By Victor Ochieng’
Last week, all eyes remained glued on the silver screens as lawyers employed law, logic and literary language – to persuade judges at the apex court. Personally, I followed the proceedings with real zeal and zest due to the soft spot I have for people who hold others in thrall through the good gift of the gab.
To begin with, lawyers sought refuge on the supreme law of the land – the 2010 Constitution. They also came out as smart students of Aristotle – the great Athenian thinker quoted profusely by orators on matters rhetoric. In the DK Guide to Public Speaking, Lisa A. Ford-Brown contends that Aristotle believed that a presenter has three terrific tools of persuasion – ethos (ethics), logos (truth) and pathos (emotion). Then, there is mythos (history and culture) – added later by the rhetors.
Somehow, our putative lawyers explored tricks and techniques of persuasion to convince the Supreme Court judges. Indeed, they also used philosophy – love of wisdom. Listening to their stupendous submissions on the awe-inspiring floors of the court was like being in a lovely lecture of Philosophy 101.
Of course, five facets of philosophy manifested, which include: study of knowledge (epistemology), study of values (axiology), study of the supernatural (metaphysics), study of beauty (aesthetics) and study of reasoning (logic).
For instance, Professor Githu Muigai, a decorated legal scholar who seems to have kissed the blarney stone used his silver tongue to defend the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). He followed the wise words of Jeffrey Gitomer, who in his Little Green Book of Getting Your Way argues that any speaker evinces eloquence when s/he owns the material and attains marvelous mastery of platform presence.
Again, lawyers got it right when they employed elegant éclat of figures of speech. Willis Otieno, who was part of the panoply of Azimio lawyers, argued using poetic style, satire, humour and analogy. He employed jokes, jests and jibes. He claimed that IEBC treated the electoral exercise like ‘pinky pinky ponky – a rhyming song used by children in kindergarten. When he added ‘paka mielo disco’ (cat dancing to discotheque), his humour caused comic relief in that placid place.
Moreover, the same Willis Otieno used analogy to augment his argument. For instance, he postulated, “We were told that Jose Camargo (Venezuelan) was like a plumber maintaining the system. Once a plumber has fixed your bathroom, he has no point of being there. When you find him there while bathing, he is no longer a plumber, but a sexual offender!”
Consequently, there was wise use of Biblical allusion when he quoted Mark 8:33. The sacred scripture says Jesus reprimanded Peter: Get behind me Satan! Still on allusion, Kioko Kilukumi, a lawyer defending Kenya Kwanza invoked 1 Kings 3:16-28, where King Solomon made a landmark ruling pertaining two women who claimed to be the mother of a certain child. Kioko Kilukumi welded allusion with analogy. Then, allegory, which is a wider application of metaphorical and symbolic language. No wonder, he pictured the two protagonists – Ruto and Raila – as two women caught up in a Titanic tussle over Baby Victory, the 2022 General Election.
Moreover, alluding to the winsome wisdom of Solomon to determine the real mother of the baby gave us a riveting rehash of the play titled the Caucasian Chalk Circle, authored by Bertolt Brecht – the great Marxist playwright. In that heroic book, Natella Abashwilli and Grusha Vashnadze are in a great duel over Baby Michael. Judge Azdak of Nuka orders a circle to be drawn. Then, they place Michael in the middle. The two – Natella (woman) and Grusha (lass) – are to pull the baby. Natella uses brute force to pull. Yet, Grusha does it gently. Eventually, the Judge makes a ruling in favour of Grusha. This is akin to Solomon’s ruling, where when he thought of chopping the baby into two equal halves, one woman cautioned him not to engage into that cruel and callous act. In turn, Solomon used his discretion and judicial instincts to point out the mother – the one who protected the child from the wrath of the sword.
Furthermore, Muthomi Thiankolu, a Kenya Kwanza lawyer, equated the case to a tragi-comedy. He alluded to Macbeth – a play penned in the years of yore by William Shakespeare. He posited that even if judges were to be benevolent like Father Christmas, the verdict would still be a work of fiction – replete and complete with sound and fury.
Finally, he implored politicians to stick to politics and leave works of fiction to the likes of John Grisham and James Bond. He alluded to Kusadikika by Shaban Robert where he cited that the Judges were not in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kusadikika.
The writer is an editor, orator and author. vochieng.90@gmail.com. 0704420232
