Historic lessons to Kenya's drinking problem

The background against which the Anglo-Chinese opium I and II Wars of 1839/1842 and 1856/1860 were fought was due to flooding of the opium by the British merchants to China from India.

The proliferation of opium into China had the effect of drop in price, local consumption increased rapidly and the drug penetrated all levels of Chinese society. “This had a devastating effect on the Chinese population while local officials profited greatly from bribes and taxes involved”.

Fast forward to 1920 when the US drinking problem had its toll on America citizens. This necessitated the country to effect Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution under Volstead Act which prohibited the sale of alcohol.

People like the late Joseph P Kennedy Sr, the father of the late President John F Kennedy, is alleged to have made money in bootlegging the illegal importation and distribution of alcohol during the prohibition. This prohibition was “Successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed” but had the unintended consequence of increasing “rampant underground organised and widespread criminal activity.”

However, on March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Collen-Harrison Act legalising beer with an alcoholic content of 3.2 per cent by weight. Eventually on December 5, 1933, ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In the meantime, “United States federal law still prohibits the manufacture of distilled spirits without meeting licensing requirements that make it impractical to produce spirits for personal beverage use.”

Drinking as is being experienced in Kenya and indeed many countries in South America and Africa i.e South Africa, can equally draw lessons from what is happening to Native (Red Indians) Americans in US and the Aborigines in Australia. They are slowly and surely heading towards extinction because of widespread drinking to the extent they now live in exclusive reserves and literally don’t participate in normal economic, social and political lives of their counties.

In the recent past, there has been awakened ‘consciousness’ on the part of elected leaders to deal with an already crippling effect of drinking by the young and old in parts of Kenya. The object is noble but the wherewithal raises legal questions with the methodology of eliminating the illicit drink sources and hopefully the drinking itself. When a nation subscribes to the rule of law and due process, it becomes important not only to think of the how but also the means through which we achieve that which we desire. The mechanism of dealing with the alleged offenders against the law must always be lawful. Why? Our Constitution under Article 40 on the protection of right to property covers right to acquire and own property (a) of any description and (b) in any part of Kenya. The critical fact to note is that the Constitution makes no distinction between a bicycle owner and the owner(s) of multi-billion shilling BAT plant! Property is property and the government must protect the sanctity of the bicycle as much as it protects the BAT plant.

Members of Parliament have done a ‘commendable job’ in destroying clandestine breweries which supposedly supply illegal and illicit drinks! However, they have no police powers and hence their actions, though well intentioned are outrightly unconstitutional and illegal. Illegality cannot correct illegality, period!

If we seriously wish to address the problem at hand, we must go back to the basics! First the work of dealing with any criminal activity is within the perview of the National Police Service. Vigilantes have no place in a civilised society by whatever description. Why? If allowed, this is the surest way of fueling anarchy.

The government must be resolute in enforcement and adherence to the rule of law. Those charged with maintenance of law and order must discharge their duties and if they fail, there are legal channels to provide immediate sanctions. The courts too must dispense justice without delay.

Let us all be alive to the dire consequences to individual, families, communities and the nation when drinking reaches catastrophic levels. The effects to pro-creation, productivity, social and family breakdown cost to health care and above all existential threat are devastating and cannot be second guessed.

Therefore no nation can be blind to these consequences nor can any sensible citizen fault its government for taking all legal means to address this threat. The drinking proportion we have reached, it will require long term strategy and co-operation within the entire nation. Nobody can claim immunity nor celebrate the suffering of a people. We are all in it together.

The writer is an Advocate, High Court of Kenya