MUTAHI NGUNYI’s take on KIDERO – SHEBESH beating - It was all about UHURU and KIDERO vs RAILA

Saturday September 7,2013 – Political scientist, Mutahi Ngunyi, has given his take on the Friday's assault incidence between Nairobi Governor, Dr Evans Kidero, and Nairobi Women’s Representative Rachael Shebesh, saying Shebesh may be on a mission to hurt the good relations between President Uhuru Kenyatta and Dr Kidero.

On his Twitter account on Saturday, Mutahi who is famous for his wizardly hypothesis dubbed “Tyranny of Numbers” before the hotly contested March 4th elections said many Kenyans may condemn Kidero for slapping Shebesh but urges them not to forget Shebesh is an “ODM turncoat” who is out there to hurt relations between Uhuru and Kidero.

Here are  Mutahi Ngunyi’s tweets

Mutahi Ngunyi#My point is this: There is Kidero, and there is Shebesh. Condemn Kidero alright, but DO NOT turn your eyes from Shebesh - An ODM turncoat

Mutahi Ngunyi#Kidero is a targeted man by Raila. Shebesh was a Raila die-hard until the other day. Is her conversion to Uhuru real or is she on mission?


The Kenyan DAILY POST

31 comments for MUTAHI NGUNYI’s take on KIDERO – SHEBESH beating - It was all about UHURU and KIDERO vs RAILA

  1. well well u can look at it that way because for sure Raila and his sychophants are not happy with Kidero for what they see as betrayal also for being proposed to take over ODM leadership and might be consulting their witch doctors to mess up him for good and for sure Kidero should expect a rough time and a proper thrashing

  2. Shebesh should have respected Gov. Kidero and his office, there are ways and means which she have channelled her grievances - Instead of her bursting in the county hall.

    She should have also respected her position as a leader not only to the women, but many around. This looks like Raila hand holding Shebesh, Or the Over Jealous of Kidero's track record since starting as a Nairobi governor.

    Shebesh, Plzzzzzzzzzzzzz control your womanhood and have respect for man and many. This is a Jubilee a government and not ODM.

  3. I just don't trust this woman Shebesh. Did I hear that she was thrown out by Mama Ngina Kenyatta not so long ago?

  4. Thinking outside the box.

  5. MR NGUNYI
    WE KENYANS FORGET VERY FAST AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE ABLE TO HEAL EVEN FASTER !!! VERY FEW OF US STILL REMEMBER SHEBESH IS A RAO TURNCOAT . EVEN SO EVANS HAD NO RIGHT TO SLAP HER IN PUBLIC . HE SHOULD HAVE INVITED HER IN HIS OFFICE AND DO THEIR THING THERE AWAY FROM CAMERAS .

    KORIMODA

  6. i do agree with ngunyi oponion! There is aprocedure to aproach kadero not storming to hs office with agroup of people whom u do know wht some are up to. Respect... Kadero did wrong by slaping shabesh ok but...

  7. Anon 06:59 that is true. And they should do sweet things in his office, not fighting. Infact Kidero and Shebesh match very well.

  8. Cowards live longer!!!

  9. PROF. NGUNYI YOU NEED TO EDUCATE AND NOT MISLEAD. YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LOBBYING. TALK TO SHEBESH. SHE IS YOUR SISTER, TELL HER NOT TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL. TELL HER TO FOLLOW CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL PROTOCOL. IF SHE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE GOVERNOR TELL HER TO ASK FOR AN APPT IN ADVANCE.
    IF SHE WAS GOING TO DEMONSTRATE AT THE GOVERNORS OFFICE. THE CHIEF OF THE POLICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED IN ADVANCE AND A PERMIT ISSUED.

    • TELL HER NOT TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL OR ARGUMENTATIVE
    • TELL HER TO REMEMBER TO CLEARLY STATE HER GOALS AND PURPOSE FOR AN APPOINTMENT. WHAT SHE WOULD LIKE THE LEGISLATOR TO ACT ON AND HER GOALS.
    .TELL HER, SHE CANNOT JUST WALK INTO THE GOVERNORS OFFICE AND CONFRONT HIM THE WAY SHE DID.
    .REMIND HER TO SET UP AN APPOINTMENT NEXT TIME SHE HAS SOMETHING TO GRIND WITH A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
    . TELL HER TO FIND OUT THE DEPT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ISSUE AFFECTING HER CONSTITUENTS. TELL TO TELEPHONE THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.
    .ALL THE SLAPPING WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. BUT WITH PEOPLE LIKE PROF NGUNYI...DO I SAY...SHEBESH IS THE ONE WHO WENT TO THE GOVERNORS OFFICE AND ATTACKED HIM. THE GOVERNOR WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIMSELF. GIVEN SHEBESH PREVIOUS HISTORY. THIS ISSUE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RAILA,UHURU OR ANY OTHER KENYANS. DO NOT BE NARROW MY FRIEND PROFESSOR. EMPLOY ME SO THAT I CAN GIVE YOU SOME ADVICE BECAUSE YOU SURELY NEED IT!

