By ALEX NDEGWA
A row is brewing over whether Members of Parliament can be trusted with national secrets as efforts to make Government more transparent continue.
Debate is also raging on how they would obtain security clearance and still be independent of the nation’s intelligence and security apparatus.
As the National Assembly steps up its oversight role, the national intelligence service will no longer be exempted from scrutiny. A proposed National Intelligence Service Bill will see a Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee set up to keep an eye on what the nation’s spies are up to.
This will require them to receive briefings on matters that are rarely in the public domain. But questions are being raised as to how safe any classified information would be in the hands of such a team, given the integrity concerns that dog the House.
The Tenth Parliament has been rocked by bribery and extortion claims against some members. Credible international bodies have accused some of them of aiding or being involved with drug trafficking, money laundering and terror-related organisations. Similar claims have dogged past MPs.
Vital information
With allegations of cash-for-laws or Motions or questions flying in the House, what are the risks of vital information or documents falling into the wrong hands? What guarantees are there that sensitive proceedings conducted behind the scenes would not be leaked? Could the fear that confidentiality may be breached explain why security chiefs have snubbed some parliamentary committees or been economical with their testimony?
The fears are not unfounded. In 2009, President Kibaki warned ministers over leaking Cabinet secrets. This followed a series of embarrassing leaks over various coalition deliberations.
The President expressed dismay that ministers appeared to show little regard for their oath of office, which prohibited them from discussing Cabinet matters in public. MPs, who are less disciplined, have a record of involvement in embarrassing security incidents.
Cases of weapons and documents being forgotten in public places are not unheard of. The rush to leak closed deliberations to the media for political gain is also an issue. Recently, Director General of the National Security Intelligence Service Michael Gichangi drew the wrath of the committee probing the authenticity of a document suggesting Western nations backed a secret probe of President Kibaki for international crimes.
It was not the first time Gichangi had infuriated the Defence and Foreign Relations committee chaired by Wajir West MP Adan Keynan.
He refused to appear before the committee even after Attorney General Githu Muigai undertook to accompany him to the hearing. The spy chief has had similar run-ins with Parliament’s National Security committee headed by Mt Elgon MP Fred Kapondi.
CBK Governor Njuguna Ndung’u reluctantly turned over a file of confidential contracts to Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee during a probe into controversial currency printing deals. “This file is highly classified and contains contracts the Government has entered which could undermine national security if they get into the wrong hands. I trust you will protect the documents,” Prof Ndung’u told PAC chairman Boni Khalwale.
The challenge presented by the need for secrecy is not insurmountable, says Defence Assistant minister Joseph Nkaissery.
He says nobody is above the law and that the NSIS chief should testify before committees in secrecy. But Maj Gen (Rtd) Nkaissery says all State officers in strategic positions should be vetted and that vital information be released only on the “need to know basis”.
National security
Nkaissery acknowledged the risk that some members could be reckless in the handling of information critical to national security. “Majority of MPs would want to play to the gallery on sensitive issues that could undermine national security,” Nkaissery told The Standard On Saturday.
The former Commandant of the Kenya Military Academy cited the case in which a member asked the Defence ministry to detail the number of cadets who had been recruited this year and the regions they came from. Gichangi, while making a presentation on safeguarding national interest, warned MPs too many foreign agents were on the prowl in the country.
“There are very many foreign agents who manifest themselves in many facets to propagate interests against our own,” Gichangi told the lawmakers during a recent conference on peaceful elections in Mombasa.
He explained the spies were under the cover of foreign embassies and international non-governmental organisations to disguise their espionage. Indeed leaked US diplomatic cables detailing secret conversations between American envoys and local leaders showed how the Americans made good use of their “listening posts”.
The spy chief shared similar concerns with Nkaissery over the tendency by politicians to sacrifice national interest to further their political ambitions.
Gichangi stressed organised criminal groups were a threat to national security and warned politicians falling over themselves to appease outfits like the separatist Mombasa Republican Council.
“[Some leaders] are busy, especially at night, cutting deals or impressing particular groups including those from here who tell us this is not Kenya,” he said. “If we continue cutting deals with these groups we are courting danger.” Kilgoris MP Gideon Konchellah, a retired military colonel, said committees should be cautious not to cross the line on security issues.
“You can summon security chiefs but you can’t go about grilling them on operational aspects,” he told The Standard On Saturday. “The US Intelligence committee summons (Secretary of State Hillary) Clinton and (Central Intelligence Agency director Leon) Panetta but it can’t question operational aspects or acquisition of weaponry,” Nkaissery said.
“In the next Parliament, members should be inducted on national security and governance,” Konchellah said. Nkaissery and Konchellah said the media, too, should be sensitised to protect confidential material and “not to expose our secrets.”
A proposed National Intelligence Service Bill establishes a Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee, whose members, it is suggested, are vetted by the agency. Such vetting raises an obvious dilemma: There is clear conflict of interest in overseers being vetted by those they are responsible for overseeing.
