The recent ruling by the Supreme Court on BBI resurrected it and gave it an impetus to be reintroduced perhaps after the August election.
Although the two courts pronounced themselves clear on the matter, the Supreme Court made headway towards its revival.
When this matter was first brought to the fore, some of us were a little bit hesitant as others were sceptical but as the discussions progressed, I was convinced the constitution has a basic structure and harbours eternal clauses that must be protected by all means.
One of the reasons I opposed BBI was the way it sought to water down independent institutions for instance the Senate.
The promoters of BBI, have had a sole mission to bring down the institution of the Senate.
My view on this is premised on two reasons – not all of the six Supreme Court judges who disagreed on the basic structure disagreed in its entirety.
Particularly, they agree there are certain basic foundations of our constitution which, if amended, will affect the heart of the structure of the constitution and which by themselves are not amendable.
The Supreme Court rendered its verdict. I agree with some of the reasoning of the judges but disagree with others.
However, the Supreme Court has protected the sovereign power of the people of Kenya and the constitution from assault by individuals driven by selfish interests.
In the end, this historic moment will demonstrate that the will of God and that of the people is supreme over the will of a few autocrats and other merchants of deceit.
In terms of the issues canvassed by the court, the very fundamental issue is the basic structure and fundamental keys of the constitution.
If it goes the way the court pronounced it, it will pose a great challenge to bicameralism and spell doom to the independence of the Judiciary.
The same goes for the Judiciary whose independence and sanctity were in jeopardy. The bill sought to reduce judges to errand boys and girls of the Executive.
The current happenings lay bare the duplicity, underhandedness and insincerity that marred the BBI process.
The proponents of BBI who sold it as the saving grace for countries have been proven to be pathological liars because of their open opposition to increased allocation to counties.
Thus, I celebrate all those who stood firm to ensure our constitution is protected. Through these acts of bravery and selflessness, we have rendered our services and duty to future generations.
Finally, I cry for my beloved country whose constitution shall be mutilated soon and its form of governance shall deviate from the norm.
The process of changing some clauses has now been revitalised and will commence sooner than we think.
Corporate communication practitioner
Edited by Kiilu Damaris