The controversial death of youth mobiliser Cecil Ouma has raised disturbing questions that demand clear and transparent answers. Those answers can only emerge from a thorough, independent, impartial and transparent criminal investigation that is free from real or perceived interference and influence.
But as the investigation continues, should Principal Secretary (PS) for Youth Affairs Fikirini Jacobs, in whose presence and official vehicle the fatal shooting allegedly occurred, remain in office?
No, is my answer. In fact, he should have already resigned or temporarily stepped aside pending the completion of the process. And because he has failed to do so, the appointing authority should act.
Fikirini’s exit would serve three purposes. First, it would strengthen public confidence in the investigation by reducing perceptions that his office could influence the investigation. Second, it would reassure the victim's family and Kenyans at large that even the PS is not above the law and that investigators can pursue the evidence wherever it leads them, without fear or favour.
Third, it would reinforce the integrity of the office he holds and set a precedent in a country where public servants would rather die than be held to account. It would be a recognition that public leadership carries responsibility that extends beyond legal liability.
When Lord Chief Justice of England, Gordon Hewart, in the landmark 1924 case R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, stated that "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done," he captured a principle that remains as relevant today as it was then. The principle dictates that even where a process is objectively fair, any reasonable appearance of bias or undue influence can erode public confidence in its outcome.
By Lord Hewart’s standards, an investigation into Mr Ouma's death must not only be a fair process but also one that commands public trust. And that can hardly be the case if Fikirini continues to exercise the authority and influence of public office.
For the record, this does not assign criminal liability to the PS. But because reports indicate Ouma died following a confrontation linked to an event the PS attended, that he was present in the car where Ouma was gunned down, and that his bodyguard, Police Constable Rashid Charo, believed to have discharged the bullet that took Ouma’s life, has already been arraigned, the PS is central to the investigations. Notably, he has also recorded a statement with investigators.
These circumstances demand political and ethical accountability. Thus, stepping aside would be an acknowledgement that serious questions arise from an incident Fikirini is connected to, and him or his office should not be seen to cast a shadow over the search for truth.
An exit would also protect the government from accusations that it is shielding one of its own, besides safeguarding the credibility of the eventual findings, whether they implicate or exonerate those involved.
If Fikirini does not voluntarily step aside, President William Ruto, who has previously advocated accountability and the rule of law, should crack the whip.
Eventually, if the resultant evidence clears the PS or any other individual, they should be publicly vindicated; if it establishes criminal responsibility against them, the law should take its course. Therefore, calling for Fikirini's temporary exit has nothing to do with criminal liability, a role for investigators and/or the courts. It is about protecting the integrity of the investigation and preserving confidence in public office.
Finally, Mr Fikirini, leadership is ultimately about the willingness to place public interest above personal position during moments of crisis. This is not a declaration of guilt. It is a call for leadership.
Also, the tragedy raises another question about the manner in which youth mobilisation for government programmes is done. When disputes over transport reimbursement or facilitation can descend into chaos, the planning and the treatment of people participating in such programmes become questionable. This issue, too, deserves scrutiny because it speaks to standards of public administration and ethical leadership.
