Security organs must remain neutral

National security is subject to the Constitution and Parliament. Security Organs namely the police service, national intelligence and military have been compromised to secure personal and political interest rather than secure the people and the country.

Democratic policing and law enforcement is critical for strengthening rule of law and advancing development priorities.

The police and law enforcement reforms provided for in the Constitution of Kenya 2010 are set to achieve three objectives namely; to enforce functional autonomy of security and law enforcement agencies for operational effectiveness and professionalism; to strengthen civilian oversight accountability over security agencies; and to address the working and living conditions of the security personnel and their dependants.

The thrust of these reforms is to organise a law enforcement system, which is politically neutral, non-authoritarian, accountable and responsive to the community, professionally efficient and last but not least, which is an instrument of rule of law.

According to Articles 238 (2) and 239 (3) security organs are barred from engaging in any form of partisan politics and or advance a political cause of a political party.

In May 2016, National Intelligence Service and National Counter-Terrorism Centre were moved from the Interior ministry to the Office of the President. This move has serious consequences both constitutionally and politically.

Kenya is headed to a very volatile and vicious 2017 electoral contest that requires high threshold of integrity, credibility and transparency.

Actions by security services, all controlled by the national government and majority of whose key leadership fails to reflect the diversity of the country as required by the Constitution, could aggravate tensions around the polls due to perceived bias and undermine the credibility of elections outcomes and integrity of the vote.

Security agencies were not neutral in the 2007 General Election. It is gravely disturbing because all indications suggest that the situation has not significantly changed heading towards 2017 general elections unlike 2013.

There are serious concerns that political tensions could rise as a result of the high stake presidential election and that localized violence may occur due to ethnic/clan/factions differences in County elective positions.

It is highly recommended that in such a situation, the security agencies to be impartial in providing security before, during and after elections. It is particularly important that security agencies provide security for elections in an impartial manner in accordance with Articles 238 (2) and 239 (3) of the Constitution of Kenya.

When security services and other State actors who are supposed to act independently are thought to be taking sides, it has the tendency of creating spite and rancour. This is happened in the 2007 General Election, with serious ramifications. We are especially deeply concerned that the President, in an unconstitutional step, placed the National Intelligence Service (NIS) under his control.

It is observable that neutrality and independence of the civil service especially unnecessary provincial administration in electoral process is pertinent. In media reports of April 2016, the National Registration Bureau was reported to conduct “massive ID cards drive in Central Kenya ahead of voter listing raising eye brows as it is clearly discriminatory”. The reports said “it appears biased and politically instigated to favour Jubilee in the 2017 General Election”.

Political parties should reaffirm their commitment to peaceful polls. Electoral body (IEBC) should continue to enhance transparency and confidence in the electoral process by expanding and intensifying its engagement through active consultation with stakeholders and public outreach.

Security services have serious constitutional responsibilities to the people of the Kenya and so their importance to the health of the country cannot be under estimated. It is therefore imperative that their leaders must not drag these invaluable institutions into the realm of partisan politics.

Security agencies have a constitutional obligation, duty and responsibility to ensure that electoral integrity is not compromised by either their direction or perception of interfering to avoid political destabilization of the country.

The Cabinet Secretary for Interior Department has demonstrated severally appetite to interfere with functional autonomy and independence of the national police service.

To effectively safeguard the electoral process, each and every security agent must remain absolutely neutral and professional in dealing with all parties and elections candidates. There should be zero tolerance for disrespect of the law and the disregard of the constitutional and civil rights of the citizens, voters and contestants alike.