire, the Aztec invasion of Mexico, the movement of the Hun and Magyar into Europe and that the Mongol into China.

                                                                                                      ii.            Conquest

This involves the expansion of a highly developed society over a simpler people. It occurs when a well- developed state sends out its armies into the territory of less advanced peoples, and imposes its political system upon them. The movement of people into the conquered territory may be insignificant, and in this respect movement resulting from conquest differs from other types of population movements; but the effects of conquest upon the subjected peoples may be profound and lasting.

                                                                                                    iii.            Colonization

This type of movement occurs when a well-developed society sends out bodies of its citizens to settle in certain specified localities. Such a transplanted fragment remains closely tied to its mother country politically, economically, and culturally. A distinction is made between the farm type and the plantation type. The former arises when climatic conditions are similar to those of the mother country, rendering acclimatization easy, and permitting the migration of whole families, and ultimately resulting in the colonists transferring their primary allegiance from their old home to the new one. Frequently, labour has to be imported. Many crucial race problems have arisen under such conditions.

                                                                                                     iv.            Immigration

This type of population movement involves the entrance into an alien country of persons intending to take post in the life of that country and to make it their permanent residence. It is largely a phenomenon of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a peaceful movement, between countries which are on friendly terms, or at least not hostile, one of which is old and densely populated while the other is new and less thickly populated. Unlike those movements described above, it is primarily an individual undertaking rather than the organized movement of an integrated group, although governments do control, regulate, direct, and encourage or discourage the process.

                                                                                                       v.            Forced migration

This occurs when groups of people are compelled against their will to leave their native land and go elsewhere, either with or without a specific destination.

The Moors were expelled from Spain in 1609, and other Jews have been forced to leave one country after another throughout their history. Huguenots were driven from France in the 17th century; Gypsies were expelled from England by Henry VIII; and the Acadians, heroes of Longfellow’s Evangeline, were uprooted and scattered throughout the English colonies of North America. The Negro’s presence in the New World is a result of forced migration, and his relations with other races which he encountered have always been affected by the circumstances under which the contacts occurred. For centuries the relationship was one of master and slave, consequences of which are still felt, long after the institution has been abolished. The 20th century has witnessed the forced migration of millions of people, displaced persons, and refugees, who reluctantly left their homes, or were expelled because of their race, nationality, or political opinions.

                                                                                                     vi.            Internal migration

Minority problems are profoundly affected by migrations which occur within the boundaries of a political entity. There have been times, of course, when there was very little movement of people within the borders of a state.

Under serfdom, for instance, one did not have the right to move; and even with the disappearance of serfdom, the individual was still not endowed with independence of action, for he was a member of a community which regulated many aspects of his life. Nowadays, however, internal migrations are going on continually in all civilized countries. Such migrations have been conscious features of American society, profoundly affecting its history, institutions, and culture, and especially the relations between racial and ethnic groups. There were the migrations of the Indians, both before and after the arrival of the Europeans. Then there was the westward march of the American people, which played no small part in the assimilation of the diverse ethnic groups which had come to these shores. More recently, we have witnessed the drift of population from country to city, significant interstate migrations, seasonal migrations of labour, and most significant for minority group relations, the great migration of Negroes from the rural south to the industrial cities of the North.



The minority problem is basically a struggle for power and status, social and economic. The group which enjoys the greater prestige and wields the power is always jealous of its privileges, will not surrender them without a struggle, and is determined to defend its own values and its culture against competing and conflicting systems. The subordinate group is invariably “all right in its place”. The lesser group, at the same time, is no less attached to its traditions and values, and is not satisfied for long with its inferior position, and it is eager to improve its status. It is only when the subordinate group seeks to rise that its presence is resented. To the dominant group the problem is essentially one of maintaining its position of dominance and of preserving its privileged way of life. A docile, subservient, industrious racial or ethnic minority can be most useful, and even indispensable, but such a minority becomes a menace when it grows restless, clamors for change, and aspires to play new roles. Form the stand point the underprivileged minority, on the other hand, the problem is one of achieving a more desirable status, of removing the stigma of inferiority, of obtaining more power, of casing off the disabilities and handicaps imposed upon it.


