This is not the best way to fight terrorism
President Uhuru Kenyatta signs the Security Laws (Amendment) Bill at State House, Nairobi, on December 19, 2014. PHOTO | PSCU
What you need to know:
- Those who were responsible for drafting the counter-terrorism laws should have recognised the limitations of their own vision and considered other views in order to build consensus around the contentious issues surrounding the legal framework of fighting terrorism.
- In its present form, the new law diverts critical resources away from fighting the real threat of terrorism as special agents and police will now be preoccupied with media censorship and eavesdropping, probably on the activities of political opponents.
- Kenyans want peace and security, and the only plan that is likely to appeal to them is one that promotes national cohesion, guarantees constitutional freedoms, and protects them against all forms of threat.
The Security Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2014 that was acrimoniously passed in Parliament last Thursday is a setback on the fight against terrorism and has potential negative implications for Kenya.
It takes away the government’s goodwill and is an impediment to national cohesion.
It is human nature to disagree. However, wisdom demands that we acknowledge our strengths and weaknesses and try to accommodate dissenting views.
Those who were responsible for drafting the counter-terrorism laws should have recognised the limitations of their own vision and considered other views in order to build consensus around the contentious issues surrounding the legal framework of fighting terrorism.
It is sad that the President refused to listen to genuine concerns before assenting to the controversial law. Having witnessed the shameful conduct of our leaders in Parliament and the manner in which the proceedings were conducted on the floor of the House, the President should have taken a step back and tried to find an amicable resolution to the conflict to ensure that the crucial law is acceptable to all Kenyans.
Pushing unpopular laws down people’s throats is unhelpful, especially when the objective of the law is to help fight terrorism. In its present form, the new law diverts critical resources away from fighting the real threat of terrorism as special agents and police will now be preoccupied with media censorship and eavesdropping, probably on the activities of political opponents.
HEAY PENALTIES
The heavy penalties against public officers deemed to be in dereliction of duty could impede their performance as they will be tempted to take measures, not necessarily legal, to avoid the possibility of long jail terms.
Winning the hearts and minds of every citizen is a fundamental objective of winning the war against terrorism. The new law never won popular support on the floor of Parliament, let alone in the court of public opinion. The State stands to lose for taking the fight to the media, especially in this digital age.
Kenyans want peace and security, and the only plan that is likely to appeal to them is one that promotes national cohesion, guarantees constitutional freedoms, and protects them against all forms of threat.
Although the security amendment law was not all defective, it was flawed in that it violates key constitutional principles such as the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
POLICE REFORMS
Another casualty of the new law is police reforms as the appointment of the Inspector General is now the prerogative of the president. Therefore, the Police Service cannot achieve the independence envisioned in the Constitution.
An effective professional police authority is required to be impartial, credible, transparent, accountable, and transparent. The opposite of that is a hostile, partisan police prone to manipulation by political and sectarian interests.
The last option for recourse on the new laws is the Judiciary, which should assert its mandate as an impartial referee.
Major (retired) Wato is a security consultant and commentator. ([email protected])
