On terrorism, the Executive wants to be the judge, jury and executioner
What you need to know:
- It is also incredible that the law shifts the burden of proof to those accused of supporting terrorism! A simple insertion by an official into the record then becomes an official accusation and a group, or person, must then prove they are not terrorists!
- When consequences are as steep as the anti-terrorism laws provide, then transparency is of essence. Or we will see more abuse of these laws to silence dissent.
- Imagine if the ICC — dealing with crimes as serious as terrorism — worked the same way. Uhuru Kenyatta would have had to prove that he had nothing to do with the Mungiki killings, rapes, forced displacements and mutilations in Naivasha and Nakuru.
In the last few months, the Mombasa County Commissioner, Nelson Marwa, has been gunning for Haki Africa and Muslims for Human Rights (Muhuri), publicly accusing them of supporting terrorists at the coast. And this week the two organisations were included in the list of terrorism supporters.
Muhuri has been working on a defamation suit against Marwa, but now finds itself on this list.
Full disclosure: I voluntarily, and proudly, serve as a member of the board of Muhuri, chaired by Khelef Khalifa, a dedicated human rights defender and former commissioner of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, as well as with Father Gabriel Dolan, whose contributions to Lodwar, Kitale and the high-density area of Bangladesh in Mombasa is unmatched.
Muhuri was co-founded by Khelef, Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, and Professor Alamin Mazrui. For the record: Muhuri does not, has never, and will never support violence of any sort as a means of change.
The main gripe that Marwa and his ilk have is that Muhuri and Haki Africa have strenuously defended the rule of law for everyone — including those accused of terrorism. This clearly irks some in authority.
The organisations have documented the excesses of security forces ostensibly combating terrorism, and highlighted the cases of innocent people killed, for being alleged terrorists.
They have lambasted the culture of extortion by security forces in this fight against terrorism, arguing that it is these injustices; these breaches of the law; and the arrogance and impunity of security officers, that fuel radicalisation at the coast.
ANTI-ISLAMIC
It is simple: if state officials break the law, kill at random, and take a line that is perceived to be anti-Islamic, then the fight against radicalisation and terrorism will be lost.
The inclusion of the organisations in the lists of suspected supporters of terrorism is precisely what is wrong with the anti-terrorism laws. This is the perfect example of misusing broad and opaque laws to settle scores, and to perpetuate impunity.
When consequences are as steep as the anti-terrorism laws provide, then transparency is of essence. Or we will see more abuse of these laws to silence dissent.
It is also incredible that the law shifts the burden of proof to those accused of supporting terrorism! A simple insertion by an official into the record then becomes an official accusation and a group, or person, must then prove they are not terrorists!
Imagine if the ICC — dealing with crimes as serious as terrorism — worked the same way. Uhuru Kenyatta would have had to prove that he had nothing to do with the Mungiki killings, rapes, forced displacements and mutilations in Naivasha and Nakuru. William Ruto would be forced to prove that he had nothing to do with the killings of hundreds of Gikuyu in Eldoret, including those burnt in Kiambaa church.
SHODDY EVIDENCE
To persecute those working to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law as supporters of terrorism is going too far. If defending the Constitution is wrong, then why is the Judiciary, which releases (rightfully so) suspects brought before the courts on shoddy evidence, not on the list?
After all, it seems that on this terrorism issue, the Executive wants to be judge, jury and executioner!
Actually, the investigators and prosecutors who do shoddy work that lets potential terrorists get away should be first on that list.
And so, too, Cabinet Secretary Joseph Nkaissery and Police IG Joseph Boinnet for focusing on getting themselves to Garissa before the GSU Recce Company, and then not facilitating them for hours while the terrorists wreaked havoc. Didn’t their actions effectively support terrorism?
And how about Uhuru Kenyatta, who despite Al Shabaab taking responsibility for Mpeketoni, insisted on blaming the opposition, thus giving comfort to terrorists?
And we can argue, too, that his failure to institute the public inquiry into Westgate has effectively supported terrorism as that has allowed the incompetence of our security authorities to continue hurting us.