Conflict between dominant and minority groups assumes a variety of forms, and these vary from place to place and from time to time. They include:

  • Insurrections
  • Programs
  • Rebellions
  • Riots
  • Relatively peaceful techniques as picketing and boycotting.



Annihilation of the menacing minority means the total destruction or eradication of the minority groups. However it needs not be deliberate and malicious. Even where extermination has not been a conscious and deliberate policy, the surviving group has often regarded these natural processes of destruction with favour. Early American historians wrote the following with reference to the Indians:

There befell a great mortality among them; the greatest that ever the memory of father and son took notice of; desolating chiefly those places where the English afterward planted… By this means, Christ, whose great and glorious works throughout the world are all for the benefit of his churches and chosen, made room for his people.

Frequently, however, dominant groups have not had the faith that providence would exterminate the competitive minority, or they have been impatient with the slow pace at which the divine plan moved, and have, accordingly, taken the matter into their own hands. A new word, genocide, has been introduced into the language to designate the practice of deliberately annihilating entire racial and ethnic groups.

It was without doubt the deliberate policy of the Nazis to exterminate the Jewish people in their midst, and they came very near to succeeding.

The U.S.S.R has dealt similarly with troublesome and recalcitrant minorities. The Jews of Russia, who once numbered 5 million, are apparently on their way to extinction. Not that they are being physically exterminated, but policies are being imposed which make it impossible for them to perpetuate themselves as a group. Synagogues have been suppressed, Yiddish journals forbidden, publishing houses closed, religious marriage ceremonies discouraged, and a ban imposed upon religious schools where Jewish beliefs and traditions might be inculcated into the young.

While the term genocide may be of recent origin, the practice itself is an ancient one. The Bible records many instances of a stronger group exterminating its rivals (Deut 3:3 and 2 kings 15: 16); and the practice was followed by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians. In more recent times the policy of seeking to solve a minority problem by annihilation has been attributed to the British in Tasmania, the Dutch in South Africa, and the Portuguese in Brazil.


Racial and ethnic conflicts are often resolved when one group expels another from the territory in which it resides. For the victors the end result is comparable to that attained by annihilation, but the process is somewhat more humane, though mass expulsion is often carried out in an atmosphere of violence.

Expulsion is often resorted to when other methods of dealing with the minority have failed. There are instances where a minority has been driven from a country only after a policy of extermination had failed, or only after concerted efforts to assimilate have proved fruitless. Thus, at the dawn of the modern era, when Spanish rulers were determined to promote homogeneity in their realm, they attempted to convert the Jews to Christianity, and when that failed they expelled them.

Indeed, mass expulsion, as a method of solving minority problems, has never been more widely employed than it has in the 20th century, if one takes account of the transfer of populations in the Balkan states, the Jewish migrations to Palestine, the flight of Arabs from Israel, the escape of Muslims from India and of Hindus from Pakistan, and the millions of refugees, expellees, and escapees from fascist and communist dictatorships.

A classical example of mass expulsion, taken from American history, is that of the forced removal of the Cherokee Indians from their homes in the east. The magnitude of the injustice and the heavy toll of lives were such that the Indians to this day refer to the incident as “The Trail of Tears”. By 1825 the Eastern Band of the Cherokees had grown to 13,000 in number, owned millions of acres of land and more than 1000 Negro slaves, had established schools and churches, and operated prosperous farms. They managed their political affairs well, the nation was out of debt, and they were at peace. The tide turned when gold was discovered in the Georgia hills, in Cherokee territory. The whites were determined to get hold of it, and followed a variety of schemes to that end. Finally, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, and General Winfield Scott moved in with 7,000 troops and an unruly mob of civilians. The Indians were burned and cattle and house hold goods were seized. The Indians were rounded up, homes and barns were burned and cattle and household goods were seized. The Indians were herded into stockades, conducted under guard down the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers, and driven into the territory which now is Oklahoma. The cost of all this was charged to the Indians. President van Buren, in his message to congress on Dec 3, 1838, was able to report:

The measures for Cherokee removal authorized by congress at its last session have had the happiest effects…. The Cherokees have emigrated without any apparent reluctance.

