Lobby claims time allotted for public participation in police vetting insufficient

Police Reforms Working Group Kenya (PRWG-K) Spokesperson Paul Kiama addressing the press Tuesday 14, 2014. [PHOTO: STANDARD]

By ISAAC MESO

NAIROBI, KENYA: Civil activists under their umbrella body Police Reforms Working Group Kenya (PRWG-K) have casted doubts over the ongoing police vetting exercise claiming that the process was highly compromised.

The activists argued that the time that had been allocated for public participation was highly inadequate and in some instances panellists allowed officers to evade questions during the vetting process.

 Addressing a press conference  at Hilton in Nairobi Tuesday  Paul Kiama, Spokesperson (PRWG-K)  said that the 7 days  that had been given  by the commission  for the  public  to submit  information  on 182  Senior  Assistant Commissioners  and Assistant commissioners was hardly  sufficient.

“We wish to remind the commission that the legitimacy of the vetting process will solely be determined by the levels of public participation. We recommend at least ten working days for members of the public to collect, compile and submit information to the commission” he said

Kiama further urged the commission to extend the current public participation deadline from the 17th to 24th of January 2014 to allow for effective public participation.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  Girl, 14 vanishes in police custody
• 
  City on edge: Sakaja under fire ahead of June 25 protests
• 
  Varsity crisis: VCs walk a tightrope
• 
  Ruto's grand plan to address University of Nairobi woes

Morris Odhiambo, President of National Civil Society Congress and a member of the Working group took issue with what he termed as the casual manner with which the Commission handled the issue of public participation with regard to the vetting exercise.

Odhiambo noted that issue to deal with human rights violation and integrity of officers as had been raised by members of the public were not adequately tackled during the first and second face of the vetting process

“We attribute  the almost absence of critical discussions on the integrity and human rights to the very minimal participation  in submitting information to the Commission, as a result of inadequate access to requisite information  on vetting”  he added.

The activists also took issue with the panellist arguing that they needed to demand outright answers to questions and concerns they raised before the officers since most of them evaded critical questions during the vetting

“In some circumstances the officer gives length speeches with a deliberate intention of taking up as much time as possible thereby limiting questions on important issues. We want the panellists to take control of the process” said Odhiambo

The issue of financial probity also came up with the activist arguing that it took almost the entire vetting time at the expense of probe on questions of integrity, competence and professionalism.

They noted that despite financial probity being a critical component of the vetting exercise, over emphasis on it would risk making the commission perceived as a financial auditor, watering down its main goal of ascertaining suitability and competence for police.