  10. If there's a story of a dog and a bitch stuck together due to 'penis captivus'. some bloggers will find some loophole to argue Raila was responsible." Mohanmathew The star July 29, 2013.

  11. GO TELL UR MUM IF THAT IS WHAT U DREMT

  12. my take is that Shebesh got an oppotunity to play populist policts showing the the workers who happen to be nrb voters that she was with them and people may urgue that there are other ways of solving the issue but as a politician you alws take the one that endears you to your voters. i ask? dont we have other ways of solving the issue cord is calling a referedum on? i say yes there is infact if you check carefully there is nothing beneficial out of it except that they will as politicians remain relevant to their voters. that said i must conclude by saying Kidero was foolish to play to it and showed his ugly side and like Caro Mutoko told sonko 'he should have played the politics 101 eg say like we are having a meeting to brrrrrrrr but now to me he is no better than Baba yao who i rejected for similar antics only this is more worse. i hope this can flush Martha Karua from her hiding and women can stand with their own and with force.

  13. Shebesh is a Bitch who has no respect for offices and thats why Mama Ngina personally kicked her out of statehouse. She is bitter with Kidero's new links to Statehouse where she has been barred and is on a mission with evil people like Raila Amolo Odinga and Mike Mbuvi Sonko who want him out of the scene.

  14. aiiiiiiii????!!!!!!!!!!!! wacheni kelele!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. DON'T CITY WORKERS HAVE A UNION? WHY DIDN'T A UNION REP DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY TO SHEBESH? YOU CANNOT JUST KICK THE GOVERNORS DOOR AND DEMAND TO BE SEEN...YAWA! A GOVERNOR IS LIKE A PRESIDENT...

  16. PLEASE GUYS DO NOT GO TO FACE BOOK AND TWEEK A SENTENSE HERE AND THEIR CLAIMING THAT NGUNYI SAID THIS AND THAT...IT IS EMBARRASSING


  17. peter(u.s.a)

    Surely, how can a whole professor(Ngunyi reason like an Eight grader , this is pathetic.I expect him to say something that reflects his stature.what are you educating the young people that when someone was so and so friend should be assaulted?That is silly.I don't support Shabesh the way she acted bcoz i expect her top be a role model to young women and other woman how to behave, atleast respect someone's office by behaving well.Seek an appoint and talk over matters.If she kicked kidero's b**lls offcourse one can react in any way.Well done Kidero teach them manners.

  18. the fact and the most sensible thing in this issue is that:- when teachers/nurses and other strikers striked, she didnt join them to whatever place they directed their complaints. the question is, why only select the council workers who are more corrupt than other strikers? furthermore they are not remitting daily complete collections and yet they want a pay rise! impossible. what kidero did cant be condoned and how shebesh deals with issues must also be condemned.

    kolomuxs.

  19. “If you want to be respected by others, the great thing is to respect yourself. Only by that, only by self-respect will you compel others to respect you.”

    Self Defense
    If we have any rights, we surely have the right to self-defense. And yet self-defense has proven very puzzling to Rights theorists. To see why, take a simple case:

    There are two agents, AGGRESSOR and VICTIM: AGGRESSOR resents VICTIM for his sauve good looks and skill on the dance floor and has made it clear that he intends to kill him. One day AGGRESSOR shows up at the dance hall, gun in hand. He takes a shot at VICTIM but misses narrowly. He prepares to fire again, taking more careful aim, but VICTIM too has a gun and his only hope of surviving is to return fire and kill or disable AGGRESSOR.

    Is it morally permissible for Victim to shoot aggressor? Of course!

    It is permissible for VICTIM to shoot AGGRESSOR because VICTIM has the right to self-defense.
    VICTIM has the right to self-defense because he, like everyone, has the right not to be killed or harmed. (That is why, if you are attempting to kill or harm him, you are doing something wrong.)