A more recent instance of mass expulsion occurred during World War II when some 110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry (Nisei) were forcibly evacuated from the area of the United States bordering the Pacific, including parts of Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona. Sensibly this was nothing more than war time measure undertaken in the interest of national security, but actually, in the perspective of time, it appears to have been one more chapter in the long struggle between whites and Japanese. The attack upon Pearl Harbour gave the anti- Japanese forces a rare opportunity. Rumours of espionage and sabotage began to circulate. None was proved valid. Finally, as a result of numerous pressures upon the president, an executive order was issued authoring the War Department to set up military areas and to exclude from such areas any persons regarded as dangerous. On a date fixed by the army, all persons of Japanese lineage were required to report to control stations, whence they were escorted to improvised assembly centre, and later to more permanent relocation camps.


This is the process of dividing society into ranks, grades, or positions, and involves the unequal distribution of privileges, duties, responsibilities, power, prestige and influence. Quite apart from the area of minority problems, this process of arranging individuals and groups of a society on horizontal levels operates wherever people try to work out a common life together. Perfect equality prevails nowhere, except in the dreams of utopian philosophers. The fact is that in every society there are various tasks that have to be done, and very early in human history it was discovered that specialization and division of labour make for greater efficiency. Furthermore, some of the tasks which have to be performed are more difficult than others, some more appealing, and some distasteful. The problem, therefore, which every society has to solve, is this: How to distribute these various functions, how to assign people to their special roles.

Now there are only two ways in which to meet the problem:

(1) Permit everyone to compete, in the hope that each will thereby come to perform the functions for which his interests and abilities fit him. This is the essence of democracy– equal opportunity for every individual to compete for the role and status he desires, regardless of his race, religion, sex, or family.

(2) Assign everyone to some social role or roles, using as the basis for the assignment some easily ascertainable feature such as age, family, sex or skin colour. This on the other hand carried to its logical extreme, is that of caste, wherein the individuals status, role and various other aspects of his life are determined at birth and remain fixed through life.

Both these methods have been widely employed, and both have proved equal to the job of getting a society’s work done. The fact of the matter is that no society operates entirely on either of these principles. Even the most democratic makes a practice of ascribing some roles and statuses, the most cast- ridden societies have a certain degree of flexibility.

Wherever racial and ethnic groups come into contact the process of stratification operates. The form that stratification takes, however, varies from one situation to another and from time to time. The relations between groups may assume the rigid feature of slavery or caste, the flexibility of class, or the subtleties of “gentlemen’s agreements” or simple discrimination.


Unlike groups faced with the problem of living together with a minimum of conflict, many resolve their difficulties by resorting to some form of segregation.

Segregation means isolation and may be either voluntary or involuntary. The former is illustrated by the Amish, who have chosen to withdraw into isolated communities rather than to succumb to almost inevitable assimilation which they would regard as a calamity.

The segregation of the American Negro contrariwise is not of his own choice. Unlike the Amish and the Chinese, he wants to attend the theatre, join labour unions, participate in politics, escape residential restrictions, use the public services, acquire education, enter the occupation of his choice, and otherwise participate fully in the life of the nation. In all these areas, however, he finds himself circumscribed and excluded and he accordingly wages an incessant war against the restrictions which isolate him and prevent his social participation.

In the Republic of South Africa the dominant whites have openly and vigorously espoused a policy of segregation, which they call apartheid, in order better to preserve white supremacy and to hold in subordination the natives, the mixed bloods, and the Indians and other Asiatic who grew early, outnumber them and who, they feel, threaten the European way of life.


