New laws weakest link in terror war

Kenya’s Parliament approved new anti-terrorism laws on Thursday after chaotic scenes in which Opposition legislators, citing a threat to civil liberties and free speech, threw books at Speaker Justin Muturi, shouted, chanted and sprinkled water on his deputy Joyce Laboso.

Even though the Jubilee Coalition has used the now infamous tyranny of numbers to pass the Bill, many people in the country feel aggrieved that such a law which has far-reaching consequences for civil liberties could easily sail through just by the nod of around 200 legislators.

Watching the Jubilee members and Mr Muturi disdainfully disregard the contribution of the Opposition, it was as if the supporters of Cord did not represent a section of Kenyans. In other countries, such vital legislation that is likely to spark controversy is subjected to thorough, widely consultative debate by all stakeholders before it is tabled for the final vote. Sadly, it seemed that that didn’t matter to the drafters of the new legislation.

And therefore, the danger that when the law takes effect, a section of the population, mainly Cord supporters and other areas like the North Eastern will feel excluded is real. Leader of the Majority Aden Duale could gloat that his side won when it passed the controversial amendments, but in truth, we are all losers.

The real winners are the terrorists hiding somewhere in a cave in Somalia. They have succeeded in sowing the seeds of discord among our leaders and consequently, our citizens.

Take for example the people of Northern Kenya who have been victims of the Public Preservation Act, which was used to declare a state of emergency since the Shifta Wars of the 1960s. They are anxious about the possibility of the re-introduction of this punitive legislation. Yet that should not have happened.

What could have touched a raw nerve was that the greatest defenders of the law were obviously doing someone’s bidding.

Three weeks ago, I talked about the need to up our intelligence and counter-terrorism strategies to rid our borders of terror. I quoted Jessica Snapper’s 2011 paper on terrorism: Shifting Counter-terrorism Paradigms. She advocates a more aggressive form of counter-terrorism measures that are efficient and cost-effective “while upholding civil liberties”.

Let us examine the new law vis a vis this seminal work. Her seminal work analysed four models that if used collectively, could effectively deal with the danger of growing global terrorism.

The war model assumes that terrorism is an act of war. Those fighting it will therefore labour to eliminate it by all costs. The defensive model examines terrorism as a physical and psychological threat. This aims to protect potential targets and victims.

Whereas the criminal-justice model assumes that terrorism is a crime and that perpetrators should be punished according to the rule of law, the conciliatory model views terrorism as a political problem that needs political solutions.

These four models must work together. The Security (Amendment Act) 2014 in its entirety focuses on the two models (the war model and the criminal justice model) and that could explain the acrimony around its passage.

Left out was the critical of the three; the Conciliatory model. Terrorism is a political problem and therefore needed political solutions. The Jubilee coalition could have achieved this if it sought to have a buy-in from everybody. Because security is a matter of concern to everyone, more consultation was needed to promote inclusivity.

That is politics by any other name, healthy politics. Those whose arguments carried the day needed to be humble while those whose arguments were defeated needed to feel they lost fairly. That did not happen. In the end, the law might have exposed Jubilee’s soft underbelly.

The process was full of pitfalls that may expose the ruling coalition not only as arrogant and dismissive, but also as lacking in strategy. For example, the clause requiring the media to seek authority from the police before publishing pictures from terror scenes is self-defeating.

President Uhuru Kenyatta’s justification during Jamhuri Day celebrations notwithstanding, I believe the media has a self-censorship mechanism which has served them well. The punitive punishment against the media flouts this rule and could only be for a reason other than that that we all know.

We believe the terrorists (the enemy) are few and as Deputy President William Ruto puts it (they are running with their tails between their legs) there was no need to make enemies in a section of the public.

Then to stop the media from covering some stories could only mean the Government is keen on covering up the legendary incompetence of the security agencies.

Kenyans are discerning and would not likely slaughter one another after a terrorist attack. I have only witnessed public protests against police and Government's counter-terrorism strategy. That is because taxpayers expect value for their money.

The role of the Government is to properly channel that anger and institute proper legislation that convinces the public that something is being done.

Our media outlets have done exceptionally well, and deserve praise. There are a few cases where they have overstepped the mark. That should not be the excuse for a clampdown unless the State has something up its sleeves.