Link between resettling IDPs and broader reforms

By Titus Bittok

The internally displaced persons (IDPs) are so referred to for two reasons; the 1951 convention on refugees recognises displaced persons who have since fled their habitual residence and crossed over to another territory and, two, IDPs are localised owing to an internal disturbance bordering on conflict. Although the 1951 convention was largely geographical, OAU convention on refugees was a ground breaker.

For the first time, refugees could leave their country not only for reasons of persecution (mandate refugee) on inter alia sex, religious, political inclination.

The OAU counterpart did set the pace for economic, calamities as reason to force persons to leave their countries of domicile. This trend was followed subsequently in the 1967 Cartagena Protocol. The protocol further removed the balkanisation of refugee beyond European Nations and WW II.

Left out of the loop of this definition however were IDPs. IDPs, like the refugees, undergo same excesses: deprive home comforts, obliged to leave their residential or habitual homes, deprived of their basic rights and seldom face a bleak future. Ordinarily, one can be an IDP without necessarily being a refugee.

The vice versa is not however, accurate. One of the cardinal rules of the refugee law is that no one refugee shall be forced back (refoul) to where he has fled from(Article 33). Could this persuasion be true to the IDPs?

IDPs are out of internal situations. This owing to the nature of conflicts and factors that spiral to create flight of IDPS in search of safe abode. In Kenya, however, ‘IDP’ became a common vocabulary following the post-election violence in 2007 for two reasons: the magnitude and severity and, two, the widespread pogroms associated with it and the media leverage it received. Yet the menace had built up over the years, thanks to a weak media and political will. Cingalo, Serengonik, Kipkurere and Mount Kenya were the first set of such evictions.

Environmental evictees

To date Embobut, Barget Kieni and Mau forest evictees join the many unsettled environmental evictees. The second set of IDPs is resource based; cattle rustling (Pokot/Turkana) and land disputes (Rift valley/ Mount Elgon and slums dwellings). Third, natural disaster; drought, floods(Budalang’i, landslides(Mwein/Kimondi) and, fourth, political based; border disputes(Meru North/Tharaka) and election related.

Although IDPs are inextricably linked with refugees, there is more of justice, property and restitution. There is no near collapse of the judicial or administrative system. What there is is prevailing impunity for those responsible for inciting and or adding violent displacement of persons.

It undermines reintegration processes and property restitution. Legal redress through the courts is near impossible owing to high litigation costs and the often misplaced feeling principle of peace vis-a-vis justice. Moreover Articles 22 of the Bill of Rights and 258 on the Enforcement of the Constitution entitles IDPs a right to move the High Court against the state. IDPs are entitled to the full protection of the supreme national law and the rights it grants nationals, they do not become lesser mortals because of their plight.

The discussion on resettlement entered a new phase when the Ministry of Special Programmes, Internal Security and Provincial Administration said it was "Operation Rudi Nyumbani".

It should not have been and should not be an ‘operation’. There is a tinge of coercion in the term. Indeed, like refugees, IDPs should not for any reason be forced home.

In Kenya’s National Reconciliation and Emergency Social and Economic Recovery Strategy.

The establishment of Government Resettlement and Reintegration Committee (GRRC) mandate is too dismal to make an impact.

Much as there is an urgent need for resettlement, more concrete assurances are needed now to prevent violence come the next General Election. There must be a systematic treatment of land and property to reduce the likelihood of illegal land seizures.

In order to buttress this effort, warring communities should be encouraged to dialogue to forestall envisions. Government should facilitate the changing relationship between land alternative sources of wealth Swynertton syndrome and open up opportunities for livelihood of all.

Thus far, there is no sense that the present strategy recognises the interrelation between resettling IDPs and broader institutional reforms.