Riots, lynching, mass expulsions, segregation and discrimination are among the phenomena of intergroup relations which catch the public’s eye, while assimilation, a less conspicuous consequence of the meeting of peoples, is probably more significant in the long run. Assimilation denotes the process whereby groups which differ culturally come to have a common culture. This means not merely such tangible items of culture as dress, utensils, food, sports, etc but also those nonmaterial items such as values, memories, sentiments, ideas, attitudes, and traditions. Assimilation must be distinguished from naturalization, a political concept denoting the act or process of admitting an alien to the state and privileges of a citizen. Americanization is simply a special case of assimilation, and refers to the process whereby a person of some foreign heritage acquires the customs, ideals, and loyalties of American society, just as Europeanization, Russianisation, and Germanisation, denote similar processes with respect to those cultures.

The various racial and ethnic groups which have come to the United States differ widely in the rapidity with which they become assimilated. It is a common place observation that British immigrants are quickly and readily absorbed, while others become assimilated more slowly. The uninformed make much of this fact, inferring that some groups possess an innate quality of “assimilability” which others are “unassimilable” and insisting that the rate with which one assimilates is proof of inherent superiority.

There is certainly no single explanation for the fact that some groups assimilate more rapidly than others, but rather a number of interacting factors must be taken into consideration. Among these factors are:

  1. The attitudes of the dominant group towards the newcomers;
  2. The attitudes of the minority with respect to the desirability of becoming assimilated;
  3. The degree of similarity of the culture (especially of languages) and groups in contact.
  4. The racial characteristics of the groups involved, or the “visibility” of the minority
  5. The relative numbers involved.
  6. The rate of entrance of the minority.
  7. The manner of settlement, whether rural or urban.
  8. The age and sex composition of the groups. and
  9. The role of leaders, either in opposing or encouraging assimilation.


A social organization in which diversity of racial, religious, ethnic or cultural groups is tolerated.

Many have insisted that it is possible for peoples who are different to live together on a basis of equality, tolerance, justice, and harmony. This involves, of course, a degree of voluntary segregation, but without the prejudices and discriminations that usually go with segregation. The idea is included in the in the concept “separate but equal” and is sometimes referred to as “cultural dualism” or “cultural democracy”.

Its proponents maintain that contact between unlike groups need not result in perpetual conflict, or in the relationship of superior and inferior, nor is it either necessary or inevitable that different cultures become fused into one. Those who advocate pluralism as the most desirable pattern of ethnic group adjustment recognize that there are limits beyond which cultural freedom cannot go, if a society is to function. Any society, to survive, must have a considerable agreement among its members as to basic ideals, goals, values, morals and beliefs. An aggregation of individuals or of groups, each with its own language, gods, customs, and traditions, would not be a society at all. Ethnic groups which differ radically in their fundamental value systems could hardly become accommodated on a plane of equality and tolerance.

In defining the Rights of the Minorities therefore we can be branch them into two sections which are the rights that each individual becomes entitled to just at the mere fact of being human and the whole minorities’ groups rights. The purpose of the right of the minorities is to ensure that they are able to achieve equality, identity, participation to all spheres of life and are protected from persecution, discrimination and deaths as well as enjoying all the other human rights.


They include the following indivisible, interdependent and interrelated human rights:

v  The freedom from any distinction, exclusion, restriction which has the purpose or effect of impairing the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

v  Right of members of minorities to freedom from discrimination.

v  Right of each member of a minority to equal recognition as a person before the law, to equality before the courts, and to equal protection of the law.

v  Right of all members of minorities to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.

v  Right of members of minorities to freedom of association.

v  Right of minorities to exist.

The constitution of Kenya 2010 and protection of minorities: Chapter 4 part 3 of the constitution of Kenya is entirely about special application of rights to children, persons with disabilities, the youth, minorities and marginalized groups and older members of the society, all whom are part of the minorities going by our definition. Quoting from Chapter 4 Part 3 Article 56 of the constitution:

“The State shall put in place affirmative action programmes

designed to ensure that minorities and marginalised groups—

(a) participate and are represented in governance and other

spheres of life;

(b) are provided special opportunities in educational and

economic fields;

(c) are provided special opportunities for access to


(d) develop their cultural values, languages and practices;


(e) have reasonable access to water, health services and


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of the Minorities 1948: Article 2 states that, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

Subsequent human rights standards that codify minority rights include:

  • The rights of ethnic and racial minorities are also protected in the International Human Rights Law as follows:
    • The right to be protected from racial discrimination, hatred and violence.
    • Right to equal protection before the law irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
    • The right of racial and ethnic groups to enjoy their own culture, practice their own religion and use their own language.
    • Right to benefit from positive steps taken by the state to promote racial harmony and the rights of racial minorities.
    • Right to seek asylum for reasons of a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and the right to remedies.