    In defending himself, VICTIM will kill or harm the AGGRESSOR.

    If the AGGRESSOR, had a right not to be killed or harmed, then it would be impermissible to kill or harm him.

    What happened to AGGRESSOR’s right not to be harmed?

    It seems we must say that, by launching his attack, the attacker somehow loses his right not to be harmed. But where does it go?

    Note that wherever it goes it doesn't go very far: Suppose that AGGRESSOR takes his second shot and his defective gun explodes rendering it useless and leaving him wounded and helpless on the ground. AGGRESSOR is no longer a threat and now most people think it would be wrong for VICTIM to draw his gun and execute the now helpless AGGRESSOR. Apparently, AGGRESSORs right against being harmed returns as soon as he is no longer a threat to VICTIM’s life.

    And yet there must be more to AGGRESSOR’s losing his right against harm than his just being a threat. After all as soon as any victim decides to defend himself against any aggressor he becomes a threat to that aggressor but we don't want to say that deprives a defender of any rights.
    So maybe we should say that the AGGRESSOR's right not to be harmed doesn't go away at all? Couldn't we say that while AGGRESSOR retains his right not to be killed, VICTIM’s right to self-defense is more stringent or weighty than a simple right not to be killed and so it overrides or trumps the AGGRESSOR's right?

    But that doesn't seem right either. Even acting in self-defense you have to respect some people’s right not to be harmed. Thus it would not be permissible for VICTIM to defend himself by grabbing some innocent bystander and use him as a shield against AGGRESSOR's bullet. The bystander’s right not to be harmed is not trumped or overridden by VICTIM’s right to defend himself.
    So it must be something specific to the AGGRESSOR that removes, diminishes or discounts his right against being harmed; something that distinguishes AGGRESSOR from the bystander. But what can that be?

    Isn't the answer obvious? AGGRESSOR, unlike the bystander, is a bad guy. He is trying to do something morally impermissible and for that reason he forfeits his claims against others harming him.


    A person is justified in using a reasonable amount of force in self defence if he or she believed that the danger of bodily harm was imminent and that force was necessary to repel it. The two requirements: one that the force must be necessary and secondly that it must be reasonable.

  20. “If you want to be respected by others, the great thing is to respect yourself. Only by that, only by self-respect will you compel others to respect you.”

    Self Defense
    If we have any rights, we surely have the right to self-defense. And yet self-defense has proven very puzzling to Rights theorists. To see why, take a simple case:

    There are two agents, AGGRESSOR and VICTIM: AGGRESSOR resents VICTIM for his sauve good looks and skill on the dance floor and has made it clear that he intends to kill him. One day AGGRESSOR shows up at the dance hall, gun in hand. He takes a shot at VICTIM but misses narrowly. He prepares to fire again, taking more careful aim, but VICTIM too has a gun and his only hope of surviving is to return fire and kill or disable AGGRESSOR.

    Is it morally permissible for Victim to shoot aggressor? Of course!

    It is permissible for VICTIM to shoot AGGRESSOR because VICTIM has the right to self-defense.
    VICTIM has the right to self-defense because he, like everyone, has the right not to be killed or harmed. (That is why, if you are attempting to kill or harm him, you are doing something wrong.)

    In defending himself, VICTIM will kill or harm the AGGRESSOR.

    If the AGGRESSOR, had a right not to be killed or harmed, then it would be impermissible to kill or harm him.

    What happened to AGGRESSOR’s right not to be harmed?

    It seems we must say that, by launching his attack, the attacker somehow loses his right not to be harmed. But where does it go?

    Note that wherever it goes it doesn't go very far: Suppose that AGGRESSOR takes his second shot and his defective gun explodes rendering it useless and leaving him wounded and helpless on the ground. AGGRESSOR is no longer a threat and now most people think it would be wrong for VICTIM to draw his gun and execute the now helpless AGGRESSOR. Apparently, AGGRESSORs right against being harmed returns as soon as he is no longer a threat to VICTIM’s life.

    And yet there must be more to AGGRESSOR’s losing his right against harm than his just being a threat. After all as soon as any victim decides to defend himself against any aggressor he becomes a threat to that aggressor but we don't want to say that deprives a defender of any rights.
    So maybe we should say that the AGGRESSOR's right not to be harmed doesn't go away at all? Couldn't we say that while AGGRESSOR retains his right not to be killed, VICTIM’s right to self-defense is more stringent or weighty than a simple right not to be killed and so it overrides or trumps the AGGRESSOR's right?

