Lack of political goodwill to blame for the near-stalled police reforms

A police officer on duty in Nairobi on October 9, 2014. PHOTO | EVANS HABIL |

What you need to know:

  • There is probably no sector as crucial to Kenya’s development and democracy as security.
  • And, sadly, there is no sector in more dire need for transformation than this one.

There is probably no sector as crucial to Kenya’s development and democracy as security.

And, sadly, there is no sector in more dire need for transformation than this one.

A significant number of our problems stem from the failure to reform the security services, focusing instead on rhetoric and modernisation.

Thus, our tourism sector is limping from the impact of terrorist attacks that appear preventable.

Our economy can’t become a 24-hour one because of fear of thugs lurking around, or cops demanding bribes in the night.

Our transport sector is hobbled as traffic police demand bribes from every truck, bus and matatu, allowing non-road-worthy vehicles — and drivers — to remain on the roads leading to frequent horrific accidents.

Citizens cower with fear in the slums, attacked by gangs on the one side, and police, on the other side.

We are reluctant to give information on criminals to the police, unsure if it will come back to haunt us, courtesy of the same officers.

And communities accumulate grievances as police allow killer alcohol dens to thrive. Community punishment is used instead of real action against terrorists.

And, some communities are so marginalised that rather than providing police protection directly — as they do for other Kenyans— groups with traditions of cross-ethnic conflicts are all armed instead.

Yet, proper and adequate security is the foundation for economic activity, peace, enjoyment of human rights, and the management of our tense, bickering and cantankerous politics.

It ensures that we can engage in tough and robust debates about ethnicity and nationhood without feeling like some militia, gangs or warriors will be sent out against those who refuse to toe the community line.

MORE BRAINS THAN BRAWN

An effective security sector would be a crucial partner to the prosecution and the Judiciary will not have to rely on “confessions” to get convictions.

It would be more brains than brawn, taking the difficult route of proper investigations, rather than beating up suspects.

This would then help in increasing public confidence in the police, reducing that horrible Kenyan tradition of mob violence — lynching actually — which the media, bizarrely, term “mob justice”.

There is no justice from mobs, and there can be no justice when someone is presumed guilty and the mob becomes investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner.

Police reform is not just a technical issue to be handled by training, money and hope. It is mostly about political will by the leadership of the police and the regime in power.

And it is about accountability for the vast powers — including the legal use of lethal force — and resources that is thrown at them.

And this political will is badly lacking. Human Rights Watch released an excellent report in August on the use of extra-judicial killings and forced disappearances by the Anti-Terrorism Police Unit (ATPU), after investigations that should teach the police a lesson or two on basic investigations.

The report detailed specific cases of killings of people last seen in police hands, as well as of suspects shot after being accused of terrorist attacks when they were in jail!

Yes, some Kenyans are part of the terrorist networks. But this sort of approach will not end terrorism.

In fact, it could have the opposite effect of increasing discontent.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY

And whether we like the terror suspects or not, they are innocent until proved guilty, in exactly the same way that Mr Uhuru Kenyatta and Mr William Ruto are considered innocent until proved guilty.

Remarkably, the ATPU receives substantial resources from the US and UK, which always remind us of their commitment to human rights and anti-terrorism, being victims of terrorism themselves.

The two countries also tout the fact (at least since 2008) that counter-terrorism work should be done with respect for human rights and have held some of their own officers and soldiers accountable for torture and other violations in the war on terror.

So what is it about the ATPU that they are silent when their tax-payers’ resources are used to commit human rights violations?