Attempts to codify the rights of sexual minorities in international human rights law have met strong opposition from a number of member states of the United Nations and different the media within countries.



We have a rogue parliament; there is no other way to describe it. The nation’s attention is captured by the matter of MPs defecting from political parties and creating or joining others without giving up their seats in parliament. This country, through its legislators, has turned into a lawless state, where every law that is not convenient to the desires and whims of a politician is flouted, ignored, broken, dismissed.
Our constitution is not respected; our legislative institutions are abused by almost all of them.
Our nation is plagued by poor leadership, and we the ordinary citizens had hoped that a new constitution would bring an end to the plunder we have endured since independence. Our constitution is not respected; our legislative institutions are abused by ALL of them.Our nation is plagued by poor leadership, and we the ordinary citizens had hoped that a new constitution would bring an end to the plunder we have endured since independence
These are the MPs who passed the Bill for the send off package in parliament. Judge for yourselves. the list even has esteemed lawyers and other professionals.
Zack was pushing his wheelchair 3912KM to South Africa to raise KSh. 250,000,000 to build a Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Center.
After 5 years of sitting on the lazy chairs that cost Kenyans KSh. 84,000,000, our MPs are going home with a sweet send-off package of KSh 2,100,000,000. this is enough to build 8 Spinal Injury Rehab Centers, train 403 Doctors from Primary School to University, equip 34 Radio
Therapy Units, build 2 National Level Referral Hospitals, equip Theaters for 100 Hospitals, supply Infant Vaccines for 3 years.
1 Abdalla Amina Ali.
2 Abdi Nasir.
3 Abdul Bahari.
4 Abu Mohamed Chiaba.
5 Adan Keynan Wehliye.
6 Alex Muthengi Mburi Mwiru.
7 Andrew Calist Mwatela.
8 Asman Abongotum Kamama.
9 Atanas Manyala Keya.
10 Bare Aden Duale.
11 Barnabas Muturi C. Mwangi
12 Beth Wambui Mugo.
13 Bifwoli, Wakoli Sylvester.
14 Boni Khalwale (Dr.)
15 Cecily Mutitu Mbarire.
16 Charles Cheruiyot Keter.
17 Clement Muchiri.
18 Daniel Mutua Muoki.
19 David Njuguna Kiburi.
20 Elijah Kiptarbei Lagat.
21 Emilio Mureithi Kathuri.
22 Empraim Mwangi Maina.
23 Erastus Kihara Mureithi.
24 Esther Murugi Mathenge.
25 Ethuro, David Ethuro.
26 Eugene Ludovic Wamalwa.
27 Francis Chachu.
28 Francis S. K. Baya
29 Frankilin Mithika Linturi.
30 Githae Robinson Njeru.
31 Githu Muigai (Prof.)
Attorney General Ex-Officio.
32 Hellen Jepkemoi Sambili.
33 Hussein Mohamed Abdikadir.
34 Hussein Tarry Sasura.
35 Ibrabim Elmi Mohamed.
36 Isaac Kiprono Rutto.
37 Isaac Mulatya Muoki.
38 Jackson Kiplagat Kiptanui.
39 James G. Kwanya
40 Jamleck Irungu Kamau.
41 Japhet M. Kareke Mbiuki
42 Jeremiah Ngayu Kioni.
43 John Michael Njenga Mututho.
44 Johnson Nduya Muthama.
45 Joseph Nganga Kiuna.
46 Josephat Nanok Koli.
47 Joshua Serem Kutuny.
48 Kilimo, Linah Jebi.
49 Kilonzo Charles Mutavi.
50 Kiunjuri, Festus Mwangi.
51 Kuti, Mohammed. Abdi
52 Lee Maiyani Kinyanjui.
53 Lenny Maxwell Kivuti.
54 Lewis Nguyai.
55 Mahamud Muhumed Sirat.
56 Maitha Gideon Mungáro.
57 Manson Nyamweya.
58 Mbau, Elias Peter.
59 Mohamed Hussein Ali.
60 Mohamed, Muhamud.
61 Moses K. Lessone
62 Moses Somoine ole Sakuda.
63 Mungatana, Danson.
64 Munya Peter Gatirau.
65 Musila, David.
66 Mutava Musyimi.
67 Mwalimu Masudi Mwahima.
68 Mwiria, Valerian Kilemi.
69 Ndambuki, Gideon Musyoka.
70 Ndiritu Muriithi.
71 Nemesyus Warugongo.
72 Ntoitha M”Mithiaru.
73 Peter L.N. Kiilu
74 Peter Mungai Mwathi.
75 Peter Njoroge Baiya.
76 Peter Njuguna Gitau.
77 Richard Momoima Onyonka.
78 Robert Onsare Monda.
79 Samuel Kazungu Kambi.
80 Shaban, Naomi Namsi.
81 Silas Muriuki Ruteere.
82 Tirus Nyinge Ngahu.
83 Wavinya Ndeti.
84 William C. Kipkiror
85 Yakub Mohammad.
86 Yusuf Hassan Abdi.
SOURCES: Miguna At Miguna; Julls Mumo



