Odinga, people versus environment-The case of Mau forest

The Prime Minister of Kenya is in trouble with a section of legislators in the parliament due to his efforts to conserve Mau forest. Prime Minister Raila Odinga argues that people who live in Mau forest should be evicted because the forest is a water tower which should be conserved. He accuse the people of engaging in illegal activities like logging.
On the other hand, legislators mainly from the Rift Valley province of Kenya where the forest is, led by Agriculture minister William Ruto, argues that the PM has turned against people who voted for him. The legilators argue that by evicting people and making them homeless in their own country, the PM is going against human rights. But the PM defends himself by saying that the eviction will be done in a "humane manner." That is where the main controversy comes in. The legislators opposed to the PM's move argue that their is nothing like a "human eveiction." They challenge the PM that if he thinks he is humane, then he should opt for compensation, or resettlement of people in Mau forest, and not eviction. They further argue that the PM is using the Mau forest case for political mileage, by painting a picture of himself to the international community as being environmental conscious. They accuse the PM of subjecting his fellow Kenyans to suffering by not providing them with alternative land, just because he wants to look good to the international community.
The PM on the other hand further defends himself that people who accuse him are the ones who are political opportunists out to misappropriate facts. He argues that the decision to evict people from the Mau forest was reached by the Kenyan government, which he and his critics serves. He wonders why his critics did not challenge the decision when it was agreed up on in the Parliament of Kenya. The PM vows to forge a head with the mission of conserving Mau forest, even if it means at the expense of his political career. He argues that if the initiative will make him to be unpopular to voters to the extent of not being voted in again, then he is ready to go home and bake and sell mandazi (be a pizza deliverer).
The PM engages a form of apologia called differentiation. He separates facts when he says that the decision to conserve Mau forest "was reached by the government of Kenya." It is also factual for him to wonder why his critics did not challenge the decision in the parliament of Kenya where it was discussed and agreed up on, and yet they were present.
But his critics argue that the method he is using is not what was agreed upon. They argue that it was resolved that the people be provided with alternative land, and not to be evicted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfGX--77JM