Police must first earn public trust before Kenya can be secure again

In poignant reactions to a series of terror attacks on Kenya since September 2013, the Government has adopted ill-conceived and knee-jerk measures that range from adoption of  “Nyumba kumi” to the new security Act.

This law is a poor parody of the US Patriot Act and to me is a clear admission that terrorism has triumphed.

The law will not only roll back our hard-fought democratic and civil liberty gains made since 1982 but also fundamentally transform our way of life.

The aim of a terrorist is not only to gain publicity but also to disrupt the normal life of his adversary.

The law further violates the Constitution that defines national security as “the protection against internal and external threats to” the rights and freedoms of Kenyans. 

The reactions of the Jubilee government to terror attacks and other violent criminal activities have confirmed that it lacks a national security strategy and the architecture to implement it.

My assertion is that the President’s reactions to terror attacks are unlikely to improve the security situation.

For instance, he responded to the Kapedo killings of 21 policemen by deploying the military and issuing an ultimatum for the 21 guns, uniforms and over 1,000 bullets stolen from the fallen law enforcers to be returned within 24 hours.

But Nairobi did not issue the modalities for collecting these arms — whether they should be handed over to the chief, to the county commissioner, the AP county commander or his regular police counterpart.

GLARING GAP

The glaring gap between national and county security arrangements has been exacerbated by the reluctance of the national government to set up county policing authorities and community policing forums.

The security law is not only dead silent on “nyumba kumi” but also on the establishment of these security structures at county and local levels.

The government will continue to face challenges of securing the nation as long as it is reluctant to secure its grassroots.

What would the government need to do to secure Kenya’s security from the grassroots?

The first step that needs to be taken to meet President Kenyatta’s challenge of citizens contributing to national security is to clarify the meaning of security.

Are citizens being asked to contribute to human security, national security, state security, regime security or political clique security?

Kenyans will absolutely support the government if they are convinced that the security the government seeks to maintain is for the defence and protection of their territory, lives, property, institutions, norms, and values, and not for the interests and well-being of a few individuals.

Second, the image and relations that Kenyans have with law enforcement agencies makes it almost impossible for them to contribute to maintaining security.

Kenya is far from a country where “the police are the people, and the people are the police.”

The mere designation of the ‘‘police force’’ to a ‘’police service’’ has not improved the perception of its poor performance and relationship to the public.

Kenya police still has the dubious distinction of being the most corrupt institution in the country.

POLICE TAKE SIDES

This has rendered the Kenya police incapable of solving community problems.

Whenever called upon to resolve disputes, the police usually take sides after being influenced through bribery. 

The government has a gargantuan task of establishing public confidence in law enforcement agencies.

Regardless of the strategic approach the government takes to enhance public safety, it will ultimately boil down to what the public thinks about its security agencies.

Third, the national security architecture must be completely overhauled to include the full establishment of county policing authorities and community policing forums and committees, and the “Nyumba kumi” initiative.

The fact that there is poor coordination, cooperation and communication between the national and county governments is worrisome.

In order for “Nyumba kumi”, which is in essence community intelligence, to succeed in its aim of getting citizens to aid the government in counter-terrorism it must be anchored on intelligence-led policing.

By their nature, structure and operations, our security agencies are not capable of this sort of policing, which depends on good information management, trust between the police and community, two-way communications with the public, scientific data analysis, and problem solving.

Our police have yet to recognize and respect the people as allies rather than treating them as crime suspects and inevitably alienating them.

CRIME PREVENTION

Our security agencies can reach out to people through training in community policing and by educating the public in crime prevention.

But for the police to educate the public, it will need to be re-educated.

Kenya police training curriculum is an outdated one used during the colonial period with slight revisions in the 1960s.

Our police officers are not equipped with skills in preventing terrorism and other crimes.

They are not trained in problem solving, environmental scanning, effective communications with the public, fear reduction, and community mobilisation in crime fighting.

And fourth, the government must recommit itself to reforming the police.

Without these reforms, the police will continue to cultivate hate-hate relations with Kenyans.

Often times, citizens are afraid to share information due to past experiences which include arbitrary arrest on false charges, physical abuse, extortion, and intimidation.

Citizens are afraid to report crimes because the police rarely act on information or use it against those who share it.

HARASSING THE PUBLIC

Crime will continue to be a critical responsibility for the police as will be the need for support by ordinary citizens.

But most critically, the success of law enforcement to gather intelligence to fight terrorism will depend on strong police-community relationships.

Kenya police must transform their orientation from one of harassing the public to serving them.

They must win the respect of the public by shedding those habits that undermine their credibility and support from citizens.

Our security agencies will only succeed in preventing and combating terrorism and other violent crimes with the support and cooperation of the county governments and the public.

Security agents must reach out to the counties and the people to help to gather information and intelligence on terror and crime suspects.

It is within the counties and the communities where terrorism and violent crimes are planned, where terrorists and criminals hide after committing heinous acts, and sometimes where they get help on how to evade arrest.

But in the present security environment, can a citizen report to the police about a suspicious person or persons hiding in a house next door with the confidence that the police will take the right actions?

Can a citizen expect a prompt police response if she calls the emergency number to report a suspicious activity or person?

These are hard questions only the government can answer. 

Ng’ulia is a security expert consulting for private corporations and governments.