Uhuru speech great but action must follow

On March 26, President Kenyatta made a strong address in Parliament. He outlined areas of progress, but also recognised various obstacles to good governance, economic growth and stability.

He addressed divisive ethnic politics in certain counties to the threat of insecurity and terrorism. The latter was further highlighted by the horrendous attack on Moi University’s campus in Garissa on Thursday.

The President also issued a number of directives, including instructions for a Sh10 billion reparations fund to provide relief to victims – although it was unclear whether this would only be for victims of the post-election violence of 2007/8, or whether it would extend to all victims of election related violence and other abuses.

The President also directed officials adversely mentioned in an Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission report to step aside for 60 days to facilitate investigations.

But it is too early to tell whether this initiative will be accepted as a substantive anti-corruption drive or will be regarded as a mere performance. It may also be interpreted as biased against the political opposition and outspoken figures in URP.

Either way, the President recognised that “time has come to send a strong signal that his administration will accept nothing less than the highest standards of integrity from those that hold high office”.

Finally, but as yet little discussed in the media, the President called for debate on a number of key issues. For example, he called upon Parliament “to urgently reflect on a more effective way to vet (police officers) in line with the objectives and spirit of the reform process”. More specifically, he argued that the process was taking too long, damaging morale, and having a negative impact on reforms.

However, while the vetting has dragged on since 2013, there is the more important issue of public engagement. In short, vetting of judges and magistrates helped increase public confidence in the Judiciary because it appeared to be serious and thorough in that the process could remove powerful figures.

LOST FAITH IN POLICE VETTING

In contrast, many lost faith in police vetting when a number of officers widely believed to be perpetrators of gross human rights abuses were cleared due to insufficient evidence.

Clearly, it is easier to check bank accounts and expenditures and to investigate corruption than it is to investigate allegations of torture and extra-judicial killings. However, there are fears that the worst officers are slipping through the net. Thus, the President’s call to consider how to improve this was timely.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission is among institutions suffering low levels of public confidence with top officials named in the ‘List of Shame’ for their role in the ‘Chicken scandal’. Thus, there may be need for a change of personnel or introduction of new systems and oversight mechanisms.

The President also emphasised the promise of restorative justice, understood to focus on the needs of victims and perpetrators. Prof Carrie Menkel-Meadow argues that there are four Rs to restorative justice; namely to “repair, restore, reconcile, and re-integrate the offenders and victims to each other and to their shared community”.

The President took an important step towards restorative justice by offering an apology for past wrongs. Historically, this is a rare move. Britain, for example, only offered a statement of regret for abuses that occurred during Mau Mau rather than an apology per se.

The President also discussed plans for reparations and told Parliament to process the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission report without undue delay.

However, an emphasis on restorative justice also opens up another area of debate, which is how you reintegrate perpetrators. Regarding reintegration, Kenya can borrow from the amnesty in South Africa and gacaca in Rwanda to cleansing mato oput ceremonies in Uganda.

The President’s address thus recognised progress and problems, prompted action, and called for discussion of critical issues, which is why the speech was unlike most speeches that heads of state make.

Gabrielle Lynch is an associate professor of Comparative Politics, University of Warwick. [email protected]; @GabrielleLynch6