LAST week the TNA condemned Justice minister Mutula Kilonzo on Friday as "primitive and of questionable integrity".

Mutula's crime was to say that he did not think candidates charged with crimes against humanity should stand for election as president and deputy president of Kenya.

He added that, if he was elected to the Senate, he would move a motion to impeach them, if they were also elected. Similarly there was a storm of protest when Raila Odinga recently said that the ICC trials would go ahead even if Uhuru and Ruto became president and deputy president.

It must not become a no-go area to discuss the implications of the ICC for the future government of Kenya. How would Uhuru and Ruto govern if they were in the Hague? Would they go to the Hague if they are elected? Would the government respect an arrest warrant issued against them? What international sanctions would be imposed if Uhuru and Ruto refused to go to the Hague?

These are legitimate questions that cannot be wished away. Voters have a duty to consider the long-term implications of having a president and deputy who are on trial at the ICC. This debate should not be squashed. It should continue.

Quote of the day: " Absence of proof is not proof of absence." - English poet William Cowper was born on November 26, 1731