Jubilee Coalition should use proper channels to amend the Constitution

President Uhuru Kenyatta signs the Security Laws (Amendment) Act 2014 at State House, Nairobi on December 19, 2014. PHOTO | PSCU |

What you need to know:

  • It may seem charitable to think that Mr Kenyatta’s advisers have misled him, as we did with Daniel Moi for years.

  • But then that necessarily means that he has not read the amendments himself — crucial as they are — or has not read (or understood) the Constitution he swore to defend.

  • Maybe some researcher read for him, being too busy. 

  • He would also be contravening Chapter Six of the Constitution on Integrity as well as the Public Officer Ethics Act which prohibits public officials from misleading the public.

The heat over the rushed debate on the Security Amendments Bill should worry us.

Security matters are so crucial that as much consensus as possible should be found.

But the language has gotten more virulent as positions are defended, rather than considering whether the proposed changes are constitutional, and whether they bring us the security and rights we deserve by addressing the root causes of insecurity.

This heat could be a deliberate masking of the true intentions of the amendments.

For genuine and sustainable security can only come with respect for rights: It is not one or the other.

It has been interesting following Uhuru Kenyatta’s statements on this issue. As the one wielding state power, he can move us toward security, democracy, or development.

Or he could move us toward corruption, dictatorship, repression, insecurity, tensions and divisions.

Mr Kenyatta has asserted that the amendments do not violate or amend the Constitution, nor do they take away our rights. He also asked that we raise issues “with humility and respect.”

VOIDS OUR RIGHT

I have not seen what MPs passed in their rushed sessions, but Clause 18 of the amendments effectively amends Article 50 of the Constitution, which prescribes a definite period before suspects can be brought before a court.

Clause 21 voids our right not to self-incriminate (Article 50 (2) (i) (l)).

In fact, Articles 10, 242, 246, 77, 33, 34, 24, 35, 51, and 49, among others, will effectively have been amended.

And this is not mentioning the plethora of international human rights laws — which Article 2 makes an integral part of our Constitution — that would be violated willy-nilly.

We can argue till the cows come home if the proposed amendments will actually reduce terrorism and insecurity, or if they will simply add on powers to the presidency and police leading to more repression, extortion and dictatorship with additional insecurity.

But what is clear is that amending the Constitution must be done in the appropriate manner, and not through the back door.

The back door is the gateway to disaster and we have been there.

Do the amendments address the root causes of terrorism and insecurity, which is corruption and an unreformed security sector? Alas no.

They instead increase the possibility of repression and pain to citizens already in fear of the terror.

As for civility and decorum, soon after Mr Kenyatta asked us to debate with humility and respect, his media unit launched a vitriolic attack on those with different views.

Since he has not rejected it, we know he approved the statement. 

SETS THE STAGE

So either his understanding of respect and humility is different from the rest of us mere mortals, or he did not mean what he said on Jamhuri Day. But it sets the stage.

There is a huge disconnect between Mr Kenyatta’s assertions on the Bill, and the reality of the vast changes to the Constitution that it makes, which can only mean that he was misadvised or he is deliberately misleading Kenyans. I am not sure which is worse for Kenya.

It may seem charitable to think that Mr Kenyatta’s advisers have misled him, as we did with Daniel Moi for years.

But then that necessarily means that he has not read the amendments himself — crucial as they are — or has not read (or understood) the Constitution he swore to defend.

Maybe some researcher read for him, being too busy. 

But perhaps he has been deliberately misleading us.

If so, then we are all — including his supporters — in deep trouble as he concentrates power in himself, silences dissent and returns Kenya to the bad old days.

He would also be contravening Chapter Six of the Constitution on Integrity as well as the Public Officer Ethics Act which prohibits public officials from misleading the public.

I may be missing something, but contrary to what many of his supporters think, we will all benefit if he succeeds in delivering security, respect, and development, all at the same time.

And we all lose if he recreates the Imperial Presidency.