Extrajudicial killings: Why the public points fingers at police

Revelations of how rogues have turned River Yala into a dumping site for bodies now sends shivers down the spines of residents. [Collins Oduor, Standard]

It is important for the police service to improve the way its officers investigate serious crimes.

Police officers should ensure credibility of the evidence they present in court as a first step towards reducing and ultimately eliminating extrajudicial killings and disappearances of suspects and convicts linked to crimes like murder, violent robbery and terrorism.

Whereas security agencies have a primary duty to protect law-abiding citizens, maintain law and order and create an environment in which citizens feel safe, they are also required to carry out their work within the limits of the law.

Of course, this makes their work all the more difficult, especially when the evidence they present in court is not sufficient to guarantee conviction.

When this happens often, the temptation to find extrajudicial 'solutions' grows. That, in part, explains why bodies of people suspected or convicted of serious crimes start surfacing in places like River Yala.

But the public is not blind to these mysterious killings and disappearances because, after all, those killed or disappeared are their relatives, friends or spouses. And when these become frighteningly frequent, citizens - including the law abiding ones - start regarding the police as a threat to their lives, safety and well-being.

That is why it is imperative for the police, particularly the elite units charged with covert operations, to take a step back and ask themselves what the changing public perception means, given that it is possible for innocent Kenyans to find themselves killed or victimised either because they were in the company of wanted persons or were witnesses to the covert operations.

This raises another important consideration; that there is need for investigative agencies to work closely with prosecutors and courts to ensure that serious crimes are handled with utmost sensitivity, urgency and seriousness.

Part of the problem with extrajudicial killings and disappearances is that the office of the public prosecutor does not always feel convinced that the police have done a good job.

The other is that when cases are presented in court, the evidence is not always sufficient to cross the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. As a result, courts end up freeing suspects who are a menace to society.

And when police feel that the courts have handed them the short end of the stick, the temptation to engage in covert operations to address the menace becomes inescapable, even when it is inexcusable.

As such, when bodies start surfacing in rivers and forests - with injuries suggesting that the victims were tortured and with anything that can make them identifiable eliminated - there is a risk of igniting panic and anxiety in the general populace.

For individual citizen, the question then becomes: Who will be targeted next? The net effect of such anxiety is that police actions that ought to have made citizens feel safer and protected achieve the opposite result, thus widening the trust chasm between the public and security agencies.

Part of what needs to be done for the benefit of all involved is for the beauty pageant between investigative agencies, prosecutors and courts to be addressed.

For far too long, they have been pointing accusing fingers at each other, with each trying to portray the others as inept. This needless contest creates loopholes for serious cases to fall through the cracks.

The three agencies should learn from countries like the UK and the US, where all three work in tandem to safeguard public interest.

Here, unfortunately, there is too much focus on who scores points over the others and who comes off - at least in the public eye - as the good boy. Perceptions, unfortunately, are unlikely to address the actual problem.

Third, there is need for the three arms of government to lobby Parliament if they seriously believe that the laws as they are have become a straitjacket.

It is, without a doubt, difficult to conclusively investigate a serious crime like murder or terrorism in the seven days prescribed in law.

This is even more difficult if dangerous suspects are granted bail as the law requires since this gives them time and space to intimidate or eliminate potential witnesses and tamper with evidence.

There is nothing to stop any of the three agencies to challenge these laws either in court or by lobbying Parliament to change them so that they can achieve the twin goals of combating serious crime while operating within the law.

However, the bottom-line remains that security agencies ought to raise their game and do what is necessary to secure convictions.

And when people are reported to have disappeared, the police must be seen to be proactive in investigating these cases. When they don't the finger of complicity will inevitably point in their direction.