In an effort to bring the crisis to an end, President Kenyatta said he is open to talks with the opposition leader.
The opposition is inviting the President not to be sworn in, otherwise they will hold a parallel ceremony in which Odinga will be sworn in as a President.
Constitutional lawyers believe that the two parallel swearings-in and the fact that two individuals claim to be the President may be erode the legitimacy of the Kenyan political system.
The opinion is greatly mistaken. Kenyatta won the elections and has received an electoral mandate to be lead the country. If Odinga had decided to run in the elections, maybe he could have won, but he decided not to do it. Without participating in the elections, Odinga cannot possibly be the President because we do not know whether Kenyan voters would have given Odinga the mandate to lead the country.
Suggesting that those who win, however unfairly, in the elections should not run the country is a democratic argument. But suggesting that the solution is to appoint an un-elected individual is totally undemocratic. And this is the problem of Odinga and his supporters.
Even more problematic is the fact that Constitutional lawyers in Kenya fail to denounce the unconstitutionality of the actions of the opposition.