MPs criticise Westgate probe findings as Muturi steps in

The credibility of investigations by the National Assembly’s committees into the Westgate terror attack was questioned last week as MPs expressed disappointment with statements made by the teams’ chairmen.

The House now awaits a ruling by Speaker Justin Muturi on whether the committees can conduct a primary investigation, how far they can go with that and whether it is committee members only or all MPs who should refrain from telling the public about progress on on-going investigations.

Mr Muturi was to rule on the matter last Thursday but did not and he is expected to do so when the House resumes sittings Tuesday afternoon.

The concerns arose after the chairman of the National Security committee Asman Kamama and his Defence committee counterpart Ndung’u Gethenji said the military was not involved in looting and the claims that they did were made up to enable shop owners at the mall claim compensation from insurance firms.

Barely 24 hours after they made the statements, CCTV footage emerged showing soldiers carrying paper bags and repeatedly entering a shop at Nakumatt Westgate.

Mr Kamama and Mr Gethenji have since received plenty of flak and criticism from their colleagues and the public.

“It was an ambush. He (Mr Kamama) deliberately went there to make that comment for one reason. Either he was forced to give that statement or he just went to trivialise what we are doing in Parliament, which means we are wasting public funds,” Kitutu Chache South Richard Onyonka (ODM) would later complain.

Mr Onyonka is a member of the Defence and Foreign Relations team and he stormed out of the press conference when Mr Kamama began to speak about the looting.

While the chairmen claimed that they had viewed hours of CCTV footage and that their assertions were based on that evidence, it is understood that the footage they had been shown was not exhaustive.

Their attempts to get information from the public have also not been very fruitful.

Three members of the public showed up to make presentations.

Two were reported to have given inconsistent statements and only the other one agreed to make statements under oath.

The committees also had trouble getting hold of the Red Cross officials.

Many in the corridors of Parliament have also wondered whether MPs have the mettle to interrogate the powerful intelligence chief, the Chief of the Defence Forces and the Inspector General of Police.

In the House last week, David Ochieng (Ugenya, ODM) initiated the debate on whether the committees should even be investigating the matter and whether the chairmen ought to have rushed to clear anybody.

He asked Mr Muturi for guidance on whether the committees should engage in “primary investigations.”

“Do we have the competence to read or to engage in forensic investigations? Do we have the competence to take primary evidence from persons we are calling before us in a matter such as this? Do we have the equipment as a House committee to engage in this investigation?” he asked.

Mr Ochieng said the often expressed opinion outside Parliament is that the joint committee investigation is a cover-up.

“If you listen to people out there...they are not convinced that we want to do a honest job,” he said.

He argued that the joint committees should have awaited the report from the commission, yet to be set up, before they play their oversight role.

Arguing that Parliament has the powers to conduct the investigation, Majority Leader Aden Duale said MPs should not discuss matters still under investigation by committees.

He asked Mr Muturi to state where the boundary ought to be on discussions outside the committees.

His Minority counterpart Francis Nyenze was critical of Mr Kamama and Mr Gethenji.

“It is good for MPs… to know our limitations in that we are not experts in investigation. It is good to direct and recommend investigations by those people who are trained,” he said.

He said MPs should not be making statements that border on ignorance or which would portray them as sycophants or protecting a certain class of people.

Mr Gethenji was defensive and argued that oversight did not necessarily mean that MPs should only move in after other bodies have finished their investigations.

“It would be dishonest of members of this House for us not to interrogate the events surrounding that attack yet the media has a free hand to publicise all manner of fabricated stories, indeed even including the illegal airing of evidence, forensic evidence, which is the CCTV footage, which is obtained directly from security forces.

God knows how that was done,” he said.

Mr Gethenji said some of the stories aired over Westgate are “completely devoid of facts”.

Arguing that showing the images amounted to terrorism, Mr Gethenji suggested that the current criticism of law enforcement and the defence forces amounts to glorifying Al Shabaab.

“This House must recognise that today we are in a state of war against the Al Shabaab. Kenya is on a war footing and the people who do not facilitate and assist us to end this war and instead facilitate the objectives and the furtherance of the terror campaign are not with us. If you are not in the fight against terrorists, then you are siding with the terrorists against us,” said Mr Gethenji.

He said that “political fingers” are now being pointed and that the media is encouraging this.

FOOTAGE LEAKED

“I would wish the security forces of this country investigate how that CCTV footage was leaked or procured from the people who were holding (it) and how they were allowed it to be aired on national television,” he said.

MPs live by the mantra that Parliament does not act in vain, meaning anything they do should have an effect on the people they represent and the country.

There have been concerns that the Departmental Committees are often too quick to start investigations.

If he makes the ruling on Tuesday, Mr Muturi is bound to issue a critical clarification.

But whether it will lift the cloud of doubt that hangs over the investigations into Westgate remains to be seen.