The year 2020’s first big interview aired last week. NTV’s Ken Mijungu sat down with Deputy President William Ruto, the man the Observer’s crystal ball shows will hog the news limelight throughout the year.
From past experience, an interview with Ruto is never a piece of cake. The DP is not just an astute politician. He is knowledgeable, has massive self-confidence, is slippery and has the uncanny ability to sidetrack his interviewer with charismatic rhetoric.
Ken started off asking Ruto about newspaper reports that a land case against him dismissed in 2004 was being revived.
Ruto said the case was being resuscitated to stop his march to State to House. He informed his interviewer that other cases were being revived for the same reasons (including the ICC one over the 2007/8 post-election violence).
What was Ken’s follow up question? Wondering why the DP’s political enemies were reviving that particular land case and not any other. Bad question. How could the DP be expected to know exactly why his detractors picked on that specific case? What was the point of that question anyway?
With that, Ken Mijungu offered the DP an excellent opportunity to play victim of dark forces. See how Ruto grabbed it:
“You never know, Ken Mijungu. You never know what they are cooking. Maybe there will be other cases. As I told you, they have already arrived at the ICC case. They are already looking for witnesses around to say, oh, this case did not end properly […] because my political competitors want to make every effort to stop my candidature.”
Commenting on the interview, journalist Kwamchetsi Makokha wrote that Ken had not researched properly some of the issues he raised with the DP.
“Ruto claimed that people were hired to go to court to stop his candidacy in 2013. The truth is that known Kenyan organisations sought to know whether Uhuru and Ruto were eligible to run for election, given the cases pending against them. The High Court said it did not have jurisdiction to decide questions on presidential elections and erroneously slapped the petitioners with costs (overturned on appeal),” he said.
Ruto told Ken the trial magistrate in 2004 found he had no case to answer. “Significantly, the magistrate suddenly resigned after that judgment,” Kwamchetsi wrote.
“Ruto appointed Hellen Njue, who was slated as a key witness against him in the case, as a member of the Coffee Development Fund. She did not show up in court and never gave evidence.”
In claiming that a powerful cabal was out to stop him from succeeding Uhuru in 2022, Ruto handed Ken a great chance. Any politician, especially the Kenyan breed, would tell you any action against them was the work of their enemies.
A good interviewer would be aware of this. Ken was. If a politician alleges a scheme by a cabal, ask him to name the schemers. Of course he won’t tell you. And that is exactly what Ruto did in the NTV interview.
“It’s not for me to tell you. I am sure your guess is as good as mine,” the DP said, rather lamely. His communication strategists must have felt hot under the collar. What a terrible answer!
Without naming the cabal he alleged was pursuing him or providing any evidence of malice, the DP left it up to the viewers to decide whether he was telling the truth or merely politicking. How many people would give a Kenyan politician the benefit of the doubt regarding corruption allegations?
And then Ken committed the cardinal sin of journalistic interviewing. He let Ruto interview him. The journalist had asked Ruto whether he would attend the BBI meeting planned for the weekend in Mombasa. But the DP went around in circles. Ken, displaying remarkable presence of mind, returned to the question.
Ruto said he would consult his boss. “Explain to me, Ken, honestly, how you are going to collect views in a rally. Just explain to me,” he said.
That was a rhetorical question. Not meant to be answered. Ruto was stating that BBI rallies were political theatre and had nothing to do with public participation on reforms in Kenya. In essence, despite his stated acceptance of the BBI, Ruto was telling Ken the initiative was yet one more scheme to stop him from succeeding Uhuru.
But was Ken listening? No. He tried, instead, to answer a question, which the DP had, in fact, not asked.
“The rallies are meant to educate because they are sending a committee of experts [here Ruto was also talking, meaning it was not an answer from Ken he wanted] to speak to the crowd….”
Ruto: “You have listened to those rallies…”
Ken: “I have listened to that…Kakamega…”
Ruto: “It was about Sugoi. [Ken trying to talk here too] It was about William Ruto. How will you put Sugoi and William Ruto in the final report of the BBI?”
Ken tried to explain again, unable to notice that Ruto had not really asked a question but stated his opposition to the BBI rallies. A crash course on discourse analysis is recommended.
The rule of thumb is, the journalist does not answer a guest’s questions in an interview. You ask the questions. And, Ken, not too many questions or you make it appear you are fighting your guest, see?