    But that doesn't seem right either. Even acting in self-defense you have to respect some people’s right not to be harmed. Thus it would not be permissible for VICTIM to defend himself by grabbing some innocent bystander and use him as a shield against AGGRESSOR's bullet. The bystander’s right not to be harmed is not trumped or overridden by VICTIM’s right to defend himself.
    So it must be something specific to the AGGRESSOR that removes, diminishes or discounts his right against being harmed; something that distinguishes AGGRESSOR from the bystander. But what can that be?

    Isn't the answer obvious? AGGRESSOR, unlike the bystander, is a bad guy. He is trying to do something morally impermissible and for that reason he forfeits his claims against others harming him.


    A person is justified in using a reasonable amount of force in self defence if he or she believed that the danger of bodily harm was imminent and that force was necessary to repel it. The two requirements: one that the force must be necessary and secondly that it must be reasonable.

  21. the point is that two wrongs never made a right. Wambui's style of "activism" politics should be relegated to the dustbin. she shouldn't have stormed kidero's office like that. but then he shouldn't have kideroed her like that either.

  22. Governor Kidero was (politically set-up by the cunning Kikuyus Beouse Kikuyus are eying that Governor seat to go to Kikuyu TNA political party!Shebesh Aka Sonko mchikaji aka Mary Wambui Aka Waititu wants Kidero-out And a kikuyu takes over >Wataweza Only if the Coward Jinga Tribes gives up hence weak-cheap money hyponotized tribes>Kikuyu has Money !Money means Power!Kikuyu buys tribes If not Kikuyu Military and Police will kill you Using Kikuyu-Kwekwe!Kaa mama Bahasha Lie-very low!Kweli Wakikuyu Watatawala Kenya Miaka ELF (1000years) or More Hence Coward Jinga Tribes and silly illitrates!

  23. from far it might look so, but it might also be something else. for now kidero should step down so that we can have the RIGHT person in that office

  24. @ 10:38 Martha Karua is already out of her fox hole. I saw her the other day dancing as she drank Keroche beer. She can make a good governor but she's worse than Shebesh cos she beats men. Ask Agwambo.

  25. shebesh deserves what she got. If we are dissatisfied with Uhuru, do we storm the state house?. Why couldn't she seek an appointment with the Governor to sort the issues she had? Kudos Kidero

  26. she even called Jimmy Kibaki he is bulls shit.She need extensive prayers

  27. She is not the first. Two black bitches who insulted and attacked a McDonald's cashier suffered a rude shock when the cashier retaliated with a metal rod. One sustained a fractured skull and arm. Turns out the cashier was an ex-con. (search YouTube for this and numerous other examples). World over, feminism has raised and cosseted a generation of bitches that are oblivious to consequences of physical and verbal provocation and confrontation, a situation worsened by white-knight policemen, legislators and judges who pedestalize women. What the world witnessed in the City Hall incident is part of global blowback.

  28. YOU ARE DAMN WRONG ON THIS ONE, MWALIMU. KIDERO VOLUNTARILY ASSULTED SHEBESH. HIS POLITICAL CAREER LIKE THAT OF RAILA IS NOW DOWN AND OUT. THANKS TO THE NO-TOLERANCE ATTITUDE THAT BOTH HABOUR.

  29. EVEN IF A WOMAN BEATS U, U DO NOT BEAT HER BACK. THAT IS WHAT BEEN A MAN, A GENTLEMAN IS ALL ABOUT. HE FAILED THAT TEST AND HE CANNOT BLAME RAILA FOR IT. FYI, I HATE RAILA BUT HE IS A BLAMELESS DEVIL IN THIS CASE.

  30. Who knows what happens in these corridors of Power???? My instinct tells me that there is much more in Kidero/Shebesh relationship. "The wrath of failed personal agreements" A knee hitting the lower part of the abdomen & a very hard slap..... though very romantic as seen!!!!!!

  31. Ngunyi is a rotten tribal master who knows how to play with Kenyan psychology. he hates Kenya as a nation and love the tribalized divided kenya.

Leave comment

LATEST KENYAN JOBS AND VACANCIES

2012 The Kenyan DAILY POST. All Rights Reserved. - Designed by Denno