State yields to Muslim leaders pressure, amends Terrorism Bill

By Abdikadir Sugow

Finally, the Government has addressed questions raised by Muslim groups and other stakeholders by introducing amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2012.

Muslims leaders had initially opposed the Bill on grounds that it targeted the community and infringed on certain constitutional rights.

Following intensive consultations between the Government and Muslims on the Bill, which seeks to provide measures for the detection and prevention of terrorist activities, some progress has been made.

MPs concluded debate on the Bill during the Second Reading in Parliament on Wednesday, effectively boosting the fight against terrorism. However, the Bill will be amended further to accommodate concerns that have threatened to sabotage its passage.

The Bill outlines offences related to terrorism as recruitment, financing, training and preparing for terrorist acts. It proposes life imprisonment for persons found guilty, as opposed to a death sentence as provided for in the Penal Code.

Former Mandera Central MP Billow Kerrow says the draft law contravenes the Constitution and undermines basic rights protected under Chapter Four – The Bill of Rights.

“The Bill, in its current form, is unacceptable to Kenyans. If passed, it will undermine articles and provisions which guarantee civic liberty of all Kenyans, which condemn acts such as torture and illegal arrests,” he argues.

National Muslim Leaders Forum chairman Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi said the Bill would promote extrajudicial killings as it gives police uncontrolled power. Earlier, Prime Minister Raila Odinga had assured that any offending piece of legislation that is harmful to a section of Kenyans would be repealed accordingly.

He assured Muslims in Mombasa that the Bill is not meant to infringe on their human rights: “We cannot make laws that will harm our people.”

Serious flaws

The Bill was drafted by the Ministry of Internal Security under the watch of the then acting minister Yusuf Haji – a Muslim whose members are raising fundamental legal and human rights questions about it.

While lawyers and human rights activists accept the legal and political reality that there must be an anti-terrorism legislation in Kenya, they insist that any such law must be impartial and meet the threshold of human rights for all including non-Muslims.

Critics say if the Bill is enacted in the current form it would reverse gains made in the human rights struggle in Kenya. They say the Draft Bill has serious flaws and anomalies that require amendment before enactment as several provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution and other laws.

Kenyans have been victims of terrorism, more so August 7, 1998, when a bomb detonated by Islamic extremists exploded at the US Embassy in Nairobi, killing more than 250 people. Since then, Kenya has been on the receiving end of many terrorist attacks, mostly linked to the militant Al Qaeda group and their Al Shabaab cell in Somalia. The attacks have increased following the military’s incursion in Somalia. This has led to calls for a strict law to curb terrorism.

Activists are worried that if enacted into law, the Bill could be abused by the implementing authority. They want the proposed law subjected to public debate alongside anti-terrorism security activities.

The groups cited the harrowing experience of human rights activist Al Amin Kimathi who was detained for a year in Uganda after suicide bombers killed 76 people in Kampala, Uganda. Kimathi, the head of the Muslim Human Rights Forum, claimed his rendition to Uganda was pay-back for his human rights defence of victims of extraordinary rendition, after a Ugandan court dropped charges against him and four others for lack of evidence.

Fear of terrorist attacks has piled pressure on security agencies to seal all loopholes exploited by terror groups. However, Muslim leaders say the Bill is discriminatory to Muslims, while some politicians fear it could be used to arrest them on suspicion of terrorism.

Experts argue that definitions in the Bill are vague and excessively broad.