New hate speech Bill is a sham 

This week, two prominent political personalities and their acolytes chose to trade accusations over who is more corrupt than the other. What should have been taken as ordinary politicking by two individuals who intend to vie for the country’s presidency next year – a quite legitimate pursuit – has turned into a volatile issue that may colour the events that will occur in 2022 and beyond. Whether these corruption charges will decide who becomes the country’s fifth president is another issue altogether, for in the past, it has never really mattered.

When ODM leader Raila Odinga recently said he will jail all implicated in grand corruption if elected president, he did not mention names. Yet that sweeping statement was taken to be a direct attack on Deputy President William Ruto, and apparently it stung so much that he and his followers immediately went on the warpath in a most maladroit manner: they started listing scandals in which Raila’s name has been mentioned in the past, only for the ODM leader’s followers to table a much longer list implicating the DP. This would have been the perfect time for the UDA crowd to keep quiet, but they opted to swallow the bait.

What is more pertinent is whether the accusations and counter-accusations really amounted to hate speech. 

Obviously, it did not, for politicians are allowed to hurl brickbats at their rivals whenever they can so long as they do not incite their supporters to hurl other more deadly missiles at their opponents. Hate speech is the bane of our politics and it is time Kenyans started reminding themselves what it actually entails and how to prevent it from descending into dangerous territory where a single utterance can cause unmentionable harm. To check this possibility is a government agency charged with doing the almost impossible; keeping the peace by stomping hard on hate-mongers and other miscreants.

Right from its inception, the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) has had a chequered run. There is little possibility that the fortunes of the newly re-branded commission, now to be known as the National Cohesion and Peace Building Commission, will change in any way. 

Hate speech is a particularly pernicious form of intolerance which almost always leads to hate crime. The 2007/2008 post-elections violence, which prompted the formation of the NCIC, is a case in point when communities rose against one another over disputed election results.

Politically instigated violence

Nobody wants to revive the horrors of the past, and it was always hoped that the NCIC would make those used to fomenting politically instigated communal violence more careful about their public utterances. 

However, this is clearly not the case judging from a number of incidents involving politicians, two of whom were briefly incarcerated last year for allowing their bilge to pollute fellow Kenyans. 

Months since, their cases are still hanging on their necks, which may just be the most effective deterrent available. 

However, one can bet this won’t make them and their ilk moderate their views forever. The elections are around the corner when many more worms will crawl out of the woodwork, a time when even the more gentle souls will raise their voices in urgent vituperation. And you can’t jail all the rascals for it is hard to prove in court just what hate speech is as opposed to freedom of expression. Actually, the definition of hate speech depends on who is listening and his or her political orientation. 

Some ululate when they hear filthy language from their leaders, while the recipients squirm and wonder why police do not just arrest such fellows and convince judges to throw away the key.
When the National Cohesion and Peace Building Commission Bill was described as the solution to the hate-mongering that occurs every electoral cycle, it was thought there would be a definite change from the way the NCIC has been operating. 

Indeed, it was expected to be the legislation that would at last give the rebranded commission the teeth it requires to bite, and that the changes would involve giving it some police powers, including that of arrest and prosecution. But seemingly, nothing of the kind was contemplated, leaving in doubt the renamed commission’s “new” mandate.

First, it is allowed to “publish the names of persons or institutions whose words and conduct undermine national unity and cohesion (Wall of Shame). Secondly, it will examine witnesses under oath. 

Third, it will have the power “to cause a witness to furnish it with any information crucial in the investigations”. However, for this last, it will have to obtain an order of the High Court. In other words, the commission will be granted subpoena powers, but only at the discretion of a judge. 
As far as I can tell, the NCIC has all these powers already. Who on earth authored this travesty of a Bill to rebrand the agency and why?

Mr Ngwiri is a consultant editor; [email protected]