Let us live in peace.



Youth in Kenya spend 9 billion shillings a year! This is money that they ask for, and don’t have to work for. By the end of today, they’ll have gobbled up another 25 million shillings of your money as guardians. Additionally, Kenyan youth, who make up 60% of our population, are great influencers of what the older generation spend their money on, especially their parents as was revealed in the latest release of Holla, a research study on Kenyan youth carried out by Consumer Insight. The main aim of the fifth edition of Holla was to gain an understanding of lifestyles of the youth.
From the start, it was clear that the youth seek approval. Growing up over the years, they have found society doesn’t send an open invitation to them to fit in, so they have looked for ways they can be accepted into society. For them, the music one listens to, the school one goes to, what one dresses in, plus how and with whom one socialises with are paths trod day by day on the journey to acceptance. Who gives this much sought approval? Parents, when they want to earn respect and their fellow youth, where they earn association.
Back to the 9 billion shilling issue: the youth spend most of their money on snacks, beverages, educational materials and mobile phone airtime. Most of this money comes from parents who, as a youth counselor put it, “Don’t have enough time to spend with their children so they give them money to make up for it.” Despite them controlling all this money, only 8% have a bank account.
The youth still want to hang out with their peers as often as possible, but their choice of social venues will raise your eyebrows: church is one of the preferred places to hook up and hang out. According to a youth pastor, “When they are kids, they go to church as a routine, but when they become adolescents, they go to church to hook up with their friends.” Turning to sports, football holds a commanding podium position, with athletics gaining in popularity over the years. This can be attributed to the successes of Kenyan athletes in the local and international arenas. Kenyan heroine Conjestina Achieng’s fame has not rubbed off on boxing. Her graceful moves and strong punches pull many people including the youth into the ringside, but not into the ring to have a shot at the sport. Basketball has seen its popularity drop greatly due to reduced media coverage and a shortage of basketball icons that the youth can aspire to emulate.
One of the quickest ways of identifying a youth is through their clothing. To the youth, fashion is very important. What you wear isn’t just a way of covering your body, but a statement of who you are.
To make their statements loud and clear, almost 60% of the youth prefer second hand mitumba clothes to new ones because they are more affordable.
Sex, what we the older generation used to call bad manners, is now an everyday topic for the youth. As one doctor put it, “In the older days, sex was sacred and was hidden, but these days there is more of it. It has become so simple and it is like someone going to a kiosk to buy a soda. Young boys will even go to funerals to meet with girls.” Youth experts say that from as early as 8 years, children understand the finer details about sex, even if parents aren’t ready to discuss it with them. That is why the youth turn to the media to quench their thirst for information on sexual and reproductive health issues. Even though the youth don’t trust information from the media, they depend on it because it is readily available.
Their most trusted source, however, is parents, followed by health institutions and friends.
The fifth edition of Holla provides insights that any marketer shouldn’t ignore if they want to talk to the youth. If you want the youth to listen to you, first listen to what they have to say.


