Arming Kenya’s security guards does not make economic sense

Private security personnel at a training acaemy n Karen, Nairobi, on January 24, 2019. [David Njaaga, Standard]

In the aftermath of the DusitD2 Hotel terrorist attack, it was reported that security guards would be armed in six months. If that goes as expected, the guards, who outnumber the police, will carry guns. It is not clear what type of guns they will carry. Some have joked that since our policemen recently got new guns, mostly black in colour, there are now plenty of idle guns that security guards can be given.

This idea will be equally supported and resisted. I will join the debate and ask if this decision makes economic sense.

First, why was the idea so quickly supported? Why after DusitD2? One reason could be that the private security guards got a media blitz with photos and TV showing them saving stranded citizens as the hotel was under attack. What we are not told is if any of them got to the “front line”.

The photos of a bulky man shielding a girl while escorting her to safety was a classic. Such photos and media clips could have convinced many that arming guards would make a big difference to our security. If only such scenes would be replicated.

Industry growth

The second reason could be the growth in the private security industry driven by profitability. A lobby association has lately been very active.

The third reason could be Americanisation. Our constitution was borrowed from USA with governors, chiefs of staff and senators. Maybe our constitution framers saw in the USA constitution the right to bear arms. 

Fourth is that private security is elitist, for the public their only private security is their fists. The country elites will most likely have their way, not just in security matters but many others. The people who make key decisions in this country most likely have private security, and arming guards would enhance it.

Paradoxically, terrorism might have driven the private security industry more than anything else. The first wave of growth was in the number of security firms and employment of guards. With the high level of unemployment, it’s easy to get cheap labour in such industries.

Arming the guards might be the next wave. This will probably change the dynamics of the industry. Shall we have more past members of security services such as retired policemen and soldiers recruited? Shall we have two layers of security guards, the armed overseeing the unarmed?

But does arming security guards make economic sense?  In my opinion, no. Here are the reasons.

One, the Jubilee regime promised to recruit more police officers. They have done that in droves. There should not therefore be more insecurity when we have recruited more police officers. Could their deployment be the issue? When I drove from Gilgil to Nairobi last week, I counted nine police stops for a distance of 120 kilometres. You rarely find such stops at night.

Before arming guards, we need an account of the current police force, its adequacy and effectiveness. Arming security guards is an indirect admission that our security services paid by tax payers are not doing their work.

Two, arming the guards could make the police and other security organs less effective. The gun is a symbol of power and authority. Police could see the armed guards as competitors and that could breed unhealthy rivalry. That might even stop the police from doing their work because there is a parallel force. For example, could an estate be denied a police post because they have armed guards?

Three, arming guards will accentuate inequality with some enjoying excess security and others none. Private security is generally for the mostly urban elite. Majority of Kenyans live in rural areas and their only security is large families or dogs. Will vigilante groups also get guns? What of watchmen who guard our homes and institutions such as schools?

Raise cost

Four, arming guards could raise the cost of private security. Expect adverts like “Our security firm guards are armed with AK47.” The firms will raise their charges because their customers are now more “secure”. The gun ownership could make some firms more attractive than others. There might arise intense rivalry to deny competitors guns. And by the way, will firms buy guns or lease them? Will they pass the cost of guns to their customers?

Five, by making such drastic changes because of a terror attack, we create an impression that terrorism drives our national agenda. We create an impression that we make very important decisions emotionally.  One could ask, why not after Westgate? Why not after US Embassy? Why not after Garissa? 

Have we thought seriously on how terrorism has changed our lives including roll down on our freedom? Our bags and cars are checked and we have no problem with that. Many of our telephone conversations are monitored. While seeking the evil doers, the good doers also suffer. It seems that’s not about to end.

Six, we have CCTV along our roads and highways, in buildings and even homes. How effective have they been? Arming individuals should be the last resort.  There are other related technologies including some that might not be known to the public.

Seven, arming guards will tilt the balance of power. Will having private armed security become the in thing? One could ask how the criminals will react to arming guards. Will they seek more powerful guns and start an arms race? Knowing that guards are armed, robberies and terrorist incidents (God forbid) could become more violent with collateral damage being innocent bystanders.

Eight, its is assumed that arming guards will lead to more security. Are police and soldiers not armed and there is insecurity? Getting arms is one of the many cogs in the security ecosystem. It is the easiest solution, guns are easy to buy. But the causes of insecurity are hard to uproot, from radicalisation to inequality. 

Americans and other nationalities have for 18 years since September 11, 2001 confronted the long shadow of terrorism. They are still at it with ISIS along the way showing the evolving nature of terror.

Why has Kenya been targeted more than neighbours such as Ethiopia, Tanzania or Uganda? Someone suggested, surprisingly, that media freedom gives terrorists good exposure! Is there less oversight over security forces? Who really gets recruited into security forces in the age of joblessness? Is it about politics to show some leaders as weak? Is it just about sharing a border with Somali? Unless we confront the socio-economic causes of terror, arming guards will be a partial solution.

What no one says loudly is that after the end of KANU era, lots of power was dispersed from the centre in the new constitution. Now no one seems to have enough power. I recall some police officers going to court to stop their transfer to another station. The laissez faire in our political life might be prevalent in the security services too.  Is private security trying to fill a vacuum?

Nine, what can we learn from USA where civilians have the right to bear arms? Has anyone studied how gun ownership by security guards in Uganda has worked?

Ten, DusitD2 and many related cases have something to do with lapses in intelligence gathering. Should we reform this sector? USA has FBI for internal issues and CIA for external intelligence, should we split our intelligence agency too?

Finally, I wonder what happened to the old and inexpensive ways of maintaining security like brotherly love, our sense of community. I am a testimony to those old fashioned and effective methods of security. In my childhood, we never had padlocks for our houses. I used a padlock for the first time in high school. We were worried more about rain water rusting our jembe or panga, not someone stealing it. We were worried more about wild animals not fellow human beings. That has all changed. In the village where I grew up, we fear fellow men now more than animals which have become rare.

Nyumba kumi was an attempt to revive the good old days of the community. But we think it is old fashioned. Yet, even in developed countries the sense of community is amazingly strong. It is one of the deterrents of crime and insecurity. We took individualism to the extreme and we are paying the price. Interestingly, we love socialism when soliciting for money but in security matters we prefer individualism.

Popular support

Arming guards would likely get lots of popular support, but the reality of security from its ability to evolve and its transnational nature means the move is just a short-term measure. We must look at terrorism or specifically insecurity, more broadly. It needs a multifaceted and multi-agency solution. It is more than guns.

The way we are brought up, the institutions we go through from schools to religions and our peers coupled with the state of economy all play a role in shaping our views on violence, terror and extremism. We may need to examine all of these institutions before we dole out guns.

- The writer teaches at the University of Nairobi.