The process of UN mitigating conflict is conflict intervention. I includes conflict managment, resolution, settlement and transformation. Conflict management is the prevention and limitation of conflict using none violent means which may include prevention of an outbreak. Resolution is finding a solution to resolve the conflict. Settlement is changing the behavior of parties without changing resolving their differences. Transformation is terminating a specific conflict to resolve underlying issues.


1. Peaceful settlement of disputes

2. Peace keeping operations

3. Peace enforcement missions

4. Peace building

Conflict occurs in different stages. This is because it is dynamic over time. Although it can stagnate at one point, conflict will still develop to the different stages. The UN employs the different conflict resolution strategies according to the stage that the conflict is and the phase of the conflict.

Phases are either accelerating or de-accelerating. The stages start from durable peace, as the conflict arises,the stage goes to stable peace,unstable peace, crisis and finally war. During de-accelaration, the inverse of that happens.

During the stable peace period, UN exercises routine diplomacy. During Unstable peace, preventive diplomacy is employed to avoid further accelaration of the conflict. Should the conflict proceed to crisis like during the PEV,crisis diplomacy is used. During war;peacekeeping. When the war epitomises,UN troops are employed in the affected region to enforce peace.. They continue as the conflict goes down to peacekeeping. The UN then sets govt offices and institutions with an aim to post war peace building.

How does UN achieve the aforegoing? Through negotiations, mediation, arbitration, commissions of inquiry, conciliation commissions, judicial procedures and resort to regional agencies.

Negotiation is where the two parties reach a mutual agreement through formal and informal discussions without the question of who is right or wrong. Negotiation can be done through competing for interests,, compromising, accomodating, avoiding, or problem solving.

Parties may adopt the conflict resolution strategies of win-win,win-lose(one party forces the other to conform) or lose-lose.

During securing and enforcing peace,balance of power strategies, arms control, Geneva conventions and and multi-literalism are used as methods by the UN.

Mediation on the other hand is, according to Bercovitch et al 1991, a process where the fighting nation seek the assistance of a body say the UN to change their behavior or settle their conflict without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of the law.


Did the media fuel the PEV?

The media does all over the world contribute to violence. Jefferson having portrayed the media as the fourth estate, it means that it has the monopoly of weapons of mass destruction like Marx Weber would put it. The weapons are in this case more of slander than physical ones.

The media has been blamed of demonising on side in a conflict; portraying war as the only alternative whereas there are other means to resolve it;omitting reconciliation;fueling hatred among other areas.

The media however has the following roles in moderating conflicts:

1. Acting as mediators

2. Advocating for adoption of other people’s values and ideologies

3. Giving factual info and not propaganda

4. Publicising human rights and norms that dissuade war

5. Censuring hate speech

6. Undermining harmful stereotypes

7. Accounting for credibility of leaders who incite violence

8. Reframing issues that ignite violence

9. Avoid sensationalism

10. Train journalists on conflict reporting

11. Journalists should be well versed with the IHL and the impacts of war

12. Do not commercialise conflict

13. Observe media ethics

Where the media acts contrary to the aforegoing, it accelerates war. Did the Kenyan media therefore accelerate the PEV? We give you the facts, so that you can critically decide.


Hoffman Nick suggests war to be the use of organised violence between two groups pursuing contradictory policies with each group struggling forcefully on a mass scale,usually of at least 1000 deaths,to impose its own policy upon the other.

Causes of war can be psychological,economic,cultural or ideological.

Wars exist as total wars(to annihalate the enemy),regional,civil,liberation(e.g in Algeria&Indochina to out-do colonial repression) or ideological.

According to Aristotle,war is appropriate if the cause is not the concern but the merit of the one waging the war.
Cicero says that war is just so that people can live unharmed in time of peace.
St Augustus condems acts that blameworth war and refers it to as a means of conforming to God’s order of maintaining peace.

The basic postulates of this theory are similar to those contained in the first and second parts of the three parts of the theory. These are:
1. Jus ad bellum
These are rules addressed to the heads of states and apply to the pre-war.
a. must be for the right intent
b. must be declared by a legitimate authority
c. must aim at success
d. must be the last resort
e. must be for a just cause
f. groups must have proportional power

2. jus in bello
this is justice in war-right conduct in war
a. IHL must be respected
b. no reprisal
c. proportionality
d. protection of innocents
e. benevolent quarantine
f. no evil weapons

3. jus post bellum
justice after war
a. termination publicly declared
b. ensure an improving effect
c. rehabilitate institutions
d. compensation to begin reconstruction
e. punshment of triggerers of war
f. equal punishment for soldiers
g. rights vindication

Two groups are made to stay together. Ouer time the develop distinct identities. One group is seen to have a superior mind in accomplishing tasks. During competition for resources the inferior group is streotyped in a manner of diabilogical image,virile image,moral-immoral image or selective inattention.


There are no general theories that cut accross all conflicts to explain them,but we can rightly argue that most conflicts revolve around competition for power,ideologies and resources due to ethno-socio-economic and political conflicts. Mwagiru Makumi,2006 argues that different conflict traits give rise to the theories discussed hereafter. Karl Marx also has many conflict theories associated with him with classical scholars like Emmanuel Kant,George Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach having the same mind.

The comprador bougeoisie own the means of production while the proletariat provide labour. The latter are manipulated. Conflicts arise. According to Marx,this exploitation takes place in three distinct stages:
(a) Merchant Capitalism of 1600-1850
This is the accumulation of capital through slave trade and plunder where an estimated 9 million slaves were shipped accross the Atlantic and 2 million died of harsh conditions. This hampered African population growth;fuelled inter-tribal wars;killed trans-saharan trade among Africans;Africans became dependent and inter-locking of economies started.
(b) Colonialism
This involved forceful control of production and labour force.
(c) Neo-colonialism
This is where a country is sovereign in theory but her economic system and internal policy is directed from outside in practical thus conveying the ideology of the outside world.

Mwagiru,’06 is the father of this school of thought which argues that conflict is inherent in all humans. We are all born aggressive and it is through the struggle in the championing of our ideas to be good that the society can progress.

3. MAHATMA GANDI,1864-1920
He pioneered non-violence resistance to tyranny through civil disobedience and championing for easing of poverty;expanding human rights,religious and ethnic unity and self-reliance and increasing the economy. He led India to independence and the whole world strives to get along with his doctrine.

Pioneered by Thucydides,Hobbes,Machiavelli as the classical realists and Hans Morgenthau (1965-1985), human nature and international relations are conflictual and can only be resolved by war. Conflict is inevitable,and so is war.

Conflicts will occur to groups of different civilisations and that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-cold-war world.

These theories are significant in explaining conflict but are not sufficient.
(a) Frustration=aggression theory
Aggression is the result of aggression. Frustration is aggression. Aggression is activated by certain levels of frustration. (J. Dollard et al,1980) Mwagiru is however a strong opposer of this.
(b) John Burton and Hubert Kelman use the psychologists view to argue that there are human needs like need for security,identity and recognition that people,both at individual and institutional level will strive to achieve even at the expense of personal disorientation and social disruption. Conflicts will thus not stop unless these needs are attained.


In this and next couple of blogs,we shall demystify the concept ‘conflict’ with a niche of the interesting bit of it.
This blog site will help us comprehend different intraphysic,interpersonal,intragroup&intergroup conflicts;the actors;causes;conflict dynamics&how to resolve them.
Quincy Wright(Conflict:Readings in Management&Resolution) refers to the inconsistencies in the motions,sentiments,purposes or claims of entities as conflict. At the intitial stage,a conflict is latent,bt as it progresses it becomes overt.
Conflict is